I don't understand. What point is being made here?
Some years ago I wrote a little tool to iterate all of an ISP's ip addresses and around 90% were using default passwords. Mostly homes, but some businesses.
Since you're not hosting the site on the router itself, presumably you're forwarding port 80 from the router to the Raspberry Pi, so unless the security of the Pi ends up being broken, the router should be safe.
(Also I'd recommend using Let's Encrypt to get an automatically-renewing TLS cert so you can serve https on port 443 as well, and even redirect port 80 to it. It's not that difficult to set up, and you'll be improving the privacy and security of those who visit your site.)
ISP router (with disabled wlan) <-> firewall <- home router (with wlan)
and the firewall can then separate the network by port. WAN for the firewall is the LAN Port of my ISP router.
Is that a good setup?
If you want something very general and comprehensive, you can read this, although it is probably too involved for a basic "website": https://owasp.org/www-project-web-security-testing-guide/sta...
https://skylar.tech/create-fast-websites-from-your-home-netw...
I've selfhosted on 64Kbit/s modem then xDSL for years without a problem (apart from bots trying default passwords). If you are really afraid you'll run into DDOS attacks and whatnot, consider using a small 2-5$/mo VPS as reverse-proxy instead of CloudFlare to retain control of your infrastructure.
See if ngrok can do what you want to do
Skip past the first few results, then you'll see a list of likely easily-hackable home routers. If you were to try user/pass combos like "admin"/"admin" on these results I bet you'd have successful logins on several of them.
Don't actually do this (seriously, the penalties aren't light), the demonstration of the search results is enough to make the point.
Plenty of websites allow you to do it, although it's probably safer to grab a shell on any other host connected to the internet (could be even just your phone connected to its mobile network) and run a port scan (e.g. nmap) from there.
Since the default configuration of these routers is not to expose the router on the WAN interface, manually overriding this configuration usually demonstrates a sufficient enough understanding that the default credentials have likely also been changed.
The only real issue would be using a default password, which none of the top results shown on Google seem to have (thankfully). So, little-to-no issue here.
No, there are not.
> How else would one remotely manage a router
Over a WireGuard connection to a secure management network.
> The only real issue would be using a default password
Uh, no. Try any number of CVEs or 0-days or unknown-until-it's too-late vulnerabilities, depending on what web daemon/frameworks are used by the router's management software.
The businesses and universities you see in the list are likely:
* a result of people hooking up rouge devices
* organizations operating without competent IT management
* honeypots
As opposed to actually solving that problem? I mean, if GMail, Jira, GitHub and GitLab all manage to provide secure web UIs, then what's the excuse of routers?
Why should the manufacturers just offload the technical complexity to the end user, as opposed to supporting something like 2FA through TOTP or an equivalent? Sure, that's not to say that any piece of software doesn't need extensive security testing, but at the very least they should attempt to establish a perimeter of sorts for their web application and use whatever popular auth mechanisms have been widely used in the industry in the last 5 years.
As for the eventual "routers don't receive updates" counterpoint: if my Debian boxes can receive unattended security updates, what makes it so that my router couldn't? If lots of self-hosted software like GitLab is relatively secure, what's to prevent routers from receiving a similar treatment and attention?
Personally, i'm just writing this to bring the odd juxtaposition to light - that things we oftentimes take for granted in regards to typical web apps are somehow not only not often implemented but also are unthinkable for some reason when it comes to devices like routers. I don't believe that this is a good thing and some sort of a convergence should happen sooner or later - GNU/Linux or BSD based router software that all of the vendors could adopt and, ideally, an open source web UI alongside mechanisms to keep it up to date automatically.
Of course, for some odd business reasons, that's unlikely to happen. Looking at the current state of routers, i find it extremely odd that every vendor has their own piece of software that's so different from the others out there, even down to many of the terms that are used to configure the operation modes etc. Yet, when we want to purchase a personal computer, we don't buy one with DellOS or HP-OS or what have you...
Given what it is... it's as secure as it can be. Short of a 0-Day lurking somewhere, or an active CVE, the configuration is fine. Not to mention all the top results appear to be operated by organizations that certainly know what they are doing.
https://www.tp-link.com/us/user-guides/Archer-C7/chapter-12-...
Although, remote management isn't much of a consumer feature to begin with.
