IDNet customer reports 2700HGV updated to BT V6 firmware

[JB]

On the 'tripod' site http://bt2700hgv.tripod.com/ir1002700HGV.htm#Setting%20up%20the%202700HGV%20(BT%20firmware%20v6.x)
an IDNet user reports that his 2700HGV has been updated to V6 on line.

Looks like we are not exempt from this. 

[Rik]

Deep joy.

[Simon]

I'm hoping that unticking that remove access box might block the update, but I have my old Netgear out in case of emergency.

[Simon]

Sorry, that should be remote access.

[Rik]

Though removing access would work too.

[kinmel]

We will soon have a resident V6 expert then 

[Simon]

If they're a member, I'm suprised they haven't reported here already.

[Steve]

I am tempted to hook mine back up for the night time just to see what happens.

[Glenn]

It wasn't me, I flashed mine to 107.12 last night 

[Simon]

Might be a silly question, but how does BT find these routers to implement the upgrades, if they're not on BT's networks?  I thought we'd effectively made them invisible to BT.

[Rik]

Apparently, we haven't. I can't believe BT would scan every internet connection looking for a 2700, it has to be working the other way round.

[Sebby]

[kinmel]

Might be a silly question, but how does BT find these routers to implement the upgrades, if they're not on BT's networks?  I thought we'd effectively made them invisible to BT.

DNS poisoning has never worked, the router itself ignores your DNS routing changes. 

Apparently, we haven't. I can't believe BT would scan every internet connection looking for a 2700, it has to be working the other way round.

Any router whose logs show that it polls pbthdm.bt.motive.com and/or pbthdm2.bt.motive.com is constantly shouting "Here I am"  to the update servers.

Earlier firmwares poll the dis-used server https://cwmp.cms.smehomehubrms.bt.com instead and so will avoid the update at the present time.

[Rik]

So we've been fooling ourselves all this time about DNS poisoning, Alan?

[kinmel]

So we've been fooling ourselves all this time about DNS poisoning, Alan?

No, I changed our Guides a long time ago to remove reference to DNS poisoning, because we know it is not effective

[Rik]

Shows that I only edit them, not read them. 

[kinmel]

Shows that I only edit them, not read them. 

[Sebby]

Shows that I only edit them, not read them. 

Busted.

[Glenn]

Proof reading - that's for someone else to do

[Rik]

I know Alan has already done it.

[Sebby]

[kinmel]

I know Alan has already done it.

The money is too good to let anyone else in in on the act 

[Simon]

Earlier firmwares poll the dis-used server https://cwmp.cms.smehomehubrms.bt.com instead and so will avoid the update at the present time.

That's what mine shows, so I guess I'm safe for now.

[LesD]

Earlier firmwares poll the dis-used server https://cwmp.cms.smehomehubrms.bt.com instead and so will avoid the update at the present time.

Phew, me too Simon! This is what I see in my Detailed log:

INF  2009-03-09T16:31:44Z  cwmd:  retried session started, server: 'https://cwmp.cms.smehomehubrms.bt.com', event code(s): '0 BOOTSTRAP'

[LesD]

Sorry, that should be remote access.

Where is this tick box?

I only one I can find that is anything like this description is under:

Firewall – Advanced Settings
Inbound and Outbound Control
Inbound
Remote Management     (not remote access)

Could this be it?  Mine 2700 is a single SSID one.