12 ms·

Update: UniFi Phone Home/Performance Data Collection

204 points by bhauer 7y ago

kuon 7y ago
This has already been added to the excellent host block file of StevenBlack. https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/1083 https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/1083
newhotelowner 7y ago
Power outage corrupts Mongodb in the UniFi Cloud key. They won't fix that. There is no option to remove the dead/unplugged devices from the device list. The only way to remove is to reset and reconfigure everything from scratch.
- zwily 7y ago
  Re: your second point... I just removed an unplugged switch today. Maybe it’s a new feature?
- LeoPanthera 7y ago
  > Power outage corrupts Mongodb in the UniFi Cloud key. They won't fix that. The Cloud Key 2 has a battery inside it and shuts down gracefully if you pull the power. So that's a kind of fix. Although it does involve buying a new device.
  - lostlogin 7y ago
    Avoiding dedicated hardware and running it on a machine with a UPS is another way. I can recommend Docker, Synology and a small UPS. And that’s how the equipment cost got multiplied by 10.
- wil421 7y ago
  I have 2 cloud keys and have suffered power outages on both multiple times. Never had any issues with corruption.
- pixl97 7y ago
  How about the software controller that installs to a users profile with no way to change the install directory on Windows
ErneX 7y ago
I'm glad they will add the option, but considering their user base background it was really naive to don't foresee this was going to be detected and that it was going to be an issue.
Jonnax 7y ago
For "enterprise" hardware/software I would expect them detailing exactly what metrics they collect and what could be in a dump that gets sent. How do you anonymise a dump with user info especially for a routing device? Like that requires some sophistication, you'd imagine they'd love to talk about it to generate blog clicks. But it seems that some keen user will have to try reverse engineering their data collection to actually give the users information of what is leaving their network. As a user of their products, it has really soured me on their product. When supposedly if they're so "GDPR compliant" they just need to explain themselves to win people over.
bhauer 7y ago
We've seen two episodes of companies who enjoy the goodwill of the enthusiast/advocate sector committing obvious foot-gun maneuvers in as many weeks. First it was GitLab, and now Ubiquiti. Both should have known better than to hoist telemetry on self-hosted software. Doing so betrays a willful ignorance or disdain (or both) for the very reasons these enthusiasts self-host. The good news is that in both cases, the community has been clear in its reprimand, and the companies have reversed course (or promised to do so, in the case of Ubiquiti). I'd like to see more companies realize this is an opportunity rather than a threat: an opportunity to create products and services that deeply respect privacy and market this advantage over the competition.
- Arcanum-XIII 7y ago
  They're not reversing course since it's not an opt-in, but still an opt-out. I don't want to inspect every hidden option on my hardware to be sure that nothing is spying on me. For me it's still not solve here. I'm sad, because now I have to find another hardware provider that I can trust.
  - bhauer 7y ago
    I hear you, and I agree I'd prefer all telemetry to be strictly opt-in. I'd be comfortable with software prompting me to make that decision at installation time to have a chance at me answering affirmatively (I'll virtually never opt in after installation). But I consider an opt-out a workable option in this case, as long as they realize this mistake should not be repeated, which remains to be seen. Is there any alternative that provides the elegance and affordability of UniFi SDN?
  - thelittleone 7y ago
    Thank you. This is an important distinction to make that I wasn’t aware of. Maybe they will end up making it opt in. In the mean time, would an open source tool to automate ubiquiti opt outs be useful?
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  Indeed. It's especially odd when companies seem to fail to realize their entire market is comprised of people leaving larger, more established companies largely because of things like this.
Meph504 7y ago
I'm confused how they keep saying this is in compliance with Grpd when auto opt in is not allowed. And the idea that they force everyone in, and will add an opt out button later seems like they are gaming the system. If they don't opt everyone out they didn't ask to opt in as a default, their actions to me seem hollow.
- 8fingerlouie 7y ago
  Most likely because as an American company they have no clue what the GDPR really does. Many European companies are still struggling to be fully compliant. Furthermore, if they transmit crash logs, and those contain partial memory contents (core dumps), chances are actual content from network packets are transmitted to UBNT as well, and those contents may contain PII (IP addresses, MAC addresses, usernames, passwords, real names, addresses, credit card information, etc.), meaning they’re most certainly violating the GDPR by making it opt out.
  - secabeen 7y ago
    With a significant fraction of Internet traffic (and all eCommerce traffic) end-to-end encrypted, is it really realistic that they would have sensitive data (usernames, passwords, real names, addresses, credit card information, etc.) in memory of an AP? This is the point of Let's Encrypt, after all, to close the exposure that we give to our ISPs and our ISPs ISPs.
    - m4rtink 7y ago
      AFAIK ubiquity also does routers, those can hold quite some sensitive data in memory.
    - noja 7y ago
      Don't think sensitive data, think personal data. An IP is personal data.
    - zeeZ 7y ago
      Macs tend to use your name as their network name from what I've seen, and corporate logins usually are some variation of your first and last names. The APs absolutely know those.
Youden 7y ago
"transmitted using end-to-end encryption" Technically correct but sounds either ignorant or misleading.
- thijsvandien 7y ago
  In other words: over HTTPS.
- LeoPanthera 7y ago
  All encryption is end-to-end if there's only two ends.
8fingerlouie 7y ago
I posted this as a reply to a comment, but I will repeat it here, If they transmit crash logs, and those contain partial memory contents (core dumps), chances are actual content from network packets are transmitted to UBNT as well, and those contents may contain PII (IP addresses, MAC addresses, usernames, passwords, real names, addresses, credit card information, etc.), meaning they’re most certainly violating the GDPR by making it opt out. The GDPR doesn’t care how you came by the PII, it only dictates how you should behave when you handle it. Edit: I should clarify before somebody trips over their pitchfork and sets the house on fire, the GDPR cares a lot about how you come into possession of PII, and also if you should have that information in the first place, and also cares about how long you hold on to it. When it comes to protection of those data though, it doesn’t care if it was collected through telemetry, emailed to you (yes, also the spam folder), or it’s an old archive of core dumps on an old server somewhere. The same rules apply to how those data are handled.
- kasey_junk 7y ago
  This is simply not true. Opt in is only one of many ways to be compliant with GDPR covered data. Legitimate interest is the obvious way to not require opt-in and while I’m sure the regulators are getting tired of seeing ad networks claim that exception a router company claiming it for crash support seems like something that will likely be deemed in bounds. Especially if that company has made a good faith effort to show its not repurposing that data.
  - simpss 7y ago
    that would only be valid if crash support is requested and provided. As far as I know ubiquiti is pretty hands-off in terms of support, so the case isn't too valid.
  - 8fingerlouie 7y ago
    >This is simply not true. Opt in is only one of many ways to be compliant with GDPR covered data. And yet, Article 32 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679of https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE... the GDPR states: Silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity should not therefore constitute consent. Consent should cover all processing activities carried out for the same purpose or purposes. When the processing has multiple purposes, consent should be given for all of them. If the data subject's consent is to be given following a request by electronic means, the request must be clear, concise and not unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided. It is of course also possible that UBNT is fully GDPR compliant if they can guarantee that the don't send PII. The problem is we don't know.
esotericn 7y ago
Still not enough. Needs to be opt in. As others have stated, crash dumps are pretty much data leaks. By pulling stunts like this you force all operators to review the contents of every update. You actually reduce security across the ecosystem because you reduce the likelihood individuals will update. > For any further questions related to this, please review our EULA, Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. May as well be: "For more information, please re-read." Come on.
- eddyg 7y ago
  They say the data is GDPR compliant. If the data is anonymous (and the linked page specifically says "completely anonymized"), the GDPR does not apply, as far as I know. See Recital 26. [0] > This Regulation does not therefore concern the processing of such anonymous information, including for statistical or research purposes. Crash data does not mean it contains memory dumps; it could just be assertions and stack traces. [0] https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-26/ https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-26/
