4 ms·
TP-Link Loses Control Over Router Configuration Domain
- giancarlostoro 10y agoIt always somewhat bugged me they used an actual domain for this, was there no other alternative like using a fake TLD? I'm not sure of what a router is entirely capable of doing, but if you could filter a request to "configure.tplink" or something that would make it far less likely to hijack the domain, that and the fact the domain didn't always work every time I would try it... or I couldn't remember it at times.
- chipperyman573 10y agoYou don't need a TLD at all... They added .com to make it more approachable to users (presumably)
- kevinoconnor7 10y agoWhy is that an issue? Owning the domain is the correct thing to do. They just screwed up by losing ownership of it.
- giancarlostoro 10y agoOwning the domain isn't my issue, using one that doesn't always work is my issue. They could of used a hostname or something else that the router picks up?
- kentt 10y agoThis is not quite bad, but it's made worse by the idea that users should have no control over the firmware they run see: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/tp-link-blocks-open-source-router-firmware-to-comply-with-new-fcc-rule/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/tp-lin...
- devy 10y agoRepost. Link to earlier discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12042102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12042102
- marak830 10y agoThanks, I would have missed that otherwise :-)
- lisper 10y agoThe most incredibly stupid thing about this is that the router needs at least one IP address to be hard-coded into it anyway, if for nothing else than to be a pointer to the root DNS server. So TP-Link gains absolutely nothing by re-directing through DNS. The only difference between having a hard-coded IP pointing to a TP-Link server and a hard-coded IP pointing to a public DNS server is that TP-Link doesn't control the public DNS server. So this was already a stupid design decision even before they lost the domain.