I am wondering...if you use CloudFlare for public DNS record hosting only and chose not to accelerate any of your records across their CDN, would you be at risk based on what was discovered in their "leak?"
it was limited only via the GUI. If you created a JSON file on the controller in the correct location, you could do darn near anything a EdgeRouter can.
The GUI is finally catching up with the features.
Ah ok. Ya that's mostly how I use mine anyway. Like I said, I've never used one so I'm running on assumptions.
I'm pretty sure you can actually fully control the APs through the CLI and JSON files. I think you can use the CLI to tell it where to get the JSON file (a none Unifi controller), but damn. .talk about pain.
I didn't realize you could use the config files for the APs. I've only used the busybox shell for joining the controller. Makes sense that it would use them though.
I think that's how most if not all of it works. using the GUI, you update the JSON files, they are then downloaded to the devices, tada.
That is also my understanding but not something I've ever checked or tested
Android seems like a really bad choice for high security applications, like military. Custom Raspberry Pis with super locked down Linux general purpose OSes would make more sense.
Any consumer cellular devices period, I can easily triangulate a cell phone with very little hardware investment.
Do we know that they were consumer phones? I didn't look into it. You can put Android on non-phones, too.
True. I was assuming because the malware was able to stay in contact somehow. Might have been on a dedicated military network with just 1 connection to the outside.
Very interesting article...
You don't have to hack hundreds of phones. Have 3-5 important android devices may be enough to nearly paint a full picture.
For those who don't want to follow the link for firefox, I had to set these in about:config
security.ssl3.dhe_rsa_aes_128_sha=false
security.ssl3.dhe_rsa_aes_256_sha=false
Perhaps you need to setup a VM specifically for managing that old equipment.
The only thing I can think of is that they had the retraction ready to go at the time the made the initial change.
If that is the case, that almost makes it worse... like they wanted to see if they could get away with it, but knowing they wouldn't.
Stranger things have happened 🙂 The positive possibility is that there were two factions in the company, one wanting the change and the other cautioning about the disaster. The compromise they came to was to float the balloon but have a plan b in place for disaster. The cynical possibility is what you describe; and attitude of "let's see if they buy it but if not here's the retraction".
