Live data from Hacker News

Ubiquiti all but confirms breach response iniquity

krebsonsecurity.com

111–120 of 322 posts

Re: Ubiquiti all but confirms breach response iniquity

#111
Mentioned it before, but since a few days ago my unifi devices (2 wifi APs, a small switch, plus one Debian VM with the controller, all on it's on VLAN) are not allowed to do outbound traffic anymore, with the exception of NTP, DNS and one trusted apt mirror.

Looking at the firewall logs it seems the devices try to ping (ICMP type 8) a bunch of AWS IPs every few hours. The controller tries to connect 80/443 on different AWS IPs a lot more often, even without me navigating the web interface. Other than that, no ill effects. Device firmware update notifications are gone, just says "up to date" now.

Interestingly, I still see the ad for their "dream machine" on the dashboard, as it seems to be baked into the controller. It's also trying to load external resources from "net-fe-static-assets.network-controller.svc.ui.com" while navigating the new web interface. The "classic" interface still seems to be truly self-contained. Using the latest controller version as of today (6.1.71-15061-1).

Condensed firewall logs for reference below. Not that it matters much, but why not.

Unifi controller VM:

  zgrep unifidrop /var/log/syslog\* | grep "SRC=$unificontroller" | awk '{print $12, $21}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -h

  5 DST=13.224.246.17 DPT=443
  5 DST=143.204.174.59 DPT=443
  5 DST=143.204.174.83 DPT=443
  5 DST=34.210.116.187 DPT=80
  5 DST=34.211.38.191 DPT=80
  5 DST=34.218.198.60 DPT=80
  5 DST=99.84.5.14 DPT=80
  5 DST=99.84.5.24 DPT=80
  5 DST=99.84.5.51 DPT=80
  5 DST=99.84.5.82 DPT=80
  7 DST=13.224.246.67 DPT=443
  7 DST=13.225.74.11 DPT=443
  7 DST=13.227.220.19 DPT=443
  7 DST=13.227.220.38 DPT=443
  15 DST=54.201.165.155 DPT=443
  25 DST=44.239.243.150 DPT=443
  28 DST=44.238.226.202 DPT=443
  28 DST=52.89.51.163 DPT=443
  28 DST=54.218.175.125 DPT=443

Unifi devices (all ICMP 8):

  zgrep unifidrop /var/log/syslog\* | grep -v "SRC=$unificontroller" | awk '{print $12}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -h

  2 DST=13.224.230.94
  2 DST=143.204.9.24
  4 DST=99.84.6.169
  6 DST=52.84.94.172
  6 DST=54.230.54.165
  24 DST=52.222.138.169

Re: Ubiquiti all but confirms breach response iniquity

#112
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During this week I've been playing around with replacing my USG with my existing home server - it already has two NICs - my first thought was to run OPNSense in a VM but nftables on NixOS seems to work well enough - there are a few examples floating online [0,1]. OpenBSD even supports the USG [2] but I couldn't think of much reason to keep the extra hardware. The next thing I want to do is reflash my Unifi APs with O…

> replacing my USG with my existing home server I like this idea too, but would prefer that the router was physically separated and before any hardware that was in the network. Is this a pointless concern?

It's hard to say whether or not the concern is pointless without knowing its basis. Why do you want it physically separated?

Re: Ubiquiti all but confirms breach response iniquity

#113
post #32

By now we'll have to ask: Is it realistic to expect hardware-oriented companies to build secure software? (Yes, Apple exists.)

I think your question is wrong, it should be: Is it realistic to trust any company to build completely secure software?

I don't see your point about Apple, unless you're being sarcastic for comedic effect. Apple release software with security flaws too. In fact a zero-click security vulnerability present in the Apple email client was posted on this very page only three days ago[1].

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26664714

Re: Ubiquiti all but confirms breach response iniquity

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given they were stupid enough to spin up some VMs, I doubt it was someone that knew what they had access to. A skilled attacker would stay dormant sucking up all data accessible via the AWS API (including s3 stuff) and potentially keep access to the infrastructure for years.

This kind of analysis is basically worthless because you don’t know whether they are operating at multiple levels of deception by, e.g., making you think they are a stupid script kiddie and that you successfully wiped them out.