  - tinus_hn 7y ago
    The data includes the users IP address which is personal information. It is not anonymous.
    - eddyg 7y ago
      Where does it say the IP address is stored with the data? Recital 26 says: > The principles of data protection should therefore not apply to anonymous information, namely information which does not relate to an identified or identifiable natural person or to personal data rendered anonymous in such a manner that the data subject is not OR NO LONGER identifiable. [emphasis mine] So as long as the data becomes no longer identifiable, recital 26 seems to apply.
      - simpss 7y ago
        in their privacy policy. Section 1b. The Usage Data that we collect may include information such as ...... Internet Protocol address ...... https://www.ui.com/legal/privacypolicy/ https://www.ui.com/legal/privacypolicy/
shantara 7y ago
Does anyone else observe hourly connection attempts to "unifi-report.ubnt.com" from their Unifi Controller? I'm running the controller locally with all cloud features, error reporting and live support disabled. Not sure what other options user-facing options I can turn off to stop this from happening.
punnerud 7y ago
Most likely a follow up on this posted 22 hours ago on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21430997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21430997 (Ubiquiti adds phone-home to the access point firmware)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
notaplumber 7y ago
For engineers reading this who work at a tech company, or well, any company. Watch this keynote talk by Patricia Aas. It's called Embedded Ethics. And it is crystal clear many of you need to watch it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfNIiitVFtcalk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfNIiitVFtcalk
denkmoon 7y ago
It's unclear from the post, does this impact the firmware on my unifi devices, or is this part of the controller software? ie. is my raspi phoning home, or are my wireless APs phoning home?
ericd 7y ago
Does anyone know if they've announced the same thing for their EdgeMAX gear? This is really dumb, these are the kind of shenanigans that people buy non-consumer gear to get away from.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  Safe assumption is they'll add it eventually to all their hardware. But given the reaction they got here, they'll get the opt out setting done before they spread it to other devices.
  - ericd 7y ago
    Thanks for your thoughts. I’m hoping that the more “serious” bent of the EdgeMAX stuff (much of the functionality requires dipping into CLI) will cause them to hold off there. I’m assuming most businesses would find this unacceptable. But maybe you’re right.
    - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
      Well, I think the amount of CLI config required, means most EdgeMAX users won't think much of having to add a "disable telemetry" command in their configs: They already have to add like all the basics manually to begin with. But the other thing is, since UNMS devices like EdgeMAX and AirMAX are intended for mass deployment by ISPs, there's a decent chance UNMS will reveal and aggregate that telemetry data and allow UNMS users to see it themselves for their own troubleshooting and diagnostic purposes.
      - ericd 7y ago
        Neat, thanks again, you clearly have dug more into these devices than I have :-) I haven’t tried UNMS (mostly for multi-site deployments/massive overkill for home use?) but hopefully that means that it’ll be fairly easy to disable.
jlgaddis 7y ago
I've been saying for several years that, eventually, we will all end up having to put in "default deny" rules for our outgoing traffic, just as we do today for incoming traffic. (Either that, or hosts will have to be configured without a default route and will need to use a proxy server for all outgoing connections.) When every piece of hardware and software you use is spying on you, blocking everything by default and only allowing explicitly whitelisted traffic will be your only option to stop it.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  On the level of the individual machine (as opposed to your router), this is basically what Little Snitch does.
- daedalus_j 7y ago
  I think we're already there. Site I manage run separate VLANS for admin (switches, APs, etc) and Internet-of-Things, and both of those VLANS are default deny on outbound. That rule blocks a fair amount of traffic. I wonder if part of the answer is better tools in firewalls for this sort of thing. Easily tagging "unstrusted device" or something perhaps.
  - lostlogin 7y ago
    Pihole, a router that forces anything on port 53 back to the Pihole and careful device selection seems to be very much required already.
- matheusmoreira 7y ago
