. Modem bandwidth overage detection - upload, download, current and peak usage. Modem firmware validation. CMTS to DHCP database comparison and verification. SNMP modem test. Invisible modem discovery.
Automatically deletes and blocks hacked modems. Email notifications. Scheduling via cron.
Remote retrieval of DHCP configuration. Remote retrieval of CMTS configuration and statistics. Can be installed on any GNU Linux system, MS Windows, or integrated into any existing Virtual Environment. Support Motorola and Cisco CMTS. Supports BIND, dhcpd, and MS DHCP.
More than 135 Million modems around the world are vulnerable to a flaw that can be exploited remotely to knock them offline by cutting off the Internet access. The simple and easily exploitable vulnerability has been uncovered in one of the most popular and widely-used cable modem, the Arris. Chapter 1: Connections and Setup Connecting the Cable Modem Connecting the Cable Modem to a Single Computer This section of the manual explains how to connect your cable modem to the Ethernet port on your computer and install the necessary software. Please refer to figure 1 to help you connect your cable modem for the best possible connection. Network management vulnerability exposes cable modems to hacking. That resulted in the discovery of 78 vulnerable cable modem models from 19 manufacturers, including Cisco, Technicolor.
After weeks of having a problem with slowness on his cable modem service (provided by at&t broadband), 21-year-old matthew hallacy decided to take matters into his own hands to find out if his cable modem was really the bottleneck. He downloaded the specs for his 3com cable modem from the web then devised a method for changing an obscure configuration file–the result of which was significantly increased bandwidth (from 75 kbps to much higher). According to hallacy, he changed the configuration to proove that it was the network management of at&t broadband that was causing the slowness, and once he found this out he changed the settings back.after testing this trick on a few other cable modems, he decided that this was a security vulnerability because of the ability to capture data from other users on the attacker's node, or the ability to send huge amounts of data to a specified destination by taking control of the cable isp's routers and gateway computers. Hallacy's report lays out in detail how to trick a into divulging its configuration file, then tells how to edit that file with an open source program. At&t broadband spokesman andrew johnson stated that although it takes potential security threats very seriously, the company was still investigating hallacy's claims and had no immediate comment. Cablelabs, the developer of the docsis standard, stated that although the problem is real, it is not because of vulnerabilities in the standard itself, but flaws in the way that cable operators implement their networks. A feature in the docsis standard called “shared secret keys” allows cable operators to prevent users from making the sort of changes which hallacy describes.
3com no longer sells cable modems, and motorola stated it has been notified of and will comply with a requirement from cablelabs to implement a change to its products, preventing subscribers from making these types of changes.check out for more information. Ron's opinionthis is unfortunately another instance of incorrectly configured networks creating security vulnerabilities, again underscoring the need for strict security guidelines regarding the configuration of both networks and software. This is also another of the many reasons why computer and information security will be the next big economic boost. Simple network and software design changes can be implemented to greatly increase the security of data of all types, and those changes need to be made as soon as humanly possible.unfortunately, security seems to be all about visibility right now, and until a vulnerability has been published by the finder, no one will do anything about it.
This is not good. It is another reason why the “responsible disclosure” theory will not work in this world. Companies do not want to spend the money unless absolutely necessary, and when a vulnerability is published, it becomes necessary to fix it because the risk of exploit becomes greater.cable operators are anti-competitive (at least in my area, where there is only one choice for service) and they must be forced to make the changes necessary to secure their networks. It will be interesting to see this develop. User comments 49 comment(s)hrm (8:30am est mon mar 18 2002)sounds way more fun then just “un capping” my modem muharhar har what? Oh and maby thats why shaw's service really baddly suck's, it's really pi$$ing me off, maby ill have to go with dsl?
Hrm g'day – by evofinally! (8:36am est mon mar 18 2002)i knew that comcast was screwing everything up. Maybe things will finally work correctly at home now – by salarymanwhere (9:13am est mon mar 18 2002)can i find the directions to try this on my own modem? Mediacom is dreadfuly slow, limiting uploads to 128, which is not even fast enough to perform video conferencing with. – by zaph1another good article (9:14am est mon mar 18 2002)here's another good article on this.
