Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

D-Link DIR-655 Firmware 1.21 Hijacks Your Internet Connection

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the not-polite dept.

Networking 428

chronopunk writes "Normally when you think of firmware updates for a router you would expect security updates and bug fixes. Would you ever expect the company that makes the product to try and sell you a subscription for security software using its firmware as a salesperson? I recently ran into this myself when trying to troubleshoot my router. I noticed when trying to go to Google that my router was hijacking DNS and sent me to a website trying to sell me a software subscription. After upgrading your D-link DIR-655 router to the latest firmware you'll see that D-link does this, and calls the hijacking a 'feature.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why... (3, Insightful)

mewshi_nya (1394329) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652055)

Is this even legal? This is my device; if it does something I don't like, and can't disable it, that seems like an attack on my rights; to do it to sell ads... that's just low, D-Link!

Re:Why... (5, Informative)

matthewncohen (1166231) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652165)

You have to manually upgrade the firmware and going back to plan old 1.20 is exactly the same process. It's not exactly hard to "disable". I have this router and also recently updated my firmware but I have not encountered this yet...

That's the end of D-Link. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25653223)

If true, that's the end of D-Link. We would never buy from them again.

Why are marketing people allowed to destroy companies? Then they go to a new company and do it again.

Re:Why... (1, Troll)

GenP (686381) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652167)

Whoa, I didn't know D-Link was forcing firmware upgrades these days!

Re:Why... (5, Informative)

mattytee (1395955) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652191)

If you RTFA, you'll see that you CAN disable it.

Still pretty hinky, though.

Re:Why... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25653449)

What's annoying with things like this (and others) is that it just gets in the way and obstructs your work.

I choose things based on their lack of snarkiness. I don't want a Windows PC full of crapware. I'd rather just pay the manufacturer a few extra bucks to cover the loss of crapware kickbacks. I used to run an AV, but occassionally, it would bring up a message telling me I wasn't fully protected because I wasn't running their antispam (despite running Thunderbird). When my renewal came up, I chose another company, and I told them that this was one of the reasons.

Re:Why... (5, Interesting)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652197)

Probably not. But what are you going to do about it? After enough stink, there will likely be a class action suit. No one that has been wronged will get real resolution (maybe a coupon for a new D-link model router for their trouble!). The amount paid out by D-Link will be less than the profit they get from these things. Business as usual.

The only solution is to burn the place down or kill a few key people, then let them all know why. But no one is going to throw their life away on a bad router purchase.

Re:Why... (5, Funny)

speeDDemon (nw) (643987) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652793)

"The only solution is to burn the place down or kill a few key people, then let them all know why."

If only revolution was not such an outdated ideal.

Re:Why... (4, Funny)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653369)

Damn, and I thought D-Link was one of the better companies to buy a router from.

Re:Why... (5, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653403)

The only solution is to burn the place down or kill a few key people, then let them all know why. But no one is going to throw their life away on a bad router purchase.

that's the problem with the youth today, no commitment to principles.

Re:Why... (4, Interesting)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652211)

If you RTFA it is something you can disable (at least according to the D-Link rep, I don't actually own one of these). It sounds like he's ticked off because it was slipped in with the firmware upgrade, enabled by default, and if you're not technically inclined you'd probably not realize what was causing the hijacking. It is a scummy thing to do, but hardly illegal, and it's being made out to be a lot worse than it actually is. Had it been disabled by default, or perhaps included instructions on the site it directs you to on how to disable it then it wouldn't be an issue.

Re:Why... (3, Funny)

Lazy Jones (8403) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652627)

If you RTFA it is something you can disable

Since when do we need to RTFM for consumer products like a WLAN router? It's not something complicated like a microwave oven where you need warning labels telling you not to dry your pet in it...

Re:Why... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25652947)

Oh shit, I didn't read those warnings.... FLUFFY!!! NOOOOOOOOOOoooooooo.....

Re:Why... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25653089)

Oh shit, I didn't read those warnings.... FLUFFY!!! NOOOOOOOOOOoooooooo.....

There's no need to blame yourself. I've come to help you avenge your cat. [poetv.com]

Re:Why... (1, Funny)

click2005 (921437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653029)

"warning labels telling you not to dry your pet in it"

Damn, I just tried to dry someone else's pet in it.. If only they'd warned me.. i'm gonna sue.

Re:Why... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25652799)

It is a scummy thing to do, but hardly illegal, and it's being made out to be a lot worse than it actually is.

If it's not illegal then it should be. Accepted on this level can lead it to being applied on others. Your auto-mapping service starts to lead you to a different McDonald's each time you ask it for directions to the hospital. Your Lo-Jack shuts your car down in front of every Denny's you pass. Your mother's health monitoring devices keep connecting to a security marketing sight instead of her heath monitoring provider. Do we even want to discuss what might happen when Roto-Rooter shows up at your place and your lovely wife or daughter answers the door? This service is a FEATURE!

Such garbage is just like telemarketing, its abuse any way you look at it. Just imagine what would happen if every component in your computer included such nonsense and maybe some included by government mandate. Nip it in the bud, else like cancer and government, it just grows uncontrollably.

Re:Why... (1)

BUL2294 (1081735) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652967)

It is a scummy thing to do, but hardly illegal

Maybe not illegal (tho, ICANN and/or the FTC would probably have a problem), but if my URL was inaccessible to all D-Link routers and instead redirected someone to a product/service sold by D-Link or, worse, redirected to my competition, you'd better believe that I'm going to sue them!!!

Re:Why... (4, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653181)

Wow. Recent Netgear switches I've bought were doing the whole 70% packet loss thing (of the five white Netgear hubs I've dealt with, three have been completely worthless; haven't tried the blue metal ones lately), and now DLink moves right along with them onto my do-not-buy list. Linksys (won't work reliably with upstream switches) and Belkin (Wi-Fi routers crash constantly when passing wireless traffic) are both so buggy (to the point of being unusable) that they've been on my do-not-buy list for years. I've just about run out of networking hardware manufacturers....

Why can't just ONE SINGLE networking product company make a pledge to stop cutting corners on quality and looking for ways to make a quick buck off their users and just deliver decent hardware!?!?!?!?!?! Don't ANY of these companies' management chains have the SLIGHTEST bit of fiscal common sense?

Sheesh!

Re:Why... (3, Insightful)

Babbster (107076) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653311)

Why can't one single Slashdot user buy a defective product without boycotting the company in perpetuity?

Re:Why... (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652221)

Legal? yes. Ethical? no. Tolerated by your customers? Hell no.

Re:Why... (1)

WarJolt (990309) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652291)

Is it legal...dunno. Is it moral or right no.
Can you sue for damages? Yes... get a good lawyer.

From The FA (2, Informative)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652339)

>You can disable this feature by logging into the router and clicking the Advanced Tab and Secure Spot on the left side.

>D-Link Customer Service

Unethical to enable it by default and not tell the customer about it *until* it hijacks the connection (if you ask me) but easily disabled apparently.

Re:Why... (1)

iamapizza (1312801) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652365)

It's "because they added it as a âoefeatureâ which just happens to sell software subscriptions for them." It's a perfectly acceptable reply. I do that with applications I write too.

"Yeah, it doesn't parse the log files like you asked, but it does load up a a console that just happens to say 'hello world' on it. And exit."

Re:Why... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25652503)

Is this even legal? This is my device; if it does something I don't like, and can't disable it, that seems like an attack on my rights; to do it to sell ads... that's just low, D-Link!

OK, yes, it's low down and dirty, but an attack on your rights?!? Give me a fucking break. Perhaps a month or two living in a communist country would re-align you with the definition of your "rights".

It's a fucking router. Don't like it, go buy a fucking 54GL and load your own goddamn OS.

Besides, take a minute or two to read through your average EULA, and you'll quickly realize your e-rights vaporize quicker than you click "I agree"...

Re:Why... (2, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652511)

Who cares particularly if it is legal or not. What you SHOULD be worrying about is how easy would it be for such a company to take a handsome bribe to allow others to hijack your connection via their firmware/router?

Vyatta anyone? http://www.vyatta.com/ [vyatta.com]

I think it's about time for some serious F/OSS hardware and firmware to replace what was once thought safe and sound from hacking and such.

Re:Why... (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652661)

This isn't the reason I stopped selling D-Link a while ago, but this is certainly a reason I'm glad I did.

I became hesitant to sell D-Link when they dropped their warranty from lifetime to 3 years to 1 year.

Then when they came out with their new line in the black cases that turned out to be complete crap, I stopped selling them completely.

Now I'm justified.

Goatse (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25652131)

Goatse [goatse.cz]

A whole new tactic!

Well.... (4, Funny)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652175)

Well, I for one welcome our new SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED overlords!

Please click here to renew subscription!

Re:Well.... (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652287)

Subscription required?

What on earth are you ranting about, the site is someone's personal blog!

Re:Well.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25652551)

whoosh

Huh? (3, Informative)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652189)

I've been using rev1.21 for a few weeks now and I haven't seen this behavior at all.

Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:51:22 PM

Firmware Version : 1.21, 2008/09/11

*shrug*

Re:Huh? (4, Funny)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652569)

Well there's your problem... it was released on 9/11. Of course it came with a few unexpected surprises...

Re:Huh? (1)

gaderael (1081429) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652873)

+1 Ba Zing!

Re:Huh? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653195)

I ran into this when I first upgraded the firmware a few weeks ago. I was upset at first, click through it, and forgot about it honestly.

Is there any kind of agreement? (3, Informative)

dmomo (256005) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652201)

Before installing the new firmware, are you asked if this is Okay? If not, do they make it clear how it can be disabled?

I am now reluctant to upgrade my DLink firmware. Is it's easy and clear that one can opt out.

Re:Is there any kind of agreement? (1)

prelelat (201821) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652971)

TFA states that it was as simple as clicking it off in the advanced settings. The problem here is that it was turned on by default and called a feature.

Re:Is there any kind of agreement? (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653103)

I'm a certified Maverick! dmomo.isamaverick.com

You are? [wikipedia.org] Do you have the 302, or are you a crappy little straight six model?

Thank you! (3, Insightful)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652267)

Thank you so much for the warning! I'll stay on 1.20 then and my next router certainly won't be a D-link.

Re:Thank you! (4, Informative)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652393)

Replying to myself to add some info. Firmware v1.20 doesn't have the "Advanced -> Secure Spot" page they mention so it really seems to be be new in v1.21. The 1.20 firmware can still be downloaded from here [dlink.com.tw] .

Re:Thank you! (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653503)

Thank you so much for the warning! I'll stay on 1.20 then and my next router certainly won't be a D-link.

Seeing as how reliable D-Link routers are (based on previous experience) I'd imagine it won't be long.

Ran across this just the other day... (4, Insightful)

dr_wheel (671305) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652299)

I helped my father-in-law purchase a wireless router for his home and set it up for him recently. I was rather surprised when I updated the firmware and was then greeted by spam upon opening a web browser. I have to say that I'm really disappointed by d-link on this one. Here's to hoping that the backlash is enough to make them reconsider doing this type of stuff again.

Generally speaking, I'm a fan of their networking equipment (own a dgl-4300 that I'm very happy with myself), but if this is the direction that they are going in, I won't be buying or recommending their stuff anymore. I plan on e-mailing them and telling them I am unhappy with their practices.

It's about as legal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25652317)

...as advertising an orange and switching it for a pair.

If you sell a router, that's all it should be. a router that rewrites DNS and routes wrong is...a paperweight.

Re:It's about as legal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25652361)

a pair of what?

Re:It's about as legal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25652697)

he meant pear, dumbass.

Re:It's about as legal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25652921)

He was being facetious, tightass.