  We need to start intercepting their traffic and redacting the information we don't want them to have. Just like how corporations basically MITM everyone in order to inspect outgoing traffic and prevent data leaks. If the thing needs the internet to work, we should be able to whitelist just the data that's essential to its function and have the firewall automatically strip the remaining data from the packet.
- MrMorden 7y ago
  My privileged-access work laptop does that today—whitelisted applications and whitelisted network access.
Godel_unicode 7y ago
"If you do not wish to participate/provide this data, we will add an opt-out button in upcoming versions".
purpleidea 7y ago
Their "protect" camera software doesn't work properly without it being able to connect to the net. It won't let you login on the localhost! Now this. What is a good alternative for AP's and cameras?
- judge2020 7y ago
  Commercial wired cameras that write to a bunch of hard drives?
- rb666 7y ago
  After trying several inferior solutions, including the Unifi cameras, I switched to Blue Iris in combination with high quality Dahua cameras (IPC-HDW5231R-Z). It's been very reliable and overall just works great.
alkonaut 7y ago
Opt out is good. But I just want to weigh in for the statistics that I have almost zero concerns about anonymous crash reports. I worry a lot more about whether products requires internet connections to their manufacturers to work ten years later, than whether they send home crash data. If it’s clearly indicated and has an opt out I’m fine with it. I’d go so far as preferring it over opt-in, because I want my product to have the improvements of as many crash reports as possible. Obviously, by “crash log” I hope they gather call stacks - not memory content, since memory content could contain data that I wouldn’t want collected.
ComodoHacker 7y ago
The biggest concern for me is not opt-in vs opt-out, and not even data mining. They create another side channel which can and eventually will be exploited by the party they can't imagine now. They weaken the security of their otherwise good products.
pilif 7y ago
Contrarian opinion/question: Out of the software developers reading the comments here: Who is offering an op-out (much less an opt-in into) from their crash reporting solution they have included in their software? And of those who do actually offer an op-out: Who is annoyed about not being able to debug an issue because the crash they know is happening only seems to be happening on clients who have opted out? And my second question to all the non-developers out there: Who here is annoyed about crashes on their machine that "never seem to get fixed" as if the vendor "didn't care about getting crashes fixed" in software that offered and explicit opt-in and they didn't opt into "spying" by the vendor? Who remembers not opting in and remembers to rectify that when the crash happens? It's very easy to stand on the hill of righteousness and yell at a vendor implementing crash reporting, but before doing so ask yourself: Are you collecting crash reports? Do you wish you had crash reports? Are you unhappy about crashes on your machine not being fixed? If any of those are true, then you better not complain about a vendor adding crash reporting to their products. Do I think this should be opt-outable? Of course. Do I think crash reporting needs to be opt-in? No. Absolutely not because next to nobody will opt in and when crashes happen, nobody will remember their decision.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  If a crash occurs, you can ask to send a report. Maybe after a restart of the application. This is the way I do it and many other software vendors as well. It is a non-excuse for default active telemetry.
- iforgotpassword 7y ago
  Save the crash report, show me a notification where I can review the data and then decide whether to send it or not. Yes. Getting this right is that simple.
  - pilif 7y ago
    Where do you show the notification when an AP crashes? How do you handle users not familiar with the concept of a crash? How do you make sure you get their crash reports? How much are you willing to spend on dealing with edge-cases (like crashing loops and reporting fatigue)? But yes. I agree that your proposed solution is the friendliest for the subset of total users who are also frequenting HN.
jwr 7y ago
I do not understand how somebody at UBNT thinks the data is worth the hassle. They are taking a reputation hit, risking getting PII and getting rolled over by the GDPR steamroller, angering some of their best customers (corporations with strict security rules). What for? Is the crash data really so valuable? Do they intend to pore over every report with dedicated manpower? (they really should if it matters so much). I would say they should first get their basic support to work in a top-notch manner, carefully reading, thinking about, and responding to every bug report. Then get into automated data collection, and then ASK FOR USER CONSENT. This isn't difficult. No "opt-out" crap or corporate lingo, TELL ME CLEARLY WHAT YOU NEED, WHY YOU NEED IT, AND ASK ME IF I AGREE.

