Opting Out Of Cisco Connect Cloud

[sfx2000]

CCC does provide added value. Not everyone can implement remote access. And that is just a basic feature of CCC.

I've seen a lot of attempts to incorporate add-on features (mostly parental controls) in consumer routers. Most have been junk and eventually abandoned. Cisco's is the first to be open to developers and provide a platform that has a future.

There are many other cloud / hybrid cloud services that look at user data: PogoPlug, Dropbox, WD2go, many (most?) ISPs, every cell carrier and, of course, Google.

The potential for abuse is far greater with ISPs, Google and cell carriers than with Cisco.

I think the big deal here is that customers did not opt-in, but that it was forced down their throats without their knowledge via a backdoor managed by Cisco... Cisco pushed the update out to the routers without their permission and knowledge.

In my current world of big iron, it would be completely unacceptable - I'm curious though, how many of those backdoor upgrades when bad - and more importantly, did customers even know that there was a backdoor into the gear that they purchased - the security implications here are significant....

 

[stevech]

I think the big deal here is that customers did not opt-in, but that it was forced down their throats without their knowledge via a backdoor managed by Cisco... Cisco pushed the update out to the routers without their permission and knowledge.

In my current world of big iron, it would be completely unacceptable - I'm curious though, how many of those backdoor upgrades when bad - and more importantly, did customers even know that there was a backdoor into the gear that they purchased - the security implications here are significant....

I agree. Probably 90% of their customers are unaware.
I find the covertly snooping router product a clear invasion of privacy illegality in that it was pushed out with no informed buyer decision. If I don't like Google's policies, I know they are doing it and I can opt out at no cost. Not so with Cisco/Linksys' dirty trick.

This all smells like what the auto insurance companies are doing beginning now, and to complete in a couple of years: Logging of your ODB port data + GPS.
Pay more based on THEIR criteria on driving habits
Pay more based on when and where you go ("road tax" it is called in the UK)
Guilt assignment in THEIR opinion in an accident.

At least Obama isn't mandating these be in new cars. yet.

 

[thiggins]

I think the whole uproar would have been minimal if they had simply...

- left the existing local admin system intact
- added a link (within the local admin interface) to enable CC for those who want to be able to remotely control/monitor their router (without disabling local admin )

Well said. I think that is a good summary.

 

[tipstir]

This was a forced on us with the EA series.. What they need to do is give us a choice not to use CCC or leaved it the consumer to manage the it. I don't think Cisco needs to be paying individual or have servers monitoring everyone surfing habits online. Then use that data to figure out how to make more money from us by creating better routers that don't over heat and other things they haven't fixed yet.

 

[stevech]

Like Apple, Cisco's corporate culture is: We Know What's Best For You

 

[thexile]

I shall boycott Cisco forever.

 

[tipstir]

Well my invest of $180 (mid 2012) + $130 E4200 (late 2011) = $360 into Cisco not adding the two additional RE1000V1 and 2x mini switches would make it $580. So opt out for me will be just used E4200V1 and EA4500V1 as APN for now along with the 2x RE1000V1 if I need them. I haven't done a full site survey sweep it. Main router is now based on enterprise type. But in all I've reflash the EA4500V1 to remove the CCC non-sense tracking. The process of flashing might make some get nervous because the router just sits there and flashes at you. You have to do a hard reset to get out of that stuck mode.

CCC seems to still come back up though. But you don't need to enter two passwords to get int. I'll be looking at that Enterprise 4T 4R Wireless APN from Zyex. Pricey though..I'll wait for the Cisco to fail on me but might not now since they're not doing heavy duty router, switching and APN. Just APN only..

 

[GHope]

But other than looking after friends and family, why?

The whole point for me is security.

Why would I put my firewall in control of an external, obvious to attack, entity?

I can control my current linksys firewall from my iPad via safari, not wildly pretty, but functional.

Now they want me to put my firewall control on the net with millions of other customers able to be hacked under one single system.

And I cannot see what the win is. I don't want to play with my firewall when I am out and about.

Sell me n the win

 

[Osamede]

Opting Out Of Cisco Cloud Connect

I'm puzzled by all the negative reaction around this. Cisco was very clear about the features and product positioning of its EA series app-enabled routers when they announced the product.

I agree that they could have handled the auto-upgrade better. But isn't anyone interested in even looking at the new features that come along with Cisco Connect Cloud (CCC)?

So let me get this straight Tim: if I get caught with my hand your pocket, you'd still be happy to deal with me, as long as I had some shiny do-dads to distract you with?

A weasel is a weasel, even when exposed. Cisco are only sorry they got forced to stop this nonsense - but they are not sorry that they did what they did.

Anyone would be foolish to trust Cisco, because such behaviour stems from deep dysfunction in the culture of a company. This sort of culture does not change merely because their PR department issued some empty words. In fact, it probably will never change short of some major house-cleaning, starting right from the board room on down to the factory floor.

Personally I'm also shocked by the cavalier way in which your publication regards customer privacy and attempts to lead people to trust a company that deserves none, based on its behaviour.

Frankly, that has me asking questions about who SNB.com really serves - and whether I can actually trust the product reviews and opinions of this website. I don't exactly get the sense than the end-user is priority #1 from what I see right here.

 

[stevech]

Tim's comments are erudite IF, (Repeat, IF) you are in the biz.
Spend a few minutes in the WiFi isle of Best Buy or Fry's and listen to what the sales people tell customers. Not always, but usually, minimum-wage sales guys just make up stuff 'cause they don't know.

And Cisco/Linksys knows this well.

