NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Mousefinger
Aug 17, 2021Aspirant
GS116eV2 hardware info needed
Dear community, currently I am trying to fix a broken GS116eV2 and am having trouble getting the technical data I need to analyze the fault more closely. I bought it used so I have no purchase receipt...
- Aug 20, 2021
The SerComm situation does describe things well: Brands like Netgear (and many others, including the big enterprise names - I've fought with Cisco regarding some WAP and SMB routers [lol] back long before the SerComm backdoor vulnerability became public) don't "own" the the internal hardware design for products typically offered in the consumer to small business market. Product differentiation is done by features, enclosures, ports, .... Typical ODM business. Many switch models from different brands are coming from one source, are built on very similar platforms. Many similar models show even the same keywords in the WebUI URLs. So not owning the rights on the hardware design, not even having access to internal design information makes it difficult to help us out here. You realize: I'm not Netgear.
Mousefinger
Aug 20, 2021Aspirant
Does ignoring suspicious activity on port 32764 for 11 (ELEVEN) years, and then hiding it instead of closing it sound familiar to you? If not, it might be interesting to read up on it. Granted, others were also bitten by that SerComm backdoor. Still, only Netgear has (to my knowledge anyway) had reports on it on their forums but chose to ignore them. https://web.archive.org/web/20140424094025/http://www.netgear-forum.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6192 This ties in with the subject in so far that failing to disclose even the most trivial bits of information doesn't create additional trust. Maybe it's laundry talk to you, and maybe it really is, but let's just say I continue to not be impressed. I don't suppose you truly do need me to explain to you the difference between an internet router and an internal switch, security-wise, yes? Given that the switch also does allow turning off the (now deprecated) management protocol, it should be as secure as a web-administered switch gets (assuming one is using https and restricts management to certain ports). Yes, Network pros usually have support contracts, indeed. And they indeed use Cisco, or maybe HP (formerly 3Com), at least where I have had the opportunity of talking to them. Thus, obviously, they would not bother with low-level maintenance unless it's ancient equipment. Which the GS is not, meaning that I am not a networking pro, nor do I consider myself one (in case you were trying to imply that I did). So, maybe that is the reason why I am not seeing the rationale behind not sharing this info? Would there be additional legal issues Netgear would have to face if they did tell? I know that some court rulings tend to be, mildly spoken, "quite interesting", so maybe that is a problem? Anyway, the function of the IAE JJ will be immediately apparent upon seeing it's surrounding configuration on the actual PCB if you know your way around electronics - and from what you write, you may be well ahead of me. :) So there's no need to worry. OK, OK, not telling is childish, so here goes: it's one of the two switching regulators, namely the one providing the 3.3V for the external I/Os of CPU and PHYs. And, sadly, it's not the source of my problems, as that voltage is stable. The other voltage is the problematic one: the one coming from U11, named "ABF J08 375". Still, that regulator itself is not necessarily faulty since 1.2V are common and the voltage looks reasonable, except for the aforementioned periodic drops. Normally, I wouldn't consider 100mV drop to be an issue, but with only 1.2V to begin, that is nearly a 10% drop. And then there is the issue that 1.8V is another common voltage for that exact purpose, so there are two things that I cannot know, but Netgear could easily tell. Maybe you can see where my frustration comes from?
schumaku
Aug 20, 2021Guru - Experienced User
The SerComm situation does describe things well: Brands like Netgear (and many others, including the big enterprise names - I've fought with Cisco regarding some WAP and SMB routers [lol] back long before the SerComm backdoor vulnerability became public) don't "own" the the internal hardware design for products typically offered in the consumer to small business market. Product differentiation is done by features, enclosures, ports, .... Typical ODM business. Many switch models from different brands are coming from one source, are built on very similar platforms. Many similar models show even the same keywords in the WebUI URLs. So not owning the rights on the hardware design, not even having access to internal design information makes it difficult to help us out here. You realize: I'm not Netgear.
Related Content
NETGEAR Academy
Boost your skills with the Netgear Academy - Get trained, certified and stay ahead with the latest Netgear technology!
Join Us!