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