Recommended Posts

As of recently it has been discovered that most routers expose UPnP to the outside world, which is not good at all. This allows attackers "from the internet" to open ports in your routers.

It is recommended you DISABLE UPnP in your router. Below is a test to see if your router is vulnerable. Steve Gibson, the creator of the very popular "Shields-up" which scans your IP for open ports in your router has recently added a test for the upnp vulnerability. Simply click the link then click the "proceed" button. You will then see a button for the UPnP test. Good luck!

The Test

https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2

  On 03/02/2013 at 18:08, warwagon said:

It is recommended you DISABLE UPnP in your router.

No; It is recommened that you get a good router. I have UPnP on my router enabled and

  Quote

THE EQUIPMENT AT THE TARGET IP ADDRESS

DID NOT RESPOND TO OUR UPnP PROBES!

So either I have a good router or the test sucks.

  On 03/02/2013 at 18:20, Detection said:

I have uPnP enabled but still fine (Expected as much with DD-WRT though)

Capture.PNG

Correct this is a route test, not a computer test.

It's only recommended to disable UPnP on your routers if they don't pass that test, which means they are exposing you to the outer world.

Just passed the test on three touters with UPnP enabled. Two of them are running DD-WRT.

post-203976-0-34939600-1359915937.png

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.

THE EQUIPMENT AT THE TARGET IP ADDRESS

DID NOT RESPOND TO OUR UPnP PROBES!

Why would you disable uPnP anyways? It allows internal hosts to dynamically open ports like XBL or PSN for gaming and voice. Without it you'd have to manually open every single port those services and similar ones use. Just keep your internal hosts clean.

  On 04/02/2013 at 08:12, trek said:

THE EQUIPMENT AT THE TARGET IP ADDRESS

DID NOT RESPOND TO OUR UPnP PROBES!

Why would you disable uPnP anyways? It allows internal hosts to dynamically open ports like XBL or PSN for gaming and voice. Without it you'd have to manually open every single port those services and similar ones use. Just keep your internal hosts clean.

Yeah I agree with keeping uPnP enabled also.

I ran many different servers over the years, long time ago now, so I had many ports opened for access, and that site's port tests always showed me as being safe and secure.

All depends on what type of security you're running on your computers.

There should be no issue with running UPnP/NAT-PMP on your router if it's properly configured, I knew mine would pass this test from the start since it exposes it's configuration in a good manner (It only allows hosts on the 192.168/16 subnet to create a forwarding rule, and said rule has to point at the host that requested it, otherwise it's rejected), and shows what ports are forwarded on what protocol.

Never mind the fact that the firewall should reject outside communication before it even gets to the UPnP/NAT-PMP daemon anyway, if it isn't being blocked you have bigger issues.

"Without it you'd have to manually open every single port those services and similar ones use."

So -- your talking a handful of ports at most.. UPnP is to allow unsolicted inbound traffic to get through your nat router. Traffic initiated by you, or in answer to your traffic is allowed.

Most people have no use of UPnP, it has been a nightmare since it was created -- who in their right mind thought, hey lets allow ports to be opened on your gateway/firewall without any sort of auth at all!!

And no UPnP should not be reachable via your public IP that is for damn sure.

  On 03/02/2013 at 18:32, warwagon 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.

If you trust what's in your network and have the routers firewall up I don't see how it could.

^ the point is UPnP can remove your firewall settings. Without even a nod to you that its doing so, nor any sort of auth method to allow it.

There really needs to be some form of notification and auth to the mechanism - and then sure it would be a valid tool in opening firewall ports for the masses.

  On 04/02/2013 at 08:12, trek said:

THE EQUIPMENT AT THE TARGET IP ADDRESS

DID NOT RESPOND TO OUR UPnP PROBES!

Why would you disable uPnP anyways? It allows internal hosts to dynamically open ports like XBL or PSN for gaming and voice. Without it you'd have to manually open every single port those services and similar ones use. Just keep your internal hosts clean.

