I don't mean to be touchy about it, but, if I had a quarter for every time someone said "I had this nano-station 5 years ago that had this issue they fixed in software so you must have that issue too", I'd have a lot of quarters. Maybe not enough to buy a Tesla, but, a lot of quarters...
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote: > Um, well, airFiber IS a Ubiquiti product, so it's not that stupid. They > may run different operating systems, be designed by different teams and > have different feature sets, but it still says Ubiquiti on it. > > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Chuck Macenski <ch...@macenski.com> > wrote: > >> I hate it when people lump airFiber into these things. I know of no >> security holes in airFiber that don't require you to already be logged into >> the unit (where you can change the configuration until your heart's >> content). AirFiber also supports a very simple to configure management VLAN >> (I don't know how it could be simpler) to keep inband managment traffic >> away from the IP of the unit. If that isn't enough, you can simply disable >> inband management and use the out-of-band management port; no one can then >> access the management traffic from the user traffic flows. >> >> Good morning :) >> >> Chuck >> >> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 5.6.2, I think, fixed one of them more serious security flaws, and that >>> was released less than a year ago... and it looks like 5.6.3 and 5.6.4 >>> (which was released very recently) also had security fixes. I believe most >>> of those vulnerabilities applied to the AC and airFiber firmware as well. >>> >>> Ubiquiti has been good about releasing fixes quickly when they find >>> vulnerabilities, but that doesn't help if nobody bothers to update anything. >>> >>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I know about the very old firmware version for M series stuff that is >>>> vulnerable to a known worm. >>>> >>>> But let's assume you do have ubnt devices with public IPs (which is a >>>> bad idea). What's the attack surface? http, https, ssh, snmp >>>> >>>> Provided you have chosen a reasonably complex admin login and password >>>> there are no *current, known* remote root exploits for current (or >>>> within the past 2 years) ubnt firmware on M or AC devices, right? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Josh Luthman < >>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Public IP on Ubnt. What else do you need to know? >>>>> >>>>> Josh Luthman >>>>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>>> Suite 1337 >>>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>>> On May 4, 2016 9:59 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The thread got this far and noone has wondered how the CPE was pwned >>>>>> in the first place? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah, I looked at setting it up that way at one point, but something >>>>>>> didn't look like it was going to work quite the way I wanted it to... >>>>>>> but I >>>>>>> probably spent all of five minutes on it, so it may very well be >>>>>>> possible. >>>>>>> The way ePMP does it is really nice though... and simple. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Josh Luthman < >>>>>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> People do it for sure. I want to say there was an example on the >>>>>>>> forums or some where... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Josh Luthman >>>>>>>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>>>>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>>>>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>>>>>> Suite 1337 >>>>>>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>>>>>> On May 4, 2016 9:35 PM, "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have our ePMP's setup to get their public IP via PPPoE, and the >>>>>>>>> radio also gets a completely separate private management IP via DHCP, >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> is the only way you can remotely access the radio, and it doesn't >>>>>>>>> even have >>>>>>>>> to be in a separate vlan unless you want it to be... and it's one >>>>>>>>> checkbox >>>>>>>>> to configure it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if that can be duplicated on UBNT or not, since I >>>>>>>>> haven't really tried yet, but at the very least it's a lot more >>>>>>>>> complicated >>>>>>>>> to configure. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Josh Luthman < >>>>>>>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It does...you just need to set it up that way. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Josh Luthman >>>>>>>>>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>>>>>>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>>>>>>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>>>>>>>> Suite 1337 >>>>>>>>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Mathew Howard < >>>>>>>>>> mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I really wish Ubiquiti radios had a separate management vlan >>>>>>>>>>> option (in router mode), like ePMP does... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Josh Reynolds < >>>>>>>>>>> j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I would encourage you to put your CPEs on a management vlan, in >>>>>>>>>>>> RFC1918 space. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:00 PM, SmarterBroadband >>>>>>>>>>>> <li...@smarterbroadband.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> > Hi Tushar >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > We run all radios in NAT mode. >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > Adam >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tushar >>>>>>>>>>>> Patel >>>>>>>>>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 3:34 PM >>>>>>>>>>>> > To: af@afmug.com >>>>>>>>>>>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] UBNT CPE being used for Abusive actions? >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > Radios could be put on private ip so nobody from outside >>>>>>>>>>>> world can access >>>>>>>>>>>> > it. That is what we do. >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > Tushar >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > On May 4, 2016, at 5:22 PM, SmarterBroadband < >>>>>>>>>>>> li...@smarterbroadband.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > I have received a number of emails for ab...@light-gap.net >>>>>>>>>>>> saying certain of >>>>>>>>>>>> > our IP address are being used for attacks (see email text >>>>>>>>>>>> below). >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > All IP addresses are in UBNT radios. We are unable to remote >>>>>>>>>>>> access any of >>>>>>>>>>>> > the these radios now. We see that the radio we are unable to >>>>>>>>>>>> access >>>>>>>>>>>> > rebooted a couple of days ago. A number of other radios show >>>>>>>>>>>> they rebooted >>>>>>>>>>>> > around the same time (in sequence) on the AP. We are unable >>>>>>>>>>>> to remote >>>>>>>>>>>> > access any of those either. Other radios with longer uptime >>>>>>>>>>>> on the AP’s are >>>>>>>>>>>> > fine. >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > We have a tech on route to one of the customer sites. >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > We think the radios are being made into bots. Anyone seen >>>>>>>>>>>> this or anything >>>>>>>>>>>> > like this? Do the hackers need a username and password to >>>>>>>>>>>> hack a radio? >>>>>>>>>>>> > I.E. Would a change of the password stop the changes being >>>>>>>>>>>> made to the >>>>>>>>>>>> > radios? Any other thoughts, suggestions or ideas? >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > Adam >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > Email Text below: >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > “This is a semi-automated e-mail from the LG-Mailproxy >>>>>>>>>>>> authentication >>>>>>>>>>>> > system, all requests have been approved manually by the >>>>>>>>>>>> > system-administrators or are obviously unwanted (eg. requests >>>>>>>>>>>> to our >>>>>>>>>>>> > spamtraps). >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > For further questions or if additional information is needed >>>>>>>>>>>> please reply to >>>>>>>>>>>> > this email. >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > The IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx has been banned for 48 hours due to >>>>>>>>>>>> suspicious >>>>>>>>>>>> > behaviour on our system. >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > This happened already 1 times. >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > It might be be part of a botnet, infected by a trojan/virus >>>>>>>>>>>> or running >>>>>>>>>>>> > brute-force attacks. >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > Our affected destination servers: smtp.light-gap.net, >>>>>>>>>>>> imap.light-gap.net >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > Currently 7 failed/unauthorized logins attempts via SMTP/IMAP >>>>>>>>>>>> with 6 >>>>>>>>>>>> > different usernames and wrong password: >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > 2016-05-04T23:48:40+02:00 with username " >>>>>>>>>>>> downloads.openscience.or.at" >>>>>>>>>>>> > (spamtrap account) >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > 2016-05-04T22:47:19+02:00 with username "sp_woq" (spamtrap >>>>>>>>>>>> account) >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > 2016-05-04T14:55:11+02:00 with username "info" (spamtrap >>>>>>>>>>>> account) >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > 2016-05-03T21:24:22+02:00 with username "fips" (spamtrap >>>>>>>>>>>> account) >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > 2016-05-03T20:57:19+02:00 with username " >>>>>>>>>>>> downloads.openscience.or.at" >>>>>>>>>>>> > (spamtrap account) >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > 2016-05-03T10:13:59+02:00 with username "d10hw49WpH" >>>>>>>>>>>> (spamtrap account) >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > 2016-05-03T05:34:43+02:00 with username "12345678" (spamtrap >>>>>>>>>>>> account) >>>>>>>>>>>> > Ongoing failed/unauthorized logins attempts will be logged >>>>>>>>>>>> and sent to you >>>>>>>>>>>> > every 24h until the IP will be permanently banned from our >>>>>>>>>>>> systems after 72 >>>>>>>>>>>> > hours. >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > The Light-Gap.net Abuse Team.” >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
