Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA
| Lock box on the modems?
I don't think it would hurt my feelings if we didn't have to pay for modems if the cable co puts it out side and just gives me ethernet. That would be kinda cool. But then again, it removes something that I could potentially replace if there is a problem.
In any case, it serves those thief's right if they get the boot. They will make it worse for everybody else that plays fair.
--
BBr UT2003 Clan |
|
Stewy85
Premium
join:2003-01-16
Sharon, WI
clubs: | Well.....
Would it be illegal to increase the speed to what we should be getting? 
--
0111010001110010011101010111010001101000 |
|
Rexter
YeeHaw
join:2002-11-17
cloud 9
| If it's my hardware........
If it's my hardware, I'll do whatever the hell I want to it. It's asinine to have the bandwidth cap programed into the customers hardware. That's like a bank keeping the key to the vault in everyone's safety deposit box. The cable modem is a bridge, and with the exception of encryption, it should only function as a bridge. It would not be so hard to limit bandwidth per IP address at the node. This whole situation is just stupid. |
|
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state
| said by Rexter  :
If it's my hardware, I'll do whatever the hell I want to it. It's asinine to have the bandwidth cap programed into the customers hardware. That's like a bank keeping the key to the vault in everyone's safety deposit box. The cable modem is a bridge, and with the exception of encryption, it should only function as a bridge. It would not be so hard to limit bandwidth per IP address at the node. This whole situation is just stupid.
No, Limiting bandwidth at the CMTS using QoS or other traffic flow methods wastes processor cycles/CMTS CPU power. The modems were meant to be this way it is part of the docsis specs.
In 1.1 and 2.0 systems the CMTS's are more "efficient" at handling pure QoS traffic control but it is still better off to limit the bandwidth at the modem.
--
Forum Posts:4004 |
|
Ronin4740
join:2000-05-03
Saint Charles, MO
| reply to Rexter
Gawd... Okay, it's your TV - Does that make it legal to hack the cable connection so you get HBO, Showtime, etc... for free?
Yep, the modem is your hardware and yep you can use it to connect to the cable modem network but read the AUP for practically any cable internet service and you items which prohibit uncapping modems and/or modifying firmware.
Inlcuded for reference: Charter's AUP and Customer Agreement Links
»www.charter.com/site/rules.asp#aup
»www.charter.com/site/customeragreement.asp
Mod your firmware and/or uncap at your own risk. A simple query of the modem from the cable company's NOC will reveal your actions and may subject you to termination of service.
--
DSL? Why not Cable! |
|
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
1 edit | Saw it coming
Cable is shared. It's always been shared, and many people don't even know that all the data on the node goes into everyone's house. All that's between you and your neighbor's browsing habits is a previously locked-down cable modem.
I mentioned this on the Comcast forum a while ago, and my warning was quickly dismissed. I forget who said this (maybe qumahlin), but I was told "Technically it's possible to sniff the traffic, but it would take thousands of dollars of equipment and I've never heard of anyone doing this." Yeah, right. It was just a matter of time.
This shouldn't even be a problem. I don't know the specifics on the DOCSIS encryption algorithm, but it is technically possible to have secure communications on a shared line. All you need is encryption from the headend to the CM with big keys, similar to SSL. If this isn't already being done by the cable providers, some people's jobs better be in jeopardy.
Requiring signed firmware is not a solution. You CANNOT trust any equipment the customer has access to, period. Even if you make this half-assed effort to lock it down. People would just solder in a new chip with their own certificate, so they could sign firmware themselves. The only solution is to trust nobody, and encrypt all traffic on the node. |
|
Rexter
YeeHaw
join:2002-11-17
cloud 9
| reply to Qumahlin
Re: If it's my hardware........
I understand that it's in the specs. The point that I am making is that the specs are flawed. No other HSI service, that I know of, works this way. It is the responsibility of th ISP to maintain their network on their end, not on the customers end, not on the customers equipment. |
|
Rexter
YeeHaw
join:2002-11-17
cloud 9 |  reply to Ronin4740
eh |
|
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| reply to Ronin4740
It's not legal to receive channels you don't pay for. But you have to fault the cable companies for putting trusted equipment in the hands of consumers. Granted there's not much they can do technically (I'm not talking about whether it's illegal or not) about protecting TV signals, but they can certainly enforce caps at the headend rather than the CM.
It's against the AUP to sniff your neighbors' traffic, but the fact that this is even possible is 100% the fault of the cable companies. I don't even have cable HSI anymore - but it's kind of shocking that I could dust off my old SB4200, take the filter off my cable, and sniff my neighbors' traffic, without even being a subscriber. |
|
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state
| reply to Rexter
said by Rexter :
I understand that it's in the specs. The point that I am making is that the specs are flawed. No other HSI service, that I know of, works this way. It is the responsibility of th ISP to maintain their network on their end, not on the customers end, not on the customers equipment.
There were plenty fo DSL providers who used to set caps at the customers DSL/router instead of the DSLAM. The ISP is maintaining their network just because part of the control is placed in an area the customer is not supposed to be accessing anyway doesn't exactly make it flawed. Just different.
What is flawed is manufacturers not bothering to test that their modems were up to spec. Manufacturers with "leaks" giving out shelled firmware so that firmware coders know exactly what they have to work with, etc, etc.