My damn isp caps my upstream at 16/sec.theres no reason for this other than they don't want people running servers.it sucks – i don't send that much upstream but when i do i wish it wasn't so slow. – by funkdafieok i guess we cant post links? (9:15am est mon mar 18 2002)i never read the guidelines (oops?)– by fdit wouldn't have happened (9:22am est mon mar 18 2002)if the speed was at the rate is was supposed to go.
Ever since the changer over, it's been nothing but slow. Though mostly because it's going through the at&t network. Though i wouldn't be supprised if this was a part of it too.
– by —mike savadit wouldn't have happened (9:23am est mon mar 18 2002)if the speed was at the rate is was supposed to go. Ever since the changer over, it's been nothing but slow. Though mostly because it's going through the at&t network. Though i wouldn't be supprised if this was a part of it too.
– by —mike savad0000this isn't new (9:29am est mon mar 18 2002)motorola surfboard cm's (the 3100) can easily be uncapped.they have a flaw where by they aren't instructed to download the configuration file from the service providers interface, but from any. As such you can setup a tftp server on the machine that the cm plugs into, and becuase it's a 10mbps (it's much slower coming in frm the wall) link the cm download the configuration file from that.telewest in the uk have had some problems with users doing this. It's very easy to detect because the signal to noise ratio on the rf network dramatically changes. It's also against most isp's aup.– by mattsecurity flaw? (10:13am est mon mar 18 2002)i suppose that this might be considered a security flaw, from the isp's perspective, users reconfiguring the modem is certainly undesirable.
However, form the users perspective this is.not. a security flaw. The end user is not exposed to any risk from this flaw.further, i would state that the configurations are.not. mis-configurations or mis-management by clueless isp staff. The caps are instead intentionally left in place. The isps do not wish for their users to be able to use this much bandwidth. In theory, cable modems are capable of 27mbps downstream.
A more realistic speed of 6 to 10 mbps downstream is easily achievable but, the isps do not wish to enable these speeds for the users. While the potential high-speeds of cable modem make for great advertising, the isps do not have the infrastucture to support all of their customers at these high speeds.
Furthermore, they do not want to spend the money to build such infrastructures. By limiting the speeds that their subscribers can achieve they reduce the amount of equipment needed to support those subscribers and thereby reduce their cost. They also, are then able to sell higher speed “business class” service at a higher premium with a simple configuration change.it sucks that the isps are defrauding their customers with over infalted advertisements and then delivering a capped service but, uncapping the modem is basically illegal. The fact that a user can uncap the modem iis thus a security risk for the isp.
It is in no way a security risk for the end user.– by get a gripheh (10:15am est mon mar 18 2002)i seem to remember getting flamed a few weeks ago via a post pertaining to security and cable modems. Justice =) – by slacknow imagine (10:36am est mon mar 18 2002)everyone uncapping their modem. Cable does suck. – by godget a grip (10:47am est mon mar 18 2002)nicely put. Logic and clarity what a concept!
– by niceguyre: get a grip (11:13am est mon mar 18 2002)from a cable modem users perspective: “the ability to capture data from other users on the attacker's node” seems like a serious security flaw to me. Also i would be that only a mis-configuration or clueless it staff would allow the “taking control of the cable isp's routers and gateway computers” i do wish however that my cable was faster than 1 mb. – by scratchmanron's opinion (12:00pm est mon mar 18 2002)amen. – by stevefunkdafie (12:04pm est mon mar 18 2002)be glad you're not a gamer.if they capped my upstream to a slow speed like that i'd go back to dialup. My dsl is worth it, but i can dl two linux distros at the same time while uploading 3 mp3s to 3 different servers, all the while the third pc is busy surfing the net w/o even knowing all that other traffic is taking place.i understand cable here is just as good.
A lot of you guys are being screwed royally! But hat's what happens with monopolies.
– by steveflame, part ii (1:57pm est mon mar 18 2002)um, sorry “slack”, but this security issue still has nothing to do with the claims you were being flamed about, which, if i remember correctly, involved the alleged intrusion risk of a cable-modem connected computer even when it was turned off. There is no correlation between your claim and this item. – by flamerboyif i had cable (2:37pm est mon mar 18 2002)if i had cable i would remove the cap on my modem and hack into everyonr else's and set their modems to run at 56kbs. Then i could be king os the cable network until they catch me and put me in jail. 75kbs sucks i am glad i have dsl at 6mbs/384kbs mt server rocks.
