August 30, 2008
MTekk - News, Reviews, and Forums for Windows Mobile, converged devices, and GPS!
Australian Support Resource for Microsoft Pocket PC and Smartphone!
Articles
 


Login


Register
Forgot Password ?

Users
Membership Membership:
Latest New User Latest: jonis79
New Today New Today: 4
New Yesterday New Yesterday: 1
User Count Overall: 16189

People Online People Online:
Visitors Visitors: 137
Members Members: 0
Total Total: 137

Online Now Online Now:
Articles By Month


Current Articles | Categories | Search | Syndication

Netcomm NB1300 Update!
  Author: MattM
Categories: News
Published: Wednesday, 15 October 2003 2:26 PM
Created: Wednesday, 15 October 2003 2:26 PM
Updated: Friday, 7 May 2004 by MattM
Views: 9751

Matt M finally gets his way ...

It's taken a long time, but I finally resolved the issue with the Netcomm NB1300. It took Netcomm almost a month to get back to me, but I finally got an RA form. It then took a while for me to get back to them (I was extremely busy), and to get the modem to them.

Finally, today, I went in person to the Netcomm offices, and they changed it over on the spot. While I haven't tested the replacement, I believe it will work fine.

I have to say that the warranty return process is pretty poor. You have to fill out and fax a form, then chase them for the RA number. Then it's up to you to get the faulty device to Netcomm - whether by courier or in person as I did - and to obtain the replacement (or repaired item).

I can certainly understand this for a non-warranty repair, where of course the cost is with the customer. But for warranty, it logically should be Netcomm that cover all costs (except where you are willing to drop off and pick up). In addition, in spite of their protestation that they had trouble with their email server (which was the apparent cause of their communication delays), their overall support response time is extremely poor.

I still like Netcomm. I'll still buy Netcomm. But I'll be praying that I don't get any more problems, at least until their support is improved!

I'm off to relegate the Speedtouch back to spare parts, and start using my more functional Netcomm NB1300 again. That is, while I'm in Sydney. Then back to Canberra and the slower ISDN ... :-(

Matt's Tip

The Netcomm NB1300 is not that secure. It's already had one security problem noted , and to look at the current firmware, they have a fairly poor workaround for it.

In my opinion, there's no substitute to turning all services off to the Internet by default. Things such as HTTP (port 80), FTP (port 21), Telnet (port 23), and SNMP shouldn't be visible to the Internet at all. Unfortunately on the Netcomm, all of these and more are visible. By default, the HTTP interface denies access to the Internet - but FTP doesn't (in the latest firmware, there's a routing rule that diverts incoming FTP connections to 192.168.1.255, the broadcast address for the subnet). Telnet is disabled by default, so that's okay. SNMP is enabled by default, and worse yet - there doesn't appear to be a way to disable SNMP!

Unfortunately the majority of end users wouldn't go past the "Basic Setup" screen, where they input their account details, save and reboot, and hey presto! Instant Internet. So unfortunately there may be a situation where

a) People not running the current firmware are by default vulnerable to known exploits, and/or
b) Anyone running a Netcomm NB1300 may be vulnerable to as-yet undiscovered - or old and forgotten - exploits.

Unfortunately, a security solution that returns a 403 "Access Denied" error on port 80 (HTTP) is not a solution. It's a potential problem waiting to happen.

Remember, though, what I said in my original editorial about the problems with the Netcomm NB1300. I really do love my Netcomm NB1300. I just don't love Netcomm's support, and I don't like their security at all. I didn't mention the security previously because it was a non-issue while the device was dead. How can I love a device that's so poorly secured?

The answer is that I don't rely on its security. I let it do what it's really designed to do - connect me to the Internet. Under the "Misc Configuration" of the NB1300's Advanced Settings, I've set DMZ to "enabled". I have then configured the DMZ server to my wireless router's IP address. This router just so happens to double as a firewall. And by default, all its services are OFF to the Internet. So it doesn't even show as a blip on the radar - all services are totally invisible, or operating in "stealth" mode. To be totally accurate, the only port which shows up is port 0 - and this is via the ShieldsUP! service which is the only scanner I know of that checks for it. It doesn't really appear to be a serious security concern at this stage.

Not necessarily the most elegant solution, but it certainly works better than Netcomm's really poor workaround.

But let's backtrack for a second. One purpose of the Netcomm NB1300 is to permit an Ethernet connection to the ADSL network, allowing the connection to be shared between multiple PC's. I imagine that the majority of people out there wouldn't be too interested in the prospect of buying an additional hardware-based firewall for their small network, and that furthermore this would hurt the chance of them purchasing an NB1300.

Well, I do have a solution to this. Again, it's not elegant, but it certainly does work. You still set the DMZ and DMZ server. But if you don't have the benefit of a hardware-based firewall, you can set it to any unused IP address (such as 192.168.1.254, which is outside the default DHCP range). This still has the effect of turning off all inbound services, and your router won't be visible at all - not even port 0.

My main reason for diverting to the hardware-based firewall  is for testing purposes - I need the logs and other functionality provided by the router. If you don't care about this, you can still buy what is a relatively cheap ADSL modem with a fairly hefty warranty (36 months with registration), and be reasonably assured of the security by implementing this simple (if somewhat clumsy) workaround that is nonetheless a major improvement on the default security.


 


NOTE: At present we are unable to provide a link to discussion of articles. This will be rectified as soon as possible. In the meantime, please use our Forums to discuss articles.

 

Page generated in 0.15625 seconds.

© Copyright 2003-2007 MTekk
 MTekk  |  Terms Of Use  |  Privacy Statement