Superhub : Hub 3.0

[HackedComputer]

I have never, ever.. dealt with such a poor Modem/Router in all my life until I received the Hub 3.0.

The majority of issues are indeed to do with the Firmware, but certainly should not have been released to the public - especially new connectees.

What concerns me more, is the security of this thing and the way it communicates the (weak by design policy) password that is set back to VM to be stored in their unsecured non-hashed database; for which I started a thread on their main community forum. Even more of a joke when the entry of the password isn't even starred. Secondly, I don't even want the credential to be even stored on their end to facilitate this useless password reset procedure. How hard can it be to instruct users to hold the reset button using a paperclip?

Basic networking functionality isn't even present, such as changing the LAN IP Range. I figured I could possibly bypass this restriction by loading up BurpSuite and inject arbitrary code - only to find this router relies on SNMP to make adjustments. Perhaps I'll have an attempt at cracking the SNMP Strings. The possibility to enable or disable Ping from the WAN is also missing

Lastly, the interface - I'm sure you are all aware is pathetic and you'd think they'd sort the resource loading before shipping these things out to non-trial users first.

Funnily enough, it's possible to get another ISP's animated configuration wizard with using some trickery within Firefox.

Asus RT68U is now on order. It's dreadful enough having to use the Superhub 3.0 in MODEM mode.

[SnoopZ]

Originally Posted by HackedComputer

I have never, ever.. dealt with such a poor Modem/Router in all my life until I received the Hub 3.0.

The majority of issues are indeed to do with the Firmware, but certainly should not have been released to the public - especially new connectees.

What concerns me more, is the security of this thing and the way it communicates the (weak by design policy) password that is set back to VM to be stored in their unsecured non-hashed database; for which I started a thread on their main community forum. Even more of a joke when the entry of the password isn't even starred. Secondly, I don't even want the credential to be even stored on their end to facilitate this useless password reset procedure. How hard can it be to instruct users to hold the reset button using a paperclip?

Basic networking functionality isn't even present, such as changing the LAN IP Range. I figured I could possibly bypass this restriction by loading up BurpSuite and inject arbitrary code - only to find this router relies on SNMP to make adjustments. Perhaps I'll have an attempt at cracking the SNMP Strings. The possibility to enable or disable Ping from the WAN is also missing

Lastly, the interface - I'm sure you are all aware is pathetic and you'd think they'd sort the resource loading before shipping these things out to non-trial users first.

Funnily enough, it's possible to get another ISP's animated configuration wizard with using some trickery within Firefox.

Asus RT68U is now on order. It's dreadful enough having to use the Superhub 3.0 in MODEM mode.

The Hub3 is still on trial, even with new customers, the trial people have updated firmware, it is an on going thing, but i agree it has been released too early to the public.

There is already a thread on the Hub3.

[techguyone]

Can't be any worse than my hub 1.0

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by HackedComputer

I have never, ever.. dealt with such a poor Modem/Router in all my life until I received the Hub 3.0.

The majority of issues are indeed to do with the Firmware, but certainly should not have been released to the public - especially new connectees.

What concerns me more, is the security of this thing and the way it communicates the (weak by design policy) password that is set back to VM to be stored in their unsecured non-hashed database; for which I started a thread on their main community forum. Even more of a joke when the entry of the password isn't even starred. Secondly, I don't even want the credential to be even stored on their end to facilitate this useless password reset procedure. How hard can it be to instruct users to hold the reset button using a paperclip?

Basic networking functionality isn't even present, such as changing the LAN IP Range. I figured I could possibly bypass this restriction by loading up BurpSuite and inject arbitrary code - only to find this router relies on SNMP to make adjustments. Perhaps I'll have an attempt at cracking the SNMP Strings. The possibility to enable or disable Ping from the WAN is also missing

Lastly, the interface - I'm sure you are all aware is pathetic and you'd think they'd sort the resource loading before shipping these things out to non-trial users first.

Funnily enough, it's possible to get another ISP's animated configuration wizard with using some trickery within Firefox.

Asus RT68U is now on order. It's dreadful enough having to use the Superhub 3.0 in MODEM mode.

While I don't disagree with your points, I wouldn't expect anything from an ISP supplied device. It's there to get the masses online with the minmal of fuss and that's it. If you want additional functionality, just be glad they let you use your own router.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by techguyone

Can't be any worse than my hub 1.0

Mine's been in modem mode since I installed it. Its reputation had preceded it.

