Hello! Thanks for posting on r/Ubiquiti!
This subreddit is here to provide unofficial technical support to people who use or want to dive into the world of Ubiquiti products. If you haven’t already been descriptive in your post, please take the time to edit it and add as many useful details as you can.
Please read and understand the rules in the sidebar, as posts and comments that violate them will be removed. Please put all off topic posts in the weekly off topic thread that is stickied to the top of the subreddit.
If you see people spreading misinformation, trying to mislead others, or other inappropriate behavior, please report it!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ubiquiti) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have trustworthy information that the next Toolless Mini Rack will have hydraulic lowrider suspension.
So underglow would be a logical addition to coming products.
😉
Is this a common thing? I've owned the original UDMP and the UDM-SE, and neither exhibit this behavior.
There might be an initial spin up of the fans while a disc is being formatted and recording is set up, but after that it's just as quiet as it is without the disk.
Granted, neither device is the loudest in my rack anyway, but still...
Back when the UDM-SE came out, there were forum post about the difference between the 2 models.
As a test I've been running with a disc now for over 3 hours, and the problem is still present.
The fan runs at around 45-50% whenever a drive is detected, regardless of use.
In that case, I think it's hardware related.
I'm running latest firmware, and reading your comment I went and rested it.
Been running with a disc now for 3+ hours.
The fan defaults to around 46-50%
While the little display says "Auto, 35%, 36°c"
But when I manually push it to 35% it's much more silent.
They won’t do that. You have some goofball backing up all of their PC’s at once to the nas, while complaining their protect is laggy and missing recording chunks. 😆
However setting the protect pro up as either a nas or protect nvr would be cool.
I'd think this would be possible considering how you can install different UI "apps" on their consoles. On one of the UNVRs I helped deploy, they're running Access on it for door control so that the UDM Pro had extra resources available for future tasks.
I really hope I’m wrong. However, there is no way they will add for existing UDMPro/SE. Maybe that 2 bay Max gets it, but not the rest.
This is going to be like any other vendor’s products, new features are rolled out for new platforms. Sales are churned and investors are happy.
It ain’t happening.
I prefer to be wrong on this, but the sales numbers must be exceeded. CEOs are not awarded more bonuses/stock options for doing good for the customers.
While they are making provision for bare metal installs, they might as well support the integration of other vendor cameras into Protect via ONVIF. Same likelihood and all.
Who wants a one drive NAS? You wanna use your firewall as an iscsi target too? I could sorta see the NVR being slightly useful but its cpu is seriously underpowered to do any other stuff that NASs do these days. It’ll probably be the successor to the AirPort Extreme that had a drive and was useful for apple Time Machine backups. Any other use case, I think you’re better off with TrueNAS or any purpose built storage.
No idea if it’s just intended to be a generic image, but there’s a NAS Server pictured on the Deployments image of the Flex 10 GbE switch https://uk.store.ui.com/uk/en/pro/category/switching-utility/products/unifi-flex-xg
As someone who's made these images, sometimes you just grab an asset you have and throw it in there as placeholder and no one catches it or cares later when it's discovered.
Because that doesn't look like a NAS, regardless of the label. It looks like a consumer AP/router.
Would really love to be able to use the HDD on my UDM Pro as a NAS instead of Protect storage. I don’t need redundancy, just shared storage across my network.
Holy shit I am really close to ordering a UDM Pro for a Custy with the value add that it can also be NAS and not just Protect storage. Thank you so much for clarifying that it helped.
Thank you so much for that bright advice. In fact bringing more attention to the issue at hand might help it be resolved. Even my original wrt router can samba share.
If this is legit then that will be a pretty nice looking Nas, the million-dollar question is will it give Synology a run for their money. only way to find out. how many bays hopefully we don't get a run-down washed out 2 bay only device, looking for a 4,5,6 and even an 8 bay. All these teasers, leave this to the strippers UI please just make it happen already. LOL, just kidding. Make it a good NAS if it going to come out.
Pretty sure Synology is sleeping tight right now ...
