full-disclosure - Re: EE BrightBox router hacked

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CABgXHn84V7stEHEPED8sFG_DRUF-bH7_ATdk=tTFxFSB6sxKiA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:30:18 +0000
From: Dan Ballance <tzewang.dorje@...il.com>
To: Źmicier Januszkiewicz <gauri@....by>
Cc: "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: EE BrightBox router hacked - bares all if you
 ask nicely

So your point is that there should be legislation to require companies to
adhere to certain security standards? I'd support that - particularly in an
ISP market which is clearly defined by national boundaries and law.

I do agree with you this is probably to do with cheap out-sourcing, as well
as subsequent economic analysis. Where I disagree is that basic security
costs any more. Most of this stuff is what I would classify as "school boy
errors" - not a super-secure system designed by the finest security minds
in the industry. Anyone with even mid-range skills should be able to
implement basic security practises as they work IMHO. But I do take your
general point :)

As for my shock - well I am still shocked. It sucks big time and they
really should be doing better. Let's hope Scott's article gets some
coverage and finds its way back to them.





On 16 January 2014 09:32, Źmicier Januszkiewicz <gauri@....by> wrote:

> > Absolutely shocking lack of security considerations.
>
> Is it, really? I've got a feeling that companies don't give a s--t
> about your data, your privacy, and so on (proved by numerous examples
> out there), unless absolutely required to do so by law, and there is a
> good reason behind that. It is not a charity fund, you see; a company
> is all about money, even if they state otherwise via their "motto" or
> "mission", and as we all know, a dollar saved is a dollar earned... So
> they try to get it working by hiring 1-2
> Chinese/Indian/Pakistan/Younameit techies (not because they are bad at
> what they do, but because they are cheap), and squeeze them until the
> stuff is working somewhat. And that's it! Then those who made it work
> are fired, and another group with even thinner payslip is hired for
> "support". Note that at no point any emphasis on security of the
> product is made -- a company is not interested in spending more money,
> and workers are not interested in spending their life without any
> compensation.
>
> Why a company is not interested? Just some simple calculations anyone
> can do: having a working device/service/whatever brings in paying
> customers, having a secure device/service/whatever brings in expenses.
> So, we get the usual "sorry, we have no budget for that!" reply even
> if one asks for a security review.
>
> And then, see, even if your company manages to produce a "highly
> secure" device/service by hiring N brilliant minds and paying a
> 5-digit/mo each of them, then magic happens -- the cost of the end
> product is so high nobody buys it! Surprise! Will you pay 300 pounds
> more for something that does the same, but claims to be "secure"? No.
> Will a punter pay 300 pounds more for that? Hell no. Just as simple as
> that.
>
> I do find it amusing as people get "shocked" by such a simple thing...
>
>
> 2014/1/16 Dan Ballance <tzewang.dorje@...il.com>:
> > What a great write up and what an appalling mess for a UK ISP to be in in
> > 2014. Absolutely shocking lack of security considerations. Thanks for
> > sharing this. I've just followed you on Twitter as well,
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Dan.
> >
> >
> > On 15 January 2014 20:28, Scott Helme <scotthelme@...mail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The BrightBox router is the standard equipment issued by UK ISP
> Everything
> >> Everywhere (EE) to its subscribers.
> >>
> >> The device not only leaks sensitive data but is remotely exploitable
> too.
> >> An attacker even has the ability to take control of your account as the
> >> router leaks your ISP account credentials.
> >>
> >> You can read the full article here:
> >> https://scotthelme.co.uk/ee-brightbox-router-hacked/
> >>
> >> Scott.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> >> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> >> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/