– by raxfood for thought (2:49pm est mon mar 18 2002)i have a question to poseif the cable companies are owned by the media companies and the media companies understand with hi-speed access comes unlimited music and movie trading isn't it obvious why they would cap the bandwith? I mean downloading is fine to them because only people with $$ like the media companies can afford hi-speed bi-directional pipes so you can pay them for their media. But if everyone had the ablity to serve then what would we need media companies for?– by truemorere: truemore (5:39pm est mon mar 18 2002)you hit the nail right on the head. It isn't a coincidence.
Since they can't really fight the mp3 trading by reducing cd prices (and they know it), they have begun to resort to these tactics to slow down the proliferation. Until there is a breakup of media company and bandwidth provider, it will only get worse.
I'm curious: how does uncapping affect the signal-to-noise ratio of the local segment of the cable network?– by another mattports (10:22pm est wed may 28 2003)what about blocking ports. I am trying to beta test software and my cable company has blocked some ports. Can this be done though the modem? – by paul333ports (5:42pm est tue oct 28 2003)paul333, the blocking of ports is probably done at the companys switch or router, unless you get acsess to it and unblock them thru the switch/router software.otherwise you are screwed =) – by the unknown guytoshiba modems (5:44pm est tue oct 28 2003)so, any news on boosting up toshiba pcx1100u modem yet “frustrated”?
– by the unknown guytoshiba modems (12:42am est wed apr 07 2004)thats what i am wondering, i am getting 30 up on cox and that is lame. – by cykopep-talk time (2:17am est thu apr 29 2004)down with “the man”. – by m3g4d37htelewest (11:32am est mon may 17 2004)tell me about low upstream!telewest (blueyonder) only give me 128 up, when i am getting 512 down! If you have a 3mb line from telewest, they only give you 256up – when my mate who has 128down, gets 256 up.
If anyone knows a way in which i can increase my upstream bandwidth to about 256 without gettin caught on telewest – please e-mail me @ jonathanhalewood1@hotmail.com.ffs – they have an absolutly huge pipe – and the modems and lines can handle like 100mbps – so what the hell are they doing?– by jonathan halewoodfbi (12:36pm est tue may 25 2004)good now the fbi will mke a new law – by beetsmanyou are all cheap basterds!!! (12:58pm est sun oct 17 2004)of course if you want more speed you have to pay. The more high speed users the isp has the more hardware it takes to provide that service. Get a job and pay for the bandwidth.
– by ereptorbandwidth is bandwidth (12:34pm est sat nov 13 2004)there is a difference in paying for bandwidth and being cheated on what you pay for. Rr gives me 2.5 mb/s down and caps me at 35 kb/s up. To me bandwidth is bandwidth up or down. They should have a way to throttle the up and down at least with in the 2.5 mb/s range which i pay for.
Of course im not willing to pay $400+ for 1.5mb/s up thats absurd i do however realize that during the '90s the isps paid too much for the for fiber optic lines and hardware and have to make up the cost some how, but they need to get on the ball and realize that the end-user is becoming more technology savy and setting up their own servers, sending larger emails, sharing files, communicating via video to family and friends. Album rohani kristen. We deserve what we pay for “bandwidth is bandwidth” – by frostpull out your tools, climb the poles yourself (3:13pm est mon apr 04 2005)the cablemodem companies need to just get out of the way and let us hackers and enthusiasts into the network and climbing the poles we'll tweak everything out with the latest hardware ourselves to get the bandwidth. I just spent $800 myself and two weeks setting up a homebuilt repeater and state of the art pre-n equipment to get access 2000 ft away from me to me, and across a pond and around a house. Hows that for elite. If it took a mission to plug a satelite into orbit to get more bandwidth, well by god i'll blast a satelite into space. That's next on my project list, actually. – by starguybandwidth is bandwidth?
(4:19am est wed apr 27 2005)i'm not convinced that the cable companies are giving us our monies' worth. It was estimated that the cost to provide bandwidth in 2000 was one-thousandth as much as it was in 1995 and that it was going to drop at the same rate between 2000 and 2005. That means that our $9/mo compuserve accounts should be producing roughly 14,000,000,000bps for the same price.sure, nobody likes to pay us$50/mo or more for capped (crippled) bandwith with ports blocked (crippled) and ip addresses that seemingly change at random 20 times per day.