SharknAT&To: Vulnerabilities in AT&T U-verse modems

Re:SharknAT&To: Vulnerabilities in AT&T U-verse modems by tbrock on Monday September 04, 2017 @02:36AM (#15166183)

Wait, why? I never understood why people with ultrafast connections care so much about this. It's not like you are doing anything that remotely uses 100% of that speed most of the time.

If I had even close to a 1Gb symmetric link I wouldn't care too much if I lost a couple megabits here or there (especially in the name of security or privacy). If I had a 30mbit link that only had 1mbit uplink I'd be upset not to use the whole tube but complaining about 980mbits vs 1000 is just a waste of time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SharknAT&To: Vulnerabilities in AT&T U-verse modems by wil421 on Monday September 04, 2017 @01:35PM (#15169652)

Simply for the fact that I pay for 1Gb symmetrical and I want the speed which is closer to something like 930mbits. If a lose a hundred or more just to use my own hardware then I'm going to be upset.

I'll do some tests myself. To see what the bandwidth lose is once I get an EdgeRouter.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SharknAT&To: Vulnerabilities in AT&T U-verse modems by chrissnell on Wednesday September 06, 2017 @02:10PM (#15185812)

I do 960-980 easily in DMZ Plus mode.

[ Parent | on HN ]