204 points by bhauer 7y ago

kuon 7y ago

This has already been added to the excellent host block file of StevenBlack. https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/1083 https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/1083

newhotelowner 7y ago

Power outage corrupts Mongodb in the UniFi Cloud key. They won't fix that. There is no option to remove the dead/unplugged devices from the device list. The only way to remove is to reset and reconfigure everything from scratch.

zwily 7y ago
Re: your second point... I just removed an unplugged switch today. Maybe it’s a new feature?
LeoPanthera 7y ago
> Power outage corrupts Mongodb in the UniFi Cloud key. They won't fix that. The Cloud Key 2 has a battery inside it and shuts down gracefully if you pull the power. So that's a kind of fix. Although it does involve buying a new device.
- lostlogin 7y ago
  Avoiding dedicated hardware and running it on a machine with a UPS is another way. I can recommend Docker, Synology and a small UPS. And that’s how the equipment cost got multiplied by 10.
wil421 7y ago
I have 2 cloud keys and have suffered power outages on both multiple times. Never had any issues with corruption.
pixl97 7y ago
How about the software controller that installs to a users profile with no way to change the install directory on Windows

ErneX 7y ago

I'm glad they will add the option, but considering their user base background it was really naive to don't foresee this was going to be detected and that it was going to be an issue.

Jonnax 7y ago

For "enterprise" hardware/software I would expect them detailing exactly what metrics they collect and what could be in a dump that gets sent. How do you anonymise a dump with user info especially for a routing device? Like that requires some sophistication, you'd imagine they'd love to talk about it to generate blog clicks. But it seems that some keen user will have to try reverse engineering their data collection to actually give the users information of what is leaving their network. As a user of their products, it has really soured me on their product. When supposedly if they're so "GDPR compliant" they just need to explain themselves to win people over.

bhauer 7y ago

We've seen two episodes of companies who enjoy the goodwill of the enthusiast/advocate sector committing obvious foot-gun maneuvers in as many weeks. First it was GitLab, and now Ubiquiti. Both should have known better than to hoist telemetry on self-hosted software. Doing so betrays a willful ignorance or disdain (or both) for the very reasons these enthusiasts self-host. The good news is that in both cases, the community has been clear in its reprimand, and the companies have reversed course (or promised to do so, in the case of Ubiquiti). I'd like to see more companies realize this is an opportunity rather than a threat: an opportunity to create products and services that deeply respect privacy and market this advantage over the competition.

Arcanum-XIII 7y ago
They're not reversing course since it's not an opt-in, but still an opt-out. I don't want to inspect every hidden option on my hardware to be sure that nothing is spying on me. For me it's still not solve here. I'm sad, because now I have to find another hardware provider that I can trust.
- bhauer 7y ago
  I hear you, and I agree I'd prefer all telemetry to be strictly opt-in. I'd be comfortable with software prompting me to make that decision at installation time to have a chance at me answering affirmatively (I'll virtually never opt in after installation). But I consider an opt-out a workable option in this case, as long as they realize this mistake should not be repeated, which remains to be seen. Is there any alternative that provides the elegance and affordability of UniFi SDN?
- thelittleone 7y ago
  Thank you. This is an important distinction to make that I wasn’t aware of. Maybe they will end up making it opt in. In the mean time, would an open source tool to automate ubiquiti opt outs be useful?
ocdtrekkie 7y ago
Indeed. It's especially odd when companies seem to fail to realize their entire market is comprised of people leaving larger, more established companies largely because of things like this.

Meph504 7y ago

I'm confused how they keep saying this is in compliance with Grpd when auto opt in is not allowed. And the idea that they force everyone in, and will add an opt out button later seems like they are gaming the system. If they don't opt everyone out they didn't ask to opt in as a default, their actions to me seem hollow.

