Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UniFi Express

ui.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–296 of 296 posts

Re: UniFi Express

#291

Post by __float »

samcat116 wrote: post #224
__float wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't really seem comparable -- the big draw to the Express seems to be the WiFi built-in; at $149 for the Express vs $172 for the Gateway Lite + (at least) ~$100 for an AP, these are entirely different categories.

I don't think they're saying they're comparable, its just that a lot of people were waiting for the cheaper standalone firewall, which is what the gateway lite is. also its $129 not $172.

Ah, I didn't realise (and perhaps you didn't either?) but you linked to the Canadian store, where it is CAD $172.

Re: UniFi Express

#292

Post by averageRoyalty »

I_Am_Nous wrote: post #271
dacryn wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it also means your home network is slower. Why should a backup from my laptop to my file server be limited to 1gbps? Has nothing to do with outside connection. Tehre are a lot of use cases for faster home networking irrelevant of network speed to the external world

Sure, but it's just a single port LAN router. If you have a 10G switch it's going to have a MAC table and let your laptop talk directly to your file server over Ethernet. Otherwise the wireless throughput is nowhere near gigabit so you would be limited by that anyway.

You're assuming flat subnet without VLANS. If you bother doing backups, segmenting them off is a pretty standard security practice.

Re: UniFi Express

#293

Post by srj »

spacebacon wrote: post #253
srj wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube will fall back to TCP. If the bandwidth utilization actually did drop it's probably because the stream quality throttled down. What do you mean by "QUIC vulnerabilities are a 3 or 4 packet compromise"?

CVE-2023-39322 for example QUIC connections do not set an upper bound on the amount of data buffered when reading post-handshake messages, allowing a malicious QUIC connection to cause unbounded memory growth. I like Google Dart and other Google products but I see too many potential issues with QUIC. From my personal experience it has behaved suspiciously on my network.

This is a particular implementation of the QUIC protocol (which is now fixed). Do you think there haven't been vulnerabilities against TCP? Certainly TCP is battle-hardened, but QUIC will get there too.

Re: UniFi Express

#294

Post by spacebacon »

srj wrote: post #293
spacebacon wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CVE-2023-39322 for example QUIC connections do not set an upper bound on the amount of data buffered when reading post-handshake messages, allowing a malicious QUIC connection to cause unbounded memory growth. I like Google Dart and other Google products but I see too many potential issues with QUIC. From my personal experience it has behaved suspiciously on my network.

This is a particular implementation of the QUIC protocol (which is now fixed). Do you think there haven't been vulnerabilities against TCP? Certainly TCP is battle-hardened, but QUIC will get there too.

I believe in you. More of you should split off though and create more healthy competition. A 10 to 20 year plan is needed for a new protocol.

Re: UniFi Express

#295

Post by tecleandor »

tjoff wrote: post #227
tecleandor wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this. The first use case screenshot shows 8 devices connected. What does that small print mean? https://ui.com/microsite/static/media/use-case-2.fd99bcc2.jp...

Those are different sites, you wouldn't have 8 routers in one place. So I guess each one of those devices can manage 5 unifi devices, going only by the image it looks like in their setup there is one AP for each device (if that is how the ui works).

Ah, so the limit would be per site or something like that. Thanks.

Re: UniFi Express

#296

Post by WirelessGigabit »

midasuni wrote: post #205
boringuser2 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A business really shouldn't be running this. Anything that isn't basically your home office is running a solid NGFW with SSL interception.

You’re 10 years out of date. With certificate pinning the dubious benefits of breaking SSL and introducing major severity risk no longer works, far too many exceptions to manage Run your endpoint security on your devices

Sadly even Google Chrome allows an Administrator to mark certain certificates as trusted which disables pinned cert enforcement.
Post reply on HN