- spend 100 bucks on a specific router
- have a static IP
- put your router web ui on the Internet
then yeah, you are definitely the type who should be also able to put a VPN to properly manage it. I don't really get your defense of this practice. It is bad and risky, and there are no good reasons to expect it to be a sane config for a router.
If they are, great. If not, then consumer-grade router admin interfaces should not be exposed to the public internet, ever.
I don't think that's a reasonable assumption at all -- the router should ensure that the admin cred has been set to a (reasonably secure) password. Just because someone read on a web page that they should enable remote admin doesn't mean that they understand the risk.
And it should warn that exposing the admin interface to the internet may make the router more vulnerable to remote exploits - basically the same type warning that browsers show for a bad SSL cert should be shown for insecure router configs - tell the user that it's insecure and is a really bad idea before they do it.
You're making some wild assumptions here.
Even your basic free Comcast router comes with sane defaults, and tons of warnings for every configuration change.
Here's the user manual for the TP-Link AC2300 - The Archer C7 found in the google results this post links to:
https://static.tp-link.com/2019/201912/20191231/7106508598_A...
Step 2 forces the default password to be changed. There is no way around that step.
None of your assumptions are true here.
https://www.tp-link.com/us/support/faq/66/
1. Open the web browser and in the address bar type in: http://192.168.1.1
2. Type the username and password in the login page. They are both admin by default.
3. Click Security->Remote Management on the left side
4. To enable this function, please change the Remote Management IP address from 0.0.0.0 to a specific authorized remote IP address.
Here's the warning they give at the bottom of the manual:
Few people read the entire manual, if they read it at all, they read enough to do what they want, and fewer still know what "Use this with caution" means. I don't even know what it means. I typed 255.255.255.255 carefully, is that sufficient caution?
Type 255.255.255.255 Remote Management IP Address means that you can connect to the router remotely from anywhere via Internet, this is not recommended and please use it with caution
We suggest changing the default log in Username and Password if the Remote Management feature is enabled, especially if you typed 255.255.255.255 as the Remote Management IP address.
And, your link is old, to say the least. That screenshot is from the Windows XP era.
You're trying to lampoon TP-Link for things that simply are not true anymore, nor have been for a long while.
I'll repeat again - the defaults on these routers is to prohibit WAN access and they force a password change at setup. What more are you complaining about?
Updated 04-18-2019 07:10:55 AM
This Article Applies to: TL-WR841N (and a couple dozen others).
You can buy a TL-WR841N today for $20. It was released in 2015, so it may be an "old" router, but old routers never die, they just get cheaper.
But regardless, I was responding specifically to your comment:
manually overriding this configuration usually demonstrates a sufficient enough understanding that the default credentials have likely also been changed
(That's why I quoted it in my reply)
And the point I was trying to make is that merely being able to override the default remote admin setting does not ensure that the user has any idea what the ramifications are. I'm surprised you're even arguing against that.
It does, click any of the links. The specific search string OP used returns only C6, C7 and C9 routers (I clicked through 2 pages of results).
You saw TP-Link and went off about things that were valid to complain about in the past... but are not specifically with these routers, and probably no new model TP-Link or any sane manufacturer is turning out today.
> And the point I was trying to make is that merely being able to override the default remote admin setting does not ensure that the user has any idea what the ramifications are
Again, if you actually clicked through the OP, you'd notice most of the bare IP address results are dead (meaning they are no longer on the internet), and the ones with CNAME's attached appear to be professionally managed. The assumption is sound.
"Please log in with router's password" -"hacker news" -C6 -C7 -C9 -C90 -C60 -A9 -A7 -A6 -AX3000 -MR100 -MR150 -MR200 -MR600 -MR6400 -AC2300 -AC2600 -AX50 -C6U -VR300 -VR600 -VR2100 -TD-W9970 -TD-W9960
Sure, and you can change that password to "foobar" or whatever bad password you want. And I bet that login page doesn't have any rate limiting or a lockout after too many failed logins.
Fortunately, though, I don't think there are any of these that enable remote admin by default, so the owner would need to do that explicitly. Hopefully they've paired that with a strong password. Even then, I still wouldn't advise anyone actually doing this...
(Your manual link is broken; it takes me to a page that just links to TP-Links main marketing website.)
> The only real issue would be using a default password, which none of the top results shown on Google seem to have (thankfully). So, little-to-no issue here.
You might want to think twice about attempting to log in to a system you weren't authorized to use. That's illegal in most jurisdictions.