8fingerlouie 7y ago
Most likely because as an American company they have no clue what the GDPR really does. Many European companies are still struggling to be fully compliant. Furthermore, if they transmit crash logs, and those contain partial memory contents (core dumps), chances are actual content from network packets are transmitted to UBNT as well, and those contents may contain PII (IP addresses, MAC addresses, usernames, passwords, real names, addresses, credit card information, etc.), meaning they’re most certainly violating the GDPR by making it opt out.
- secabeen 7y ago
  With a significant fraction of Internet traffic (and all eCommerce traffic) end-to-end encrypted, is it really realistic that they would have sensitive data (usernames, passwords, real names, addresses, credit card information, etc.) in memory of an AP? This is the point of Let's Encrypt, after all, to close the exposure that we give to our ISPs and our ISPs ISPs.
  - m4rtink 7y ago
    AFAIK ubiquity also does routers, those can hold quite some sensitive data in memory.
  - noja 7y ago
    Don't think sensitive data, think personal data. An IP is personal data.
  - zeeZ 7y ago
    Macs tend to use your name as their network name from what I've seen, and corporate logins usually are some variation of your first and last names. The APs absolutely know those.

Youden 7y ago

"transmitted using end-to-end encryption" Technically correct but sounds either ignorant or misleading.

thijsvandien 7y ago
In other words: over HTTPS.
LeoPanthera 7y ago
All encryption is end-to-end if there's only two ends.

8fingerlouie 7y ago

I posted this as a reply to a comment, but I will repeat it here, If they transmit crash logs, and those contain partial memory contents (core dumps), chances are actual content from network packets are transmitted to UBNT as well, and those contents may contain PII (IP addresses, MAC addresses, usernames, passwords, real names, addresses, credit card information, etc.), meaning they’re most certainly violating the GDPR by making it opt out. The GDPR doesn’t care how you came by the PII, it only dictates how you should behave when you handle it. Edit: I should clarify before somebody trips over their pitchfork and sets the house on fire, the GDPR cares a lot about how you come into possession of PII, and also if you should have that information in the first place, and also cares about how long you hold on to it. When it comes to protection of those data though, it doesn’t care if it was collected through telemetry, emailed to you (yes, also the spam folder), or it’s an old archive of core dumps on an old server somewhere. The same rules apply to how those data are handled.

kasey_junk 7y ago
This is simply not true. Opt in is only one of many ways to be compliant with GDPR covered data. Legitimate interest is the obvious way to not require opt-in and while I’m sure the regulators are getting tired of seeing ad networks claim that exception a router company claiming it for crash support seems like something that will likely be deemed in bounds. Especially if that company has made a good faith effort to show its not repurposing that data.
- simpss 7y ago
  that would only be valid if crash support is requested and provided. As far as I know ubiquiti is pretty hands-off in terms of support, so the case isn't too valid.
- 8fingerlouie 7y ago
  >This is simply not true. Opt in is only one of many ways to be compliant with GDPR covered data. And yet, Article 32 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679of https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE... the GDPR states: Silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity should not therefore constitute consent. Consent should cover all processing activities carried out for the same purpose or purposes. When the processing has multiple purposes, consent should be given for all of them. If the data subject's consent is to be given following a request by electronic means, the request must be clear, concise and not unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided. It is of course also possible that UBNT is fully GDPR compliant if they can guarantee that the don't send PII. The problem is we don't know.

esotericn 7y ago

Still not enough. Needs to be opt in. As others have stated, crash dumps are pretty much data leaks. By pulling stunts like this you force all operators to review the contents of every update. You actually reduce security across the ecosystem because you reduce the likelihood individuals will update. > For any further questions related to this, please review our EULA, Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. May as well be: "For more information, please re-read." Come on.

