Products > Networking & Wireless

Ubiquiti Breach

<< < (5/5)


--- Quote from: PKTKS on March 31, 2021, 11:49:26 am ---- What exactly a "CLOUD" is ?

- you have no clue who controls and access it
- you have no real vision of how the thing is managed
- you have *left your control to the hands of unknown others..

last question: Why people trust that cloud thihg ?
--- End quote ---

For VOIP I was concerned about these YeaLink "cloud" phones. A few UK ISP's I spoke to told me they use this portal setup in China to register them and Amazon "cloud" for the hosting which I was very unhappy about. I read somewhere last month in a news article, I looked just now but I can't find it that At&t have them inhouse where and block the zero positioning to YeaLinks server in China which is nice.

--- Quote ---According to Adam, the hackers obtained full read/write access to Ubiquiti databases at Amazon Web Services (AWS), which was the alleged “third party” involved in the breach.
--- End quote ---

In a contract I'd expect redundancy and over many networks owned and controlled by the isp's in the country I live in when making local calls apart from maybe calls to other countries.


--- Quote from: Bassman59 on March 30, 2022, 06:58:43 pm ---
--- Quote from: madires on March 30, 2022, 05:28:49 pm ---Ubiquiti doesn't like what Brian Krebs wrote about the breach:
They want US$ 350k compensation and at least 75k for trial costs.

--- End quote ---

That seems like it's a SLAPP lawsuit.

--- End quote ---

At least that's what a lawyer not involved in the case says on Twitter and we all know they are paragons of the truth.

While I'm inclined to cut Klebs a lot of slack because of all the good work he does there's an odd smell about this, more info at The Register.

As far as I can make out, the "breach" was actually an extortion attempt by a disgruntled Ubiquiti engineer who was claiming to be reporting poor practices at Ubiquiti and which Klebs reported on using that engineer as a "source" and with the source's view of the story, and then subsequently reported about it again after the source had been indicted when he should have known that the source was not quite what he had made out to be.


--- Quote ---It's a SLAPP: the coverage by @briankrebs was substantially true and/or 1A-protected opinion, and the lawsuit basically admits it in the text itself

But @Ubiquiti intentionally filed in Virginia, because there's no anti-SLAPP statute there

--- End quote ---

I just put Ubiquiti on my do-not-buy list. ^-^

Re: Doucette quote

Case was filed in Federal District Court Eastern District of Virginia (i.e., Washington DC area).  Federal law will apply.


--- Quote from: jpanhalt on March 31, 2022, 12:00:52 pm ---Re: Doucette quote

Case was filed in Federal District Court Eastern District of Virginia (i.e., Washington DC area).  Federal law will apply.

--- End quote ---

So does that mean the random lawyer is incorrect about SLAPP?  If so, I'm shocked!


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Go to full version