 

[sfx2000]

The whole point for me is security.

Why would I put my firewall in control of an external, obvious to attack, entity?

I can control my current linksys firewall from my iPad via safari, not wildly pretty, but functional.

Now they want me to put my firewall control on the net with millions of other customers able to be hacked under one single system.

And I cannot see what the win is. I don't want to play with my firewall when I am out and about.

Sell me n the win

Bet most folks didn't know there was a back door so that Cisco/Linksys could in fact push that update out...

That is the real security concern...

 

[tipstir]

It's just business as usually with CISCO they force too many companies to deal with them or otherwise loose out. Nortel is another one. But in all CISCO can do what they want to the public, but you can pass-up their products is the only way they'll know not to do this again. Take hit on their stocks prices will make them wake up.

EA4500 now my primary APN even with the E4200V2 Firmware it still tries to load that CCC up but it can't since there is no WAN connection just the LAN. So there is only limited Router Access with your password. E4200V1 don't have these issues as that one is use as my secondary APN.

 

[thiggins]

Bet most folks didn't know there was a back door so that Cisco/Linksys could in fact push that update out...

Then there is a "security concern" for every ISP-provided modem. I am sure you have heard of TR-069, which you can't shut off.

 

[sfx2000]

Then there is a "security concern" for every ISP-provided modem. I am sure you have heard of TR-069, which you can't shut off.

CPE directly attached to the provider's network, the ISP has access for network and SW configuration management, and you agree to that when you sign the contract service. In any event, that demarcation stops on their side of the WAN...

TR-069 is for DSL, and DOCSIS provides the same management plane for cable modems. Even if you own the CPE, the ISP can, and often does, manage the CPE connecting to their network.

It's really no different that what folks have with their cell phone - you enter into a contract, they have the option to manage that device for OTA device configuration and management - OTASP/OTAPA in CDMA space, for SIM on GSM/3G you have management interfaces as well, and above that you have OMA-DM. The provider states that to support the device on their network, you agree to allow them to manage certain functions. Thing is, the provider manages those functions.

Even Apple, with their IOS platform - they don't monitor what you do and turn you off... Google doesn't do this either...

The issue with the Cisco/Linksys mess - people didn't sign a contract with Cisco, and Cisco is not their provider. Further more, Cisco flat out stated that if they found certain content objectionable, and this was outside of their ISP agreement, that they could turn it off - boggles the mind there - most folks would say, who are they to say what is even objectionable - for the sake of debate, I'll drop the Nazi bomb now... where does it stop? Cisco stated that it was a mistake, but only because folks complained... but Cisco reserves the right to reimplement the content "filtering" whenever, which could be right after they apologized (with fingers crossed behind their back).

Cisco Cloud Connect - it might work in China perhaps if Cisco signed an agreement with the gov't there - I think Syria at the moment would appreciate that as well, perhaps also Iran, or another other country that likes to monitor what people can and cannot do. Cisco has the technology...

Most consumers didn't even realize that Cisco was getting into this business when they bought their gear.

Cisco crossed the line... that's why I'm pretty pissed off about this.

Tim - I'm not sure why you're such a big fan of this service that Cisco is providing...

I'm a bit puzzled here, as I thought you might see things in a similar light. Perhaps I was wrong...

 

[sfx2000]

It's just business as usually with CISCO they force too many companies to deal with them or otherwise loose out. Nortel is another one. But in all CISCO can do what they want to the public, but you can pass-up their products is the only way they'll know not to do this again. Take hit on their stocks prices will make them wake up.

Cisco is not a lock - enterprise and the carrier business sectors, it's a competitive landscape, and I've taken my new business elsewhere.

Funny how things roll downhill...

 

[stevech]

Were it not for Cisco's effective monopoly, things would be better. The began well, then, as happens too often, they imploded due to their mass.

In the 80's computer systems managers' creed was "No one ever got fired for buying IBM (mainframes)".
Today, that weasel manager creed is, well, you know.

 

[tipstir]

Cisco is not a lock - enterprise and the carrier business sectors, it's a competitive landscape, and I've taken my new business elsewhere.

Funny how things roll downhill...

CISCO Corp sales management might want you to think otherwise. I do like to see what other vendors have to peddle at us. Nortel and TYCO (TE Connectivity) for examples.

 

[tipstir]

The below link takes you to Cisco forums now there is a link on that forum thread for the prior firmware which doesn't have CCC on it. Because last week when I used the one on CISCO site all it did was allow me to not go to the CCC but yet the CCC code was still present. Thus making it hard to get into the router to change it's internal settings without using E4200V2 firmware to do it. Now it's shows EA4500 2.0.37 build 131047 2012-03-22 04:24 Just like when I had purchased the EA4500 mid 2012.

I did this over the network but move the firmware to my temp folder on C: then pushed over the network to the EA4500. It worked. So I was able to get in and disable some features I couldn't get to with the CCC code blocking me. Now the EA4500 operating in WNAP mode works better.

Here's the link to the CISCO forum thread about this firmware..

http://homecommunity.cisco.com/t5/W...sable-Cisco-Connect-Cloud/td-p/536032/page/27

 

[Osamede]

Recent events made me think of this thread. With the revelation that all these companies are basically in the pocket of the NSA, no wonder they wanted to track even the router traffic inside your own home. Wow....

 

[stevech]

Recent events made me think of this thread. With the revelation that all these companies are basically in the pocket of the NSA, no wonder they wanted to track even the router traffic inside your own home. Wow....

Not that it would matter, but I don't at all agree.