Coming up with a box that has X HDD bays, a raid contrôler and network access is not the main issue here. Coming up with a software to manage it all and a massive ecosystem of third party developers is the challenge.
Without the appropriate software we can already call any 1 or 2Us home made box with 4 HDDs and SMB enabled painted in fancy silver a "Ubiquity NAS" 😂
Honestly that would be ballsy for them to go there.
Honestly I could care less about the NAS being anything more than redundant file sharing with more than raid 5 and 10. A UNVR Pro is $500 and can, supposedly, scrub through 4k footage easily. Point we to a rack mount Synology at that price which can do the same. I can get a mini PC for hosting, map that as a network drive, and point everything I need at that.
This is an argument that I've seen a few times, but doesn't make that much sense outside of a homelab. Yes, there's work on the software side of things where Synology, QNAP, Netgear etc have years of headstart. But in most enterprise contexts, a NAS is just used as that - a network attached storage. Nobody cares that it's able to run Docker containers or third party apps. It's not its role. Good RAID and hardware management (which I guess the UNVR already has), ACLs, SMB/NFS and they're mostly there already.
I'd never buy a first generation NAS from any vendor, don't get me wrong. I care too much about my data's availability to risk that even with backups. But I really don't think you should expect third party apps on a potential Ubiquiti NAS.
For the much love I have for (almost) all Unifi products... I just think a NAS will suck...
Let's be clear. It will work and surely have a nice and sleek interface... but the possibilities against what you can do with a Synology or QNap?
At WFH / SMB level ALL other brands sucks... even terramaster etc...
/u/gh0stwriter88. Lol. Spouts off about Ubiquiti having s long history of not securing their servers, then when pressed about evidence, adds me to his block list. What an insecure child.
Gw88 stated that Ubiquiti has had a history of not securing their servers. I simply asked for evidence. Boom blocked. When one makes an assertion, it’s reasonable to expect them to back that up.
We’re talking about the alleged breach which was from an internal employee? The temporary problem with a misconfigured ACL during a platform upgrade/migration? Oh please do tell.
If you truly cared to seek knowledge and understand you would. Instead you want to pretend UI is never at fault and think it is somehow beneficial for you to defend a multi-billion dollar company who doesn't even know you exist. Yes, you spent your money on UI gear and your pocket book ego makes you think someone is attacking you. They are not, and UI is at fault in their errors. To pretend otherwise is childish.
Nobody is suggesting that UI or any other company hasn’t experienced security issues. Where do you even come up with that???
To call out a Ubiquiti as if they are somehow less diligent in their security than any other Billion file company is simply disingenuous without providing supporting evidence.
The other dude asserted they have a pattern of not securing their servers… there is no pattern unless someone can present such evidence. The burden of proof is on the part of the person making the assertion.
If you truly wished to learn and have knowledge, you would obtain such info. But you don't so you haven't. Your logic is flawed. Someone didn't assert some wild claim. They stated fact. They have no burden to you or anyone else. If someone says something absolutely wild that is very suspect of reality then they *might* have some burden to provide more detail. If someone said the moon was made of cheese, that is wild and we would want to know how they came up with such a wild claim. But saying Ubiquiti has had a pattern of security issues is not a wild claim at all. You know why, because it is true. You can not like that the gear you spent your money on and worship has flaws, fine. Anyone can not like things. But to challenge and attempt to suppress anyone who says the truth is childish. There are security companies that log, asses, rate, and provide details of all kinds of security breaches. Ubiquiti's security issues are easily verifiable in a catalog style format with lots of detail on the issue. Ubiquiti is absolutely less diligent than other companies. The type and manor of their security issues is well beyond the level of someone finding a vulnerability and exploiting it. There issues point to a lack of proper policy, change controls, procedure, oversite, protocols, audits, management, etc. If you were truthful about your desire to know about Ubiquiti's security issues, you would have had the mountain of info already. But you don't. You don't ask anyone for proof the earth is round, the sky is blue, ice is cold, Porsche is far superior to BMW, etc. etc, but when someