3 ms·

That thread is hilarious. Leaving the ports open on the internet for managing these APs, fix was released a year ago and apparently it is UBNTs fault a large WI

That thread is hilarious. Leaving the ports open on the internet for managing these APs, fix was released a year ago and apparently it is UBNTs fault a large WISP has been infected? Wow.

emilburzo 10y ago
Especially since they make such great hardware (with an acceptable price tag -- as a consumer). I've had all sorts of problems with "normal" routers due to too many connections (too many devices on the LAN -- don't ask), I was never able to make full use of my 50/50 pipe. I've recently been upgraded to 100/100 for free (and soon 300/100), and it's still running like a champ. That being said, it was the first router that I wasn't able to configure just by clicking around. But they're advancing greatly on the UX part with every firmware release, so it's actually friendly enough to recommend now.
- dorfsmay 10y ago
  I have a switch and APs. They do have weird bugs that you'd really don't expect from a networking company. They do fix the important ones eventually. Still good value for the price.
  - johansch 10y ago
    One example of a weird EdgeOS bug that affected their Edgerouter products: http://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeMAX-Updates-Blog/EdgeMAX-EdgeRouter-X-X-SFP-bootloader-update/ba-p/1472216 http://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeMAX-Updates-Blog/EdgeMAX-Ed... (During boot the router was working as pure ethernet switch - i.e. in a typical home deployment you would be wide open to the internet during this time.) As far as I can tell, this was there for quite some time. In order to find the fix I had to find and read the user forums. I also couldn't find either a security update email list or an automatic firmware update feature. I guess you're supposed to follow their forum if you care about security...
newman314 10y ago
Well, while it is the fault of the WISP for not correcting this as soon as possible, one could still make the case that UBNT should ship with "good/secure" factory defaults. Given what we know now (and this isn't the first time UBNT has had issues), it would be a reasonable thing to ask vendors to ship products without insecure out-of-the-box configurations.

That thread is hilarious. Leaving the ports open on the internet for managing these APs, fix was released a year ago and apparently it is UBNTs fault a large WISP has been infected? Wow.

emilburzo 10y ago

Especially since they make such great hardware (with an acceptable price tag -- as a consumer). I've had all sorts of problems with "normal" routers due to too many connections (too many devices on the LAN -- don't ask), I was never able to make full use of my 50/50 pipe. I've recently been upgraded to 100/100 for free (and soon 300/100), and it's still running like a champ. That being said, it was the first router that I wasn't able to configure just by clicking around. But they're advancing greatly on the UX part with every firmware release, so it's actually friendly enough to recommend now.

dorfsmay 10y ago
I have a switch and APs. They do have weird bugs that you'd really don't expect from a networking company. They do fix the important ones eventually. Still good value for the price.
- johansch 10y ago
  One example of a weird EdgeOS bug that affected their Edgerouter products: http://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeMAX-Updates-Blog/EdgeMAX-EdgeRouter-X-X-SFP-bootloader-update/ba-p/1472216 http://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeMAX-Updates-Blog/EdgeMAX-Ed... (During boot the router was working as pure ethernet switch - i.e. in a typical home deployment you would be wide open to the internet during this time.) As far as I can tell, this was there for quite some time. In order to find the fix I had to find and read the user forums. I also couldn't find either a security update email list or an automatic firmware update feature. I guess you're supposed to follow their forum if you care about security...

newman314 10y ago

Well, while it is the fault of the WISP for not correcting this as soon as possible, one could still make the case that UBNT should ship with "good/secure" factory defaults. Given what we know now (and this isn't the first time UBNT has had issues), it would be a reasonable thing to ask vendors to ship products without insecure out-of-the-box configurations.