75 replies to this topic

[HawkMan]

warwagon, on 03 February 2013 - 18:32, said:

I disable it anyway. The fact that UPnP, by design, lets any application communicate with the router and open ports should make any security conscious user uneasy.

Not really. At this point you have already lost and been invaded anyway, and the route out should be of much more concern than than the route in, and if the program in question can open a route in, it's also capable to two way communication without opening a port.

that site is scaremongering at best anyway. notice how it ONLY reports how many "open" routers has been found with the test, not how many secure ones.

[1941]

Mine passed. Thanks Warwagon!

[HawkMan]

xendrome, on 04 February 2013 - 14:42, said:

It would allow any malicious program to actively contact your router, open whatever ports it wants, and then transmit data through those ports all without your knowledge.... pretty big security hole if you ask me.

From the inside, at which point you've already lost and UPnP isn't needed anyway

[ambiance]

Disabled by default on Gargoyle. I can't believe it took me so long to put this on my WNDR3700.

[CrashGordon]

All good here:

THE EQUIPMENT AT THE TARGET IP ADDRESS
DID NOT RESPOND TO OUR UPnP PROBES!

[I_Kaplan]

I got the good news !!

[Growled]

All good here as well.

[+remixedcat]

Quote

THE EQUIPMENT AT THE TARGET IP ADDRESS
DID NOT RESPOND TO OUR UPnP PROBES!

Amped Wireless R20000G Passed! UPnP Enabled

Also mine's not on the affected devices list either!!!! Go Amped!!!!

Also mine shipped with uPnP disabled as well as WPS disabled. Extra points for them!

[Dushmany]

safe here, thanks man, I didn't even know about this, my upnp is on
(Cisco e4200)

[Raa]

Still not sure how people think this is suddenly new... it's been like that for a while. Didn't one of the US agencies mention this years ago?

I've always suggested to disable UPnP.

[Stup0t]

So is this a just rubbish. Default settings on router since I bought it and I got a pass.

I just have a forward to my web server.

Router is

Netgear DG834GT with the firmware updated to the latest.

[Enron]

I have an Airport Extreme router. I don't see an option for UPnP on the Airport Utility. Then again, it doesn't have many options at all.

THE EQUIPMENT AT THE TARGET IP ADDRESS
SUED OUR UPnP PROBES!

[+remixedcat]

BLASPHEMY! YOU GOT A SECRET MICROSOFT BRANDED ROUTER AND YOU KNOW IT.

[+warwagon]

Today I had to help setup a computer for a little old lady. While I was there I ran the UPnP test. Her's failed! She had a D-link (Go figure) .... logged into the router and turned off UPnP, ran the test again and then it passed. So the rest does work!

Raa, on 05 February 2013 - 03:38, said:

Still not sure how people think this is suddenly new... it's been like that for a while. Didn't one of the US agencies mention this years ago?

I've always suggested to disable UPnP.

Because UPnP should NEVER be on the WAN side (internet). This means a bad guy could send a packet to your IP and if your router responds (Which is what this test is for) he could open a port in your route from the outside (Internet)

[xendrome]

Crisp, on 04 February 2013 - 19:20, said:

pfSense, enough said.

Not practical for the average consumer, enough said.

HawkMan, on 04 February 2013 - 19:57, said:

From the inside, at which point you've already lost and UPnP isn't needed anyway

Not from the inside, the exploit is that it responds to UPnP from the WAN side, that's the problem.

HawkMan, on 04 February 2013 - 19:54, said:

Not really. At this point you have already lost and been invaded anyway, and the route out should be of much more concern than than the route in, and if the program in question can open a route in, it's also capable to two way communication without opening a port.

that site is scaremongering at best anyway. notice how it ONLY reports how many "open" routers has been found with the test, not how many secure ones.

I think your failing to understand the exploit, typically the packet is formed on the LAN side from an application, which is passed to the router, the router opens up the ports requested. The problem is here, if you are running one of the exploitable routers, ANYONE from the WAN side, can sent a correctly formed packet to your router, over the net, and your router will open the port for them. This should never be allowed on the WAN interface.