The bottom line is that as is this really does not effect much. It is easy to catch the users who decide to uncap if the ISP wants too and the "etherboot" method of install Sigma is far to challenging to the average user who has no cable making/soldering knowledge
--
Forum Posts:4004 |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to Ronin4740
said by Ronin4740 :
...Yep, the modem is your hardware and yep you can use it to connect to the cable modem network but read the AUP for practically any cable internet service and you items which prohibit uncapping modems and/or modifying firmware.
I'm not questioning the AUP of the cable companies and obviously, if you rent your modem you have no right whatsoever to modify it.
However, if you buy and own your own modem, this amounts to the cable company restricting your use of your property. It's similar to the MPAA saying you can't skip commercials on a DVD you own or the phone company saying you can only make 5 phone calls an hour over our network.
If they don't want people uncapping their modems, maybe they should move control of the caps to the CMTS. Or not let people use their own modems. |
|
Rexter
YeeHaw
join:2002-11-17
cloud 9
|  reply to Rhobite
This is soo true.
My wireless connection is the same way. I can sniff traffic from anyone that is on the same transponder as me. But still, you have no idea where your packets are going. They can be sniffed anywhere along the line anyway. Good Internet habits are crucial no matter what kind of connection you have. So I don't mean to dismiss you warning, but to emphasize it, not only for cable customers, but any Internet connection. |
|
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state
| reply to Rhobite
Re: Saw it coming
said by Rhobite :
Cable is shared. It's always been shared, and many people don't even know that all the data on the node goes into everyone's house. All that's between you and your neighbor's browsing habits is a previously locked-down cable modem.
I mentioned this on the Comcast forum a while ago, and my warning was quickly dismissed. I forget who said this (maybe qumahlin), but I was told "Technically it's possible to sniff the traffic, but it would take thousands of dollars of equipment and I've never heard of anyone doing this." Yeah, right. It was just a matter of time.
This shouldn't even be a problem. I don't know the specifics on the DOCSIS encryption algorithm, but it is technically possible to have secure communications on a shared line. All you need is encryption from the headend to the CM with big keys, similar to SSL. If this isn't already being done by the cable providers, some people's jobs better be in jeopardy.
Requiring signed firmware is not a solution. You CANNOT trust any equipment the customer has access to, period. Even if you make this half-assed effort to lock it down. People would just solder in a new chip with their own certificate, so they could sign firmware themselves. The only solution is to trust nobody, and encrypt all traffic on the node.
Downstream traffic with no BPI can be sniffed. Upstream traffic cannot. There is more too it but not appropriate for this thread.
--
Forum Posts:4004 |
|
Rexter
YeeHaw
join:2002-11-17
cloud 9
| reply to Qumahlin
Re: If it's my hardware........
said by Qumahlin :
There were plenty fo DSL providers who used to set caps at the customers DSL/router instead of the DSLAM.
First off I'm not so sure that this is true. But even so the key word would be "used to." |
|
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| reply to Rexter
Re: This is soo true.
Well you're right, a lot of people don't even want to think about what the night tech in some random data center is capable of. Just plug a stray laptop into a switch and sniff away. Everything should use SSL, for this reason.
But the immediate problem is end-users sniffing each other, which is not possible with DSL (each user has their own circuit) and shouldn't be possible with cable. |
|
Rexter
YeeHaw
join:2002-11-17
cloud 9 |  reply to Qumahlin
Re: Saw it coming
Please, we are able to read the post the first time, we don't need you to quote the whole thing again.:) |
|
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| reply to Qumahlin
said by Qumahlin :
Downstream traffic with no BPI can be sniffed. Upstream traffic cannot.
Which still opens you up to password-reset e-mails, session and login cookies, private correspondence, and browsing habits. You can still learn a lot by eavesdropping one side of a conversation. |
|
Wall9
Tell Me, Did You See It Too?
Premium
join:2002-06-25
Dupo, IL | reply to Rexter
Re: If it's my hardware........
Mod it sure. It's yours. Having uncapped HSI is not yours. What's stupid about it?
You sound as if you're placing the blame on ISP's. |
|
Aggie Dan
Stop... Reverse That.
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Frisco, TX
clubs:
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :
or the phone company saying you can only make 5 phone calls an hour over our network.
Or... Ummm... Maybe having the cell phone company restricting the number of minutes you can use on their network?
Outrageous I tell you.
[/sarcasm]
--
Note : The statements made by myself are my own and not the opinions of my employer or of my coworkers. 14.327 GHz Crunching Power | The Ryan Foundation for MPS Children |
|
53059959
Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone
| reply to Lumberjack
Re: Lock box on the modems?
i've had experience with uncapping surfboard cable modems. back when I did it I used whatever programs I could find, and had to emulate tftp server have the cable modem download the hacked file from me. sb2100 worked the best. sounds like this new program makes it easier to ppl to do it. I was able to uncap my upload pretty high, to 5mbps, and my download past 10mbps. cox's speeds have greatly increased since then, so I have no need to risk getting caught for extra speed boost. the main reason I wanted to uncap was because our speeds sucked, back in the 192/1.5 days you could hardly get 50/300. I found that uncapping didn't really solve any problems, since top speed would fluctuate just like normal speeds would. it was still nice to be able to go on at 3am, and blow websites away. the longest I was uncapped was for 30 days, then the cable modem would reset. |
|
