Earlier quoted context omitted.
If admin login is using weak credentials, it is by definition not a secure backend. Password/credential management and mandatory MFA are ALWAYS part of security due diligence for suppliers.
Except if it is awscli creds, then of course there is no MFA.
Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
551–560 of 815 posts
Re: Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
#552Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it so easy to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in tech?
It’s very easy to say “greed” because we want to believe bad things are always the fault of someone’s personal moral failings. Hopefully the tech community will start to realize that when the same problems keep occurring for the same reasons, it points to a systemic failure.
Re: Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
#553Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can still be disabled from the controller: New UI: Settings > System Settings > Administration > Enable Remote Access "Classic" UI: Settings > Remote Access > Enable Remote Access
It sounds like it can be disabled on your own hardware but not Ubiquiti devices.
Re: Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
#554Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's unfortunate what seems to have happened to Ubiquiti. The idea of decent network hardware with a good UI that can support the prosumer to small business segment of the market has a lot going for it. In the early days, it seemed like Ubiquiti was going to nail it and was building up a strong, loyal following as a result. Then came all the reports of quality problems, promised features never delivered, phoning-home…
The early days at Ubiquiti were good. I worked with a lot of good engineers and we shipped good work. The decline is a recent problem. > How the brand hasn't become toxic already is a mystery to me, yet look at the stock price tracker. It's been trending up for years and it has well over doubled in the past six months alone. This is your answer. No incentive to change. All of the bad engineering decisions have been r…
It'll come around, it just takes waaaaaaaay longer than you'd think for a slump in engineering quality to be reflected in the market. Especially with hardware.
We have a few publicly traded clients that we've worked with for decades (and by "decades" I mean longer than I've been alive). It's cyclical that they want our engineering to build new products when they're doing bad in the market, and once our work is released and gets them some success they'll design transfer back inhouse as aggressively as possible (their engineers aren't all bad, it's just not an engineering culture there). By the time we're out, they're still riding the upswing. Their management's institutional memory either doesn't see the cycle and/or they don't care beyond the next few quarterly reports.
What I'm trying to say is I know hurts to see your baby languish but it catches up to them, eventually.
Re: Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
#555Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Cloud-based" is the implementation; the killer feature is the single pane of glass. It's just hard to implement that without putting a bunch of logic in the cloud. Hard in what way? As long as the control traffic has paths between all relevant devices over the management LAN, why does the cloud need to be used at all?
1. Putting the management UI on a local system requires some custom networking setup, and is full of security footguns. 2. Most customers who want this have multi-site setups; in that case, you need paths across the public internet too. Again security footguns, and also reliability ones. 3. Remote work is very very common for IT people. 4. Recovery from configuration mess-ups is harder if your control plane has to ru…
That’s a senseless statement in the context of a cloud solution that requires Internet to work.
Re: Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
#556Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was shopping for alternatives to my Ubiquiti last night. Seems like there is nothing good out there. Engenius has shit hardware and a cloud controller. Aruba has a cloud controller AND you have to pay for a license. Cisco makes you pay for a license. TP-Link is cloud-based. WTF. Does anyone have a decent WAP where I can use PoE, deploy like 5 of them and have them support roaming between APs, all managed locally? Is…
Aruba doesn't require a cloud controller, that's just the "Instant On" version. I used to run Aruba Instant (not the "instant on", no controller), but gave those APs to a friend and now run an Aruba 7005 controller with 2x303H and a 324. Support/Licensing costs are totally worth it for having trouble-free WiFi with no cloud dependencies (context: using and supported UniFi in various roles since the first UAP came out…
I'm a network nerd that would love enterprise wifi but that seems way out of my price range.
Re: Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
#557> “The breach was massive, customer data was at risk, access to customers’ devices deployed in corporations and homes around the world was at risk.” > “They were able to get cryptographic secrets for single sign-on cookies and remote access, full source code control contents, and signing keys exfiltration,” Maybe putting your network control plane in 'the cloud' isn't such a good idea after all... Edit: Just re-read…
Re: Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
#558Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Putting the management UI on a local system requires some custom networking setup, and is full of security footguns. 2. Most customers who want this have multi-site setups; in that case, you need paths across the public internet too. Again security footguns, and also reliability ones. 3. Remote work is very very common for IT people. 4. Recovery from configuration mess-ups is harder if your control plane has to ru…
This looks like an enterprise perspective. For smaller organisations operating on a single site, some of these concerns won't apply. I also think you're being a little one-sided there because cloud-hosted configuration has its own risks in terms of security and accidentally cutting off your management access, many of them directly analogous to the ones you mentioned, plus you have all the usual concerns about any cri…
But with a cloud-managed system you have a professional, single-purpose organization dealing with those challenges. Which you are getting for the rock-bottom price of your licensing/support plan. Building a good internal IT organization is hard and expensive, and most businesses have other things to do.
> plus you have all the usual concerns about any critical system that depends on Internet connectivity to work properly.
Generally these systems only need internet connectivity to change the configuration and for some monitoring features. In practice, customers are okay with these being unavailable during internet outages as long as both the management platform and the ISP are on a pretty strict SLA.
(Compare, for example, the usual downtime from your 1-4-person IT team not having someone with the right skills on call.)
> and nothing is more flexible for disaster recovery than having someone physically on-site.
Who has the cash for that?
> In the prosumer to small business segment, I would argue that there is still enormous potential value in being able to configure all of the network gear from a single GUI, not least because it doesn't then require a lot of in-house networking expertise to get something going that works and is reasonably secure.
That was my original point: "Generally, halfway decent wireless APs are all targeted at the enterprise market. Consumer hardware is a brutal race to the bottom, as lay consumers aren't qualified to compare options based on anything but price and UI. Ubiquiti was an outlier in trying to bring enterprise features to the consumer market"
I don't know what your standard for a 10-to-50-employee small business is, but "point your browser at this IP address" is usually beyond their in-house technical skills [1]. Small businesses whose core competence is software/networking, or who by coincidence have that expertise in-house, are a tiny niche market. No one [2] cares.
[1] See for example the rise of the Managed Service Provider, which was a large and growing subsegment for Meraki back in 2015 or so. Showing up, installing the hardware, setting up the wireless, and then managing it from your office a few miles away is a big business opportunity, and is a much more efficient use of limited skilled IT labor.
[2] No one with substantial resources and a profit motive.
Re: Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
#559Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe putting your network control plane in 'the cloud' isn't such a good idea after all... Isn't one of the major selling points of cloud-everything "How can you possibly secure your service better than BigRespectableCompany?" I know any time I bring up self-hosting E-mail or a web site or whatever, someone always comes out of the woodwork to remind me that I am not an expert in securing Internet services, and tha…
> BigRespectableCompanies Ubiquiti really aren't in the same ballpark as AWS or Microsoft, which are the companies people use that argument for, and you can bet your ass their security is better than in most places.
Re: Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
#560Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same, my setup is 100% Unifi from back before they started going downhill. At least I was self-hosting the software so I wasn't bitten by this breach.
Apparently I was... Now, updated the firmware and it says server certificate changed. Frikkin A. Now I am in 'what the hell' land