Re:It's about as legal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25652757)

I can't decide whether I'd rather my router had an orange, or a pair. Whether I'd put it in a fruit basket, or have to have trousers made for it.

Re:It's about as legal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25653417)

a pair of what?

A pair of Salamancan Biting Pears, of course. (LOL WUT?)

Re:It's about as legal... (4, Funny)

VirginMary (123020) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652615)

Personally I'd be very happy if I got two oranges rather than just one!

Cheers! (3, Funny)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652319)

Won't be buying any more Dell hardware for a while!

Without SecureSpot 2.0 (5, Informative)

KoD7085 (1357011) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652335)

I haven't upgraded to 1.21; however, the reason was when 1.21 first dropped it had SecureSpot. Now I found this out by reading the information on 1.21 so I didn't download and install it. They now (and have for some time) offer 1.21 without SecureSpot; perhaps you should download and install that.

Re:Without SecureSpot 2.0-ARE YOU SAYING... (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653273)

They now (and have for some time) offer 1.21 without SecureSpot; perhaps you should download and install that.

Are you saying that there are two different versions of the firmware that both identify as 1.21? That's outrageous in and of itself! How do you even know which one you have?

Re:Without SecureSpot 2.0-ARE YOU SAYING... (0, Troll)

KoD7085 (1357011) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653483)

Well you know which one your downloading as the links are as clear as can be (unless you're illiterate in which case you're screwed either way) My guess would be the one without securespot just disables it by default instead of having to manually do it. But I agree, they should have changed the revision (something like 1.21.1). As I said I haven't installed it so I don't know the actual differences.

Slashdot Editors, Do Some Editing (1, Informative)

Knara (9377) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652353)

From the goddamn article:

Hi Brandon, What you experienced was not an Attempt to "Hijack" your connection. In fact what it is an added feature called "Secure Spot", It is software that is built into the router, which is used to replace or work along with your firewall/Antivirus/Antispam software. It also provides more parental controls. This feature does require a subscription if you want to use it but it is entirely optional. This feature replaces a hardware device that we had that did the same tasks. The DSD-150. You can disable this feature by logging into the router and clicking the Advanced Tab and Secure Spot on the left side. D-Link Customer Service

So, you can turn it off. Not only that, but as of 9/30 there's a separate link at their firmware download page for the DIR-655 [dlink.com] that says (in plain view, in a sensible spot): Click here for Firmware 1.21 WITHOUT SecureSpot 2.0

Should they have included that in a readme/changelog for the firmware? Maybe, but since they were all too happy to tell you how to turn it off, this really doesn't seem like a huge offense to me.

Conclusion? Non-story.

Plus, upgrading your firmware "just because". Why?

Re:Slashdot Editors, Do Some Editing (4, Informative)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652479)

Plus, upgrading your firmware "just because". Why?

Because router firmware upgrades often mean closing security holes.

Re:Slashdot Editors, Do Some Editing (4, Insightful)

Knara (9377) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653393)

Plus, upgrading your firmware "just because". Why?

Because router firmware upgrades often mean closing security holes.

While one might think this at first, there's no evidence that this is the case for this incident. It's just as likely, without a firmware being released with specific notes about "holes" that it "plugged", that the update created more bugs.

In this case, it was "I felt like upgrading the firmware". The downfalls: User obviously didn't know how the feature set changed (because didn't do research before upgrading the firmware, just saw that one number was larger than the other) and there's always the possibility of bricking your router that is already working just peachy.

So, no, I don't accept your reasoning, even though it seems "sensible" at the start.

Re:Slashdot Editors, Do Some Editing (4, Informative)

Ryokurin (74729) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652485)

The non securespot version has been there since the firmware was released. Its simply a case of the submitter not reading and comprehending. Either way, it asks you if you want to try it twice, and then leaves you alone.

Re:Slashdot Editors, Do Some Editing (2, Informative)

kybosch (250319) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653079)

I would agree. I, too, downloaded the version without secure-spot. When I saw that there was two versions, I went back and double checked what the difference was between the two versions. Saved myself some trouble.