If they had root access to an AWS account, this is exactly what you would expect.

If there's a cyber security firm that's been hired to provide analysis they're going to be combing through egress traffic to find anything suspicious. But, egress traffic is difficult and expensive to analyse.

Worse yet, the attackers could easily just sit there and not use their attack methods for a little while and start up their compromises in weeks or months. You couldn't be certain nothing's still there till you ripped the AWS resources out and replaced them.

Re: Ubiquiti all but confirms breach response iniquity

#115
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep seeing the requests for central management interface, which leave me somewhat puzzled. Why do you need in a home environment? I run a small network with one big router and several access points, and at least with Mikrotik's gear, it's pretty much fire and forget. It has CAPsMAN[1] to centrally manage wireless networks, but I've found it to introduce unneeded complexity. Auto-updates[2] don't need any central m…

Frankly I wonder at how big some of these peoples' houses are. My single seven year old Nighthawk router covers an entire 2300 square foot home and penetrates the brick walls to reach halfway up the street.

I feel the same way - my Nighthawk is going strong with custom firmware, but my friends with Ubiquiti gear try to get me to replace it with a bunch of Unifi stuff every time I talk to them.

Re: Ubiquiti all but confirms breach response iniquity

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is ubiquiti a Chinese company? Really, what a low effort idiotic post.

It's pretty hard to deny that Chinese US relations are heating up. Supporting your own supply chain is becoming a matter of national security, both in terms of potential attacks (what if they load state software on Chinese devices, especially as a response to military action), and in terms of supporting your own industry.

I don’t deny any of that. But where is most of the hardware for just about any network and computing equipment manufactured? Questioning if tplink is made in China is pretty low effort and pointless.

A thoughtful analysis would ask why an onshore supplier would fundamentally be any less vulnerable to political adversaries.

Re: Ubiquiti all but confirms breach response iniquity

#117
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damn, that's pretty depressing. I really wouldn't like to migrate away but I can't say all the info that's been coming back has been making me want to have them as a part of my network infrastructure.

During this week I've been playing around with replacing my USG with my existing home server - it already has two NICs - my first thought was to run OPNSense in a VM but nftables on NixOS seems to work well enough - there are a few examples floating online [0,1]. OpenBSD even supports the USG [2] but I couldn't think of much reason to keep the extra hardware. The next thing I want to do is reflash my Unifi APs with O…

I _do_ run opnsense in a VM and am very happy with the setup. My requirements for APs are simple but hard to satisfy. Ceiling mount, PoE, present-day-best 802.11 standard, and openwrt-capable.

Re: Ubiquiti all but confirms breach response iniquity

#118
post #32

By now we'll have to ask: Is it realistic to expect hardware-oriented companies to build secure software? (Yes, Apple exists.)

This wasn't about the security of their "software", as in the thing that's running on your device. This was about their backend security. That's a much, much tougher call to make.

Re: Ubiquiti all but confirms breach response iniquity

#119
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During this week I've been playing around with replacing my USG with my existing home server - it already has two NICs - my first thought was to run OPNSense in a VM but nftables on NixOS seems to work well enough - there are a few examples floating online [0,1]. OpenBSD even supports the USG [2] but I couldn't think of much reason to keep the extra hardware. The next thing I want to do is reflash my Unifi APs with O…

> replacing my USG with my existing home server I like this idea too, but would prefer that the router was physically separated and before any hardware that was in the network. Is this a pointless concern?

If your server is vulnerable to some threat, adding another barrier in front of it could help.

Re: Ubiquiti all but confirms breach response iniquity

#120
post #31

> Ubiquiti also hinted it had an idea of who was behind the attack, saying it has “well-developed evidence that the perpetrator is an individual with intricate knowledge of our cloud infrastructure. As we are cooperating with law enforcement in an ongoing investigation, we cannot comment further.” I personally don't believe this. IMO, this is a company who is looking for a fall guy, and _most likely_ it's going to be…

> I'm just a guy who worked at Ubiquiti for a year

Would you be able to point to unofficial compatible operating systems for Ubiquiti devices? I want to remove Ubiquiti software from the devices I bought and paid for.

Post reply on HN