>Well what are you advocating? It seems like you are suggesting that device security isn't important because it is hard to do and a firewall will solve most pro

>Well what are you advocating? It seems like you are suggesting that device security isn't important because it is hard to do and a firewall will solve most problems. I'm advocating firewall with no inbound traffic + VPN for remote access. It mitigates most of the risk of devices on your network having security vulnerabilities. My original comment in this thread was that it's more important to firewall + VPN your network than it is to pick a network appliance with a good security record. I agree that there certainly are additional precautions you can take, but I think firewall + VPN defends against most practical attacks the average HN user would encounter. Firewall + VPN is something a large proportion of HN (40%?) is capable of doing with about an hour of effort. I think it's a pretty small segment of HN that's even capable of the precautions you're talking about (separate VLANs, custom certificates, hardening every host), and it would take person-days of effort to replicate. >But I don't think saying "it is hard and a firewall solves many issues" is a good reason to forgive these vendors for shit security. I don't forgive vendors for shit security. I agree with you that we should hold vendors accountable. RCE on an unauthenticated GET request is absurdly incompetent and irresponsible, and D-Link deserves punishment. That said, I'm not in a position to influence D-Link, but I am in a position to help users protect themselves if appliances on their network have mistakes like this.