4 ms·
Wow. Back door accounts are just totally inexcusable these days - manufacturers should be held to account if their back doors end up getting exploited by threat
by nneonneo 5y ago
Wow. Back door accounts are just totally inexcusable these days - manufacturers should be held to account if their back doors end up getting exploited by threat actors. (Granted, you could argue it’s hard to distinguish between a really terrible bug and a back door, sometimes, but “intent” should cover this difference…)
Would you happen to have a write up/article about this series of events that isn’t a sanitized series of security bulletins? Sounds like it’d make for good reading.
- technion 5y agoTry this: https://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=160849&start=450#p788325 https://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=160849&start=450...
- rawoke083600 5y agoWow !
- terom 5y agoReading further along in the forum, the `walter` thing sounds like it's only present in test code and comments. The actual backdoor looks like the `jisoosocoolhbsmgnt` session ID [1] that was removed in the update [2]. It looks like a hardcoded session ID used for tests [3]. Leaving something like that hardcoded and active in the production code is inexcusable. [1] https://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=160849&start=495#p788455 https://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=160849&start=495... [2] https://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=160849&start=555#p788798 https://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=160849&start=555... [3] https://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=160849&start=495#p788526 https://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=160849&start=495...