I have to say, though, that Belkin has done this for years. I had a Belkin 54g router that always spammed me with child protection features after every firmware update. I am surprised that no one else has mentioned Belkin in this. (Or did I mod filter them out?)

Re:Slashdot Editors, Do Some Editing (5, Insightful)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652601)

there's a separate link at their firmware download page for the DIR-655 that says (in plain view, in a sensible spot): Click here for Firmware 1.21 WITHOUT SecureSpot 2.0

Well, I highly doubt that most customers know what "SecureSpot" is. So how are they supposed to know to download the non-annoying firmware update? Of course, you may say that this is the customer's problem: they should read up on all the features that are being installed in the firmware update, and be sure that this is really what they want, etc.

And, yes, in principle everyone should read every line of each and every EULA.

The fact is that any reasonable person would expect a firmware update to only fix bugs and security flaws. It would not be normal to expect entirely new features to be installed, and it is certainly abnormal for the new "feature" to actually include nagware that prompts you to pay for some new service.

The point here is that what they are doing is sleazy. The default configuration should have that redirect turned off. The link for a "without SecureSpot" firmware is nice, but the fact is that 99.9% of users will only notice that after they have already installed, and been annoyed by, the default update.

It's an annoying thing to do with a firmware update. And in that sense, it's a reason to not do business with them.

Re:Slashdot Editors, Do Some Editing (1, Insightful)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653141)

People that can't figure out how to turn this off, most likely won't be upgrading their own firmware.

Re:Slashdot Editors, Do Some Editing (0)

Knara (9377) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653253)

People that can't figure out how to turn this off, most likely won't be upgrading their own firmware.

Exactly. And they won't care about securespot, thinking its just another advertisement.

Re:Slashdot Editors, Do Some Editing (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25653203)

And, yes, in principle everyone should read every line of each and every EULA.

In principle, there should be no such thing as EULAs.

Re:Slashdot Editors, Do Some Editing (2, Insightful)

knifeyspooney (623953) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652633)

Conclusion? Non-story.

What if I want SecureSpot for its useful features? What if I didn't know SecureSpot redirects me like that?

Re:Slashdot Editors, Do Some Editing (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653323)

What if I want SecureSpot for its useful features?

Then, as an industrious person who was upgrading their own firmware, you could read about it when you downloaded it on D-link's website.

What if I didn't know SecureSpot redirects me like that?

If you didn't know that it did, you most likely would simply think it was another online ad. And as said earlier in this comment list, the thing buggers off the second time you say no.

Re:Slashdot Editors, Do Some Editing (2, Insightful)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652675)

Well now I know why the media is so sensationalist and ridiculous - apparently the average citizen / slashdotter isn't any better...

If it was that easy to resolve why even bother taking the time to post about it? It seems like it took longer to complain than it did to fix it.

Re:Slashdot Editors, Do Some Editing (1)

ParanoiaBOTS (903635) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653331)

Plus, upgrading your firmware "just because". Why?

I can only imagine that with this attitude you are running Windows XP(pre SP1), and IE6 (no updates). Because installing updates "just because". Why? In all seriousness though firmware updates are usually released for several reasons, here are two major ones: Security updates(very important), Bugs in the original firmware (less important but good to have).

There is also a firmware without secure spot 2.0 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25652427)

If you look under the revision history of the 1.21 firmware - there is a link to download the new firmware without Secure Spot 2.0. Just look for: "Click here for Firmware 1.21 WITHOUT SecureSpot 2.0" and click on that...

Re:There is also a firmware without secure spot 2. (1)

Maguscrowley (1291130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653017)

I'm surprised it took this long for someone to point out what you did. Good job though.

However,there is the tendency though to want to include something that looks like a free feature. The uninformed could easily mistake SecureSpot for being a new free security addon.

Plenty of people will be dling the version with this new form of adware.

