RE: Ars breaks Misfortune Cookie vulnerability news to public

["Frank Bulk" <frnkblk () iname com>]

On what basis do you assume that there is TR-069 support in these routers?  And even if there is, that the service 
provider manages them via TR-069?

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org] On Behalf Of Eric Tykwinski
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 6:47 PM
To: Jay Ashworth
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Ars breaks Misfortune Cookie vulnerability news to public

Here’s the thing I don’t get…  You have X provider supplying routers with vulnerable firmware that have remote support 
(TR-069) enabled.
Why would Check Point not at least name and shame, instead of trying to market their security?  I know the hack is old, 
but grandma isn’t probably up to date on the latest firmware that should have been upgrade through TR-069.  I’m 
honestly more upset with the reporting than the normal residential cpe didn’t get upgraded.

But yeah, Happy Holidays everyone...

Sincerely,

Eric Tykwinski
TrueNet, Inc.
P: 610-429-8300
F: 610-429-3222

> On Dec 19, 2014, at 5:54 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> wrote:
>
> While the flaw is 12 years old and the fix 9, the article suggests that
> firmware for consumer routers may yet be being built with the vulnerable
> webserver code baked in.
>
> If you are responsible for lots of eyeballs you might want to look at this.
>
> http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/12-million-home-and-business-routers-vulnerable-to-critical-hijacking-hack/
>
> Have a nice Christmas weekend.  :-)
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
>
> -- 
> Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra () baylink com
> Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates       http://www.bcp38.info          2000 Land Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA      BCP38: Ask For It By Name!           +1 727 647 1274