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.

  On 04/02/2013 at 14:14, BeLGaRaTh said:

Steve Gibson, the person who creates the most FUD on the internet with his crazy rants and observations!!!

I'm not going to argue that the fact that he is crazy, which he probably is, but he is also very smart. And Facts do not = FUD.

Are you up to date on this UPnP issue? The typical way UPnP works is, an active program on one of the systems on your network will contact the router and open ports for whatever program/service to pass data through. Sounds ok right, well there is an exploit on a TON of routers that allows that request to be made from the OUTSIDE over the WAN, so if you have one of these affected routers, anyone outside your network, can open up ports into your network using a little bit of packet "magic". It's a pretty big deal.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I'm old I guess, first thing I think of is just regular input/output.
    • Now, kids, Dan O'Dowd is what we call a professional hater.
    • Billionaire slams 'Tesla Cultists' for praising Robotaxi, says it's 5+ years behind Waymo by David Uzondu Image via Depositphotos.com The Tesla Robotaxi program has kicked off in Austin, Texas, and reactions are pouring in from all corners of the internet. A select group of investors and influencers have been invited to try the service, which operates within a limited area of South Austin for a price of $4.20. While the vehicles are operating without anyone in the driver's seat, the program has specific rules for this pilot phase, including a human "safety monitor" who rides along in the passenger seat just in case things go sideways. Of course, the launch did not go unnoticed by Tesla's most vocal and well-funded critic, Dan O'Dowd. O'Dowd is the billionaire founder of a group called The Dawn Project, which has dedicated itself to highlighting what it calls critical safety failures in Tesla's Full Self-Driving software. He refers to himself as an expert in creating "unhackable" software for military and aerospace clients, and ran for U.S. Senate back in 2022 on a single-issue platform: to "make computers safe for humanity" by banning Tesla's FSD. In 2023, He was banned from advertising on X after He made promoted posts that show Tesla FSD among other things, failing to stop at Stop signs. Last year, his group, The Dawn Project, paid for a Super Bowl ad, where a Tesla equipped with FSD did not act on a child-sized mannequin in the road. That commercial ends with a message, urging parents to "boycott Tesla to keep your kids safe." Today, O'Dowd took to X to slam the launch of the Robotaxi service, saying the "Tesla Cultists are celebrating victory" over a system he believes is years behind the competition (especially Waymo). He pointed out that with only fourteen cars operating for half the day, the system was already making significant errors, a rate he claims is consistent with community-tracked FSD data. The videos shared by the creators (Rob Maurer and Ed Niedermeyer), O'Dowd mentioned in his post, appear questionable, depending on your perspective. In Maurer's video, a trip that was otherwise smooth had a few unnerving seconds of the vehicle slightly swerving into the wrong lane, correcting itself, swerving again, correcting itself, and then finally settling. The other video from Ed Niedermeyer shows something entirely different. Niedermeyer captured a Tesla Robotaxi approaching an "extensive crime scene" with multiple police vehicles parked on the side of the road. On his personal Bluesky account (Ed stopped posting on X late last year, in protest of Musk), He claims the Tesla braked hard twice for no clear reason. In his commentary, Niedermeyer argued the car "shouldn't react to any of these police vehicles," and that it was concerning how it reacted to some but not others, before stopping in the "middle of the road instead of defaulting to a minimal risk condition."
    • Arch is now also using Wayland as the default session for Plasma 6.4, with X11 session becoming optional (so upgrading to Plasma 6.4 on X11 Arch might need manual intervention). It's been well over a decade in making, but I guess the time for Wayland to be the default is finally upon us.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      ravenmanNE earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Conversation Starter
      Brett76 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      Miguel Batista earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Dedicated
      moojay67 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      Jim Dugan earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      662
    2. 2
      Michael Scrip
      229
    3. 3
      ATLien_0
      216
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      146
    5. 5
      Xenon
      141
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!