New D-link business plan (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652461)

Great, now I'm going to have to clean all the crapware off my new computers AND my new routers. Maybe they'll make us pay extra for a spam-free router in the future.

you enable this feature by yourself? (1)

bluemoonj (1401039) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652533)

I have DIR-655 with fireware 1.21, and used it for several weeks, but I don't you the problem you described, I think you enabled this feature when you clicking around after you upgraded the firmware :)

Belkin has done this before (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25652613)

Back in 2003 Belkin introduced a router that periodically redirected HTTP connections to advertise its own software:
    Help! my Belkin router is spamming me [theregister.co.uk]

Some commentary:
    Ease-of-use or marketing-driven sabotage: Does your hardware's software do only what you expect of it? [ibm.com]

Just like Belkin back in 2003 (5, Informative)

alanw (1822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652625)

Here's [theregister.co.uk] an old article about Belkin doing a very similar thing:

Belkin, the consumer networking and connectivity firm, has promised customers a firmware upgrade to disable a controversial 'spamming' feature built into its routers.

As first reported on The Reg last week, the feature hijacks random HTTP requests every eight hours and redirects users to a page advertising Belkin's parental control software. There is an opt-out link but that failed to appease Net users who accused Belkin of creating a new mechanism for spam.

Re:Just like Belkin back in 2003 (2, Informative)

djwudi (554822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653219)

Possibly also of interest: The /. thread [slashdot.org] for the Belkin incident, and I put a small collection of related Google Group links in a weblog post [michaelhanscom.com] back then. The Belkin incident was the first thing I thought of when I saw this story post. Good to know I'm not the only one who remembered that.

Re:Just like Belkin back in 2003 (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653457)

Possibly also of interest: The /. thread [slashdot.org] for the Belkin incident

Indeed, this should be included in the "Related links" for this story.

Apparently... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25652677)

all your base station are belong to us.

Submitter should not have submitted (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25652711)

I think we're all agreeing that the submitter is an idiot for not reading before downloading and the editors should not have posted this "story" in the first place.

Thread closed.

Re:Submitter should not have submitted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25653133)

"Thread closed."?

You got your /b/ in my /.!

D-Link (3, Insightful)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652717)

I've owned several D-Link routers, either through no fault of my own or pressed for time and had to buy it. In all of the years I've had to deal with them, I've learned this:

D-Link is Shit. Buy Linksys.

Re:D-Link (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25652945)

Better than that, google "dd-wrt hardware", and look at what hardware is inside your next router purchase. Get one with at least 16M ram and 4M flash, and upgrade to an open firmware. Tomato is my favorite, it has the slickest admin GUI, on top of full Linux flexibility.

Re:D-Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25653019)

Linksys is shit too. Buy Sonicwall or Cisco.

(yes, I know Linksys was purchased by Cisco, but they've continued to churn out complete and utter shit that locks up, overheats, and dies randomly. if you want quality, you have to fucking pay for quality. otherwise, don't bitch about that cheap piece of shit you bought.)

Re:D-Link (1)

citylivin (1250770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653307)

All those are shit.

Roll your own PFsense with whatever hardware you desire.

Re:D-Link (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653075)

D-Link is Shit. Buy Linksys.

Linksys is even worse shit.

I currently advocate Netgear at the "cheap-as-dirt" price-point these products fall into, but I'm sure someone will chime in that they are shit too.

Ultimately you get what you pay for.

Re:D-Link (2, Informative)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653299)

> D-Link is Shit. Buy Linksys.

> > Linksys is even worse shit.

Buy the router/AP that has the features you want AND is supported by Tomato, DD-WRT, et al, and don't look back.

Re:D-Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25653193)

Linksys is shit covered in urine.

Maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25652739)

Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't be using a shit D-Link product in the first place.

I don't care if it's your cat's net connection - their garbage isn't worth 2 minutes. Guess how much time I spend troubleshooting my Sonicwall router. Guess how many times it's locked up on me in the past 4 years. Guess how many times my Cisco switch ($70 on eBay) has caused me problems.