eddyg 7y ago
They say the data is GDPR compliant. If the data is anonymous (and the linked page specifically says "completely anonymized"), the GDPR does not apply, as far as I know. See Recital 26. [0] > This Regulation does not therefore concern the processing of such anonymous information, including for statistical or research purposes. Crash data does not mean it contains memory dumps; it could just be assertions and stack traces. [0] https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-26/ https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-26/
- tinus_hn 7y ago
  The data includes the users IP address which is personal information. It is not anonymous.
  - eddyg 7y ago
    Where does it say the IP address is stored with the data? Recital 26 says: > The principles of data protection should therefore not apply to anonymous information, namely information which does not relate to an identified or identifiable natural person or to personal data rendered anonymous in such a manner that the data subject is not OR NO LONGER identifiable. [emphasis mine] So as long as the data becomes no longer identifiable, recital 26 seems to apply.
    - simpss 7y ago
      in their privacy policy. Section 1b. The Usage Data that we collect may include information such as ...... Internet Protocol address ...... https://www.ui.com/legal/privacypolicy/ https://www.ui.com/legal/privacypolicy/

shantara 7y ago

Does anyone else observe hourly connection attempts to "unifi-report.ubnt.com" from their Unifi Controller? I'm running the controller locally with all cloud features, error reporting and live support disabled. Not sure what other options user-facing options I can turn off to stop this from happening.

punnerud 7y ago

Most likely a follow up on this posted 22 hours ago on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21430997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21430997 (Ubiquiti adds phone-home to the access point firmware)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

notaplumber 7y ago

For engineers reading this who work at a tech company, or well, any company. Watch this keynote talk by Patricia Aas. It's called Embedded Ethics. And it is crystal clear many of you need to watch it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfNIiitVFtcalk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfNIiitVFtcalk

denkmoon 7y ago

It's unclear from the post, does this impact the firmware on my unifi devices, or is this part of the controller software? ie. is my raspi phoning home, or are my wireless APs phoning home?

ericd 7y ago

Does anyone know if they've announced the same thing for their EdgeMAX gear? This is really dumb, these are the kind of shenanigans that people buy non-consumer gear to get away from.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
Safe assumption is they'll add it eventually to all their hardware. But given the reaction they got here, they'll get the opt out setting done before they spread it to other devices.
- ericd 7y ago
  Thanks for your thoughts. I’m hoping that the more “serious” bent of the EdgeMAX stuff (much of the functionality requires dipping into CLI) will cause them to hold off there. I’m assuming most businesses would find this unacceptable. But maybe you’re right.
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    Well, I think the amount of CLI config required, means most EdgeMAX users won't think much of having to add a "disable telemetry" command in their configs: They already have to add like all the basics manually to begin with. But the other thing is, since UNMS devices like EdgeMAX and AirMAX are intended for mass deployment by ISPs, there's a decent chance UNMS will reveal and aggregate that telemetry data and allow UNMS users to see it themselves for their own troubleshooting and diagnostic purposes.
    - ericd 7y ago
      Neat, thanks again, you clearly have dug more into these devices than I have :-) I haven’t tried UNMS (mostly for multi-site deployments/massive overkill for home use?) but hopefully that means that it’ll be fairly easy to disable.

jlgaddis 7y ago

I've been saying for several years that, eventually, we will all end up having to put in "default deny" rules for our outgoing traffic, just as we do today for incoming traffic. (Either that, or hosts will have to be configured without a default route and will need to use a proxy server for all outgoing connections.) When every piece of hardware and software you use is spying on you, blocking everything by default and only allowing explicitly whitelisted traffic will be your only option to stop it.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
On the level of the individual machine (as opposed to your router), this is basically what Little Snitch does.
daedalus_j 7y ago
I think we're already there. Site I manage run separate VLANS for admin (switches, APs, etc) and Internet-of-Things, and both of those VLANS are default deny on outbound. That rule blocks a fair amount of traffic. I wonder if part of the answer is better tools in firewalls for this sort of thing. Easily tagging "unstrusted device" or something perhaps.
- lostlogin 7y ago
  Pihole, a router that forces anything on port 53 back to the Pihole and careful device selection seems to be very much required already.
matheusmoreira 7y ago
We need to start intercepting their traffic and redacting the information we don't want them to have. Just like how corporations basically MITM everyone in order to inspect outgoing traffic and prevent data leaks. If the thing needs the internet to work, we should be able to whitelist just the data that's essential to its function and have the firewall automatically strip the remaining data from the packet.
MrMorden 7y ago
My privileged-access work laptop does that today—whitelisted applications and whitelisted network access.

