= Сообщение: 740 из 7442 ============================================== IPV6 = От : Markus Reschke 2:240/1661 18 May 14 13:07:34 Кому : Michiel van der Vlist 18 May 14 13:07:34 Тема : Comcast & IPv6 FGHI : area://IPV6?msgid=2:240/1661+536a9257 На : area://IPV6?msgid=2:280/5555+5377e845 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: LATIN-1 ================================ Ответ: area://IPV6?msgid=2:280/5555+5378afb5 ============================================================================== Hi Michiel!
May 18 00:43 2014, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Markus Reschke:
MR>> BTW, there's a discussion about making "Zwangsrouter" illegal and it MR>> seems we'll get a decison in favour of the customers.
MvdV> That is good news, but of course it will only affect a smal MvdV> minoritty. Mostusers are perfectly happy with their preconfigured MvdV> CPE.
Recently there was an security problem with AVM's Fritzbox routers which are used by some providers as Zwangsrouter (running a modified firmware, some features can't be configured by the customer). Most Fritzboxes got two FXS and a BRI port for VoIP and PBX applications and some also got a DECT basestation integrated. The security issue is that someone could retrieve passwords remotely. That was used to reconfigure the VoIP part and allowed third parties to make telephone calls via the hacked Fritzbox for free, i.e. paid by the Fritzbox's user. AVM fixed the problem and released new firmwares, but the enforced routers got their updates a few days later because of the modified firmware versions.
If you own the router, you'll have to pay those calls. We got a law about liability for bad products but it doesn't include pecuniary losses. And you know those EULAs.
And what about the users with an enforced router which is owned by the provider? At first the providers told the involved customers that they (the customers) have to pay. When the security issue went public in the main media and customers complained about the enforced routers the providers backed down. It was one of those famous "without any prejudice" back downs to avoid a leading decision by a court. So we still don't know if the provider is reliable for any damages caused by his enforced router.
There's a similar problem with the cloudification of SOHO routers. Who will pay the bill if the vendor's cloud is hacked and therefore your router too?