Protip: if you use shit equipment made by shit companies, prepare to deal with a mountain of shit because of it. You bought that stupid thing, so don't bitch no matter what happens. If you don't know any better, then you deserve what you got. If you do, then you deserve what you got.

OpenBSD... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25652825)

One word: OpenBSD, who needs anything else. It's been said before by them and this is just the begining - same goes with binary Linux drivers and the NDA's they sign...

More reasons never to go consumer again (5, Interesting)

Chas (5144) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652853)

After massive amounts of pain with consumer/prosumer-grade (many of the D-Link) routers in the past two years, I finally dropped real money for a real broadband router earlier this year. So far, I've had months and months of trouble-free service.

Now I start hearing crap like this. Makes me even MORE thankful I bit the bullet.

Also "you can turn it off!" apologists? WHY IT IS ON BY DEFAULT? Moreover, tell that to some luddite who barely understands how to boot his computer.

Re:More reasons never to go consumer again (2, Insightful)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653189)

While I agree with your sentiment, said Luddite probably won't be updating his own firmware. Personally I think it's a horrible action, but am already a bit pissed off with D-Link hardware.. so doesn't surprise me.

So much for D-Link (4, Insightful)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652915)

Even if there's an option to disable this, the fact that it seems to be enabled by default is enough for me. D-Link from this point on will never be on my list of vendors when looking for networking gear.

Idiots... (4, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652957)

Apparently they didn't learn from the shitstorm that hit belkin when they did the exact same thing years ago.

Another vendor goes down the tubes...

Re:Idiots... (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653151)

They sent it down the wrong tube. That's the whole issue! ;-)

Simple solution... (4, Informative)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653005)

Only buy home routers that can run opensource firmwares. I'm quite happy with my WRT54GL, although the hardware is a bit antiquated at this point.

Google Should Sue (4, Interesting)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653213)

This cannot be allowed to go unpunished. Google should sue since it was their domain name that was hijacked and a clear attack on their business.

Google should sue because they have lots of high-priced lawyers and can really make DLink regret this.

Re:Google Should Sue (1)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653487)

I think it hijacks any domain name. Google is just the one he happened to open when he was hijacked.

DNS spoofing. (2, Funny)

PieterBr (1013955) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653339)

D-link: now with built in dns spoofing.

*I WILL NEVER BUY A D-LINK PRODUCT EVER AGAIN (1, Offtopic)

ancient_kings (1000970) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653343)

I'm so sick and tired of these companies doing dumb, fucking shit like this. FUCK THEM! Don't buy any of their products again. FUCK THEM! FUCJ!

Ugh. Why? (2, Insightful)

ohtani (154270) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653379)

So let's see, Linksys makes generic crap. I'm not completely impressed with my NETGEAR device so I don't think they're that great either. Don't even get me started on how bad Belkin's stuff was. D-Link sounded good, but now this?

NOW what do we go with?

I do agree it's not a HUGE issue since it's able to be disabled, but it's still not good that it's an opt in thing. I'd be buying a piece of hardware to connect to the Internet. NOT a subscription service. It may be good for those not comfortable with computers, but still, not so comfortable with those that DO understand them.

DD-WRT FTW! (1)

boshi (612264) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653381)

I've been rocking a Linksys WRT54GS ( with the 32MB ram, the early ones ) with DD-WRT with an uptime of over a year now.

A lot of people have had poor stability with the WRT54G series, but from reading online most of it comes from the shoddy power supplies linksys uses, making it sensitive to voltage fluctuations. I've had mine hooked up to an APC and haven't had a single problem since then. A few friends have followed suit and also experienced a lot more stability.

I thought this was slashdot. (1)

Cytlid (95255) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653399)

This is still slashdot, right?

  Why not have a few thousand people call their tech support, and when you get a human on the phone, try and sell them something?

it's not illegal... (2, Informative)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653429)

...but dlink just fell off my vendor list.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?