Godel_unicode 7y ago

"If you do not wish to participate/provide this data, we will add an opt-out button in upcoming versions".

purpleidea 7y ago

Their "protect" camera software doesn't work properly without it being able to connect to the net. It won't let you login on the localhost! Now this. What is a good alternative for AP's and cameras?

judge2020 7y ago
Commercial wired cameras that write to a bunch of hard drives?
rb666 7y ago
After trying several inferior solutions, including the Unifi cameras, I switched to Blue Iris in combination with high quality Dahua cameras (IPC-HDW5231R-Z). It's been very reliable and overall just works great.

alkonaut 7y ago

Opt out is good. But I just want to weigh in for the statistics that I have almost zero concerns about anonymous crash reports. I worry a lot more about whether products requires internet connections to their manufacturers to work ten years later, than whether they send home crash data. If it’s clearly indicated and has an opt out I’m fine with it. I’d go so far as preferring it over opt-in, because I want my product to have the improvements of as many crash reports as possible. Obviously, by “crash log” I hope they gather call stacks - not memory content, since memory content could contain data that I wouldn’t want collected.

ComodoHacker 7y ago

The biggest concern for me is not opt-in vs opt-out, and not even data mining. They create another side channel which can and eventually will be exploited by the party they can't imagine now. They weaken the security of their otherwise good products.

pilif 7y ago

Contrarian opinion/question: Out of the software developers reading the comments here: Who is offering an op-out (much less an opt-in into) from their crash reporting solution they have included in their software? And of those who do actually offer an op-out: Who is annoyed about not being able to debug an issue because the crash they know is happening only seems to be happening on clients who have opted out? And my second question to all the non-developers out there: Who here is annoyed about crashes on their machine that "never seem to get fixed" as if the vendor "didn't care about getting crashes fixed" in software that offered and explicit opt-in and they didn't opt into "spying" by the vendor? Who remembers not opting in and remembers to rectify that when the crash happens? It's very easy to stand on the hill of righteousness and yell at a vendor implementing crash reporting, but before doing so ask yourself: Are you collecting crash reports? Do you wish you had crash reports? Are you unhappy about crashes on your machine not being fixed? If any of those are true, then you better not complain about a vendor adding crash reporting to their products. Do I think this should be opt-outable? Of course. Do I think crash reporting needs to be opt-in? No. Absolutely not because next to nobody will opt in and when crashes happen, nobody will remember their decision.

raxxorrax 7y ago
If a crash occurs, you can ask to send a report. Maybe after a restart of the application. This is the way I do it and many other software vendors as well. It is a non-excuse for default active telemetry.
iforgotpassword 7y ago
Save the crash report, show me a notification where I can review the data and then decide whether to send it or not. Yes. Getting this right is that simple.
- pilif 7y ago
  Where do you show the notification when an AP crashes? How do you handle users not familiar with the concept of a crash? How do you make sure you get their crash reports? How much are you willing to spend on dealing with edge-cases (like crashing loops and reporting fatigue)? But yes. I agree that your proposed solution is the friendliest for the subset of total users who are also frequenting HN.

jwr 7y ago

I do not understand how somebody at UBNT thinks the data is worth the hassle. They are taking a reputation hit, risking getting PII and getting rolled over by the GDPR steamroller, angering some of their best customers (corporations with strict security rules). What for? Is the crash data really so valuable? Do they intend to pore over every report with dedicated manpower? (they really should if it matters so much). I would say they should first get their basic support to work in a top-notch manner, carefully reading, thinking about, and responding to every bug report. Then get into automated data collection, and then ASK FOR USER CONSENT. This isn't difficult. No "opt-out" crap or corporate lingo, TELL ME CLEARLY WHAT YOU NEED, WHY YOU NEED IT, AND ASK ME IF I AGREE.