Anyway I've used a router amd home network long before we had modems and everything went through the STB.

[techguyone]

Agreed, mines been in modem mode since they put modem mode on it.

[horseman]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Anyway I've used a router amd home network long before we had modems and everything went through the STB.

Still an (embedded) CableModem just not a SACM!

After about 5Mbps Tier expansion then even Samsung/Thompson STB's had resource/thermal issues (Pace 1000/4000/4001/4010 particularly) and StandAloneCableModems almost became de-rigeur in early part of millenium (typically on NTL franchise where STB CM's were a tad problematic)

Admittedly my very conservative usuage profile kept my BB via STB until 2nd half of the first decade when first 10:1 speed uplift required a Ambit256 (SACM) to provision 10mbps(1mbps U/S) Tier.

I only succumbed to Docsis3 SuperHub1/VMDG480 in Sept2011 when VM finally introduced R30 firmware with ModemMode. Following participation in Beta Trials on SH2/VMDG485/490/505 meant using both ModemMode and RouterMode although only the SH2 was the first SHub that had basic w/less and RouterMode reliability with my LAN (mainly Apple clients and NAS devices).

The Hub 3.0 currently runs in RouterMode with SamKnows monitor and 1 connection to DS415+(NAS). All the Main LAN load (including second DS415+ connection, DS411J and end devices are currently running on SH2/VMDG485 in RouterMode(recreating Macbook WiFi disco reliability issues).
Despite early release of SH3 (in development timeline compared to previous) and outstanding known issues (even with latest firmware) then basic w/less and RouterMode compared to SH2 (and also SH2AC) is otherwise no worse in my Lan environment.

[raging bull]

Horseman: Did you have any input on the failed Ambit wireless modem?

[Ignitionnet]

Anyone know why the STBs had to go when 10Mb was released?

Starter for 10.

[horseman]

Originally Posted by raging bull

Horseman: Did you have any input on the failed Ambit wireless modem?

Not sure whether that is a serious or jocular enquiry? The Ambit 256 was a single DOCSIS1/2 Tuner (no D3 channel bonding). Even the initial (4x4) D3 Ambit 300 NG (circa 2009/10) was a SACM with no Router/Hub combo and thus no wireless.

So, NO - I don't have any INPUT on Ambit wireless modem! But a hilarious trick query for NTL/VM cable provisioning (SA)CM all the same!

[raging bull]

I wasn't on about the 256 at all, whilst we had the 256 we were invited to trial a wireless router. (long before the SH)
This device was rubbish by all accounts, all units were withdrawn off trialists.

[horseman]

Originally Posted by raging bull

I wasn't on about the 256 at all, whilst we had the 256 we were invited to trial a wireless router. (long before the SH)
This device was rubbish by all accounts, all units were withdrawn off trialists.

Since you didn't state the Ambit model (whereas I did) and I'm not clairvoyant then my statement still standards - particularly as you're now referring to a wireless router and not a wireless modem (the latter implying a combination CM/Router ala SuperHub)?
Not clear either since you transpose terminology whether this was additional to Ambit 256 or a trial replacement?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Anyone know why the STBs had to go when 10Mb was released?

Starter for 10.

You had plenty of time, it's run out.

The actual issue was the 10Mb/half-duplex Ethernet port.

Yes, really.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by horseman

Since you didn't state the Ambit model (whereas I did) and I'm not clairvoyant then my statement still standards - particularly as you're now referring to a wireless router and not a wireless modem (the latter implying a combination CM/Router ala SuperHub)?
Not clear either since you transpose terminology whether this was additional to Ambit 256 or a trial replacement?

I suspect it was the regular Virgin Media "hub" before the Superhub was a thing:



This thing made the Superhub look like enterprise-grade equipment. It had every downside the Superhub ever had, no-gigabit ethernet, worse wireless performance and was only DOCSIS 2. Not an ambit though, I believe it was netgear.

It was shortlived.

[jb66]

Originally Posted by Kushan

I suspect it was the regular Virgin Media "hub" before the Superhub was a thing:



This thing made the Superhub look like enterprise-grade equipment. It had every downside the Superhub ever had, no-gigabit ethernet, worse wireless performance and was only DOCSIS 2. Not an ambit though, I believe it was netgear.

It was shortlived.

Least the wifi was stable on this, the sh1 was so painfull i used to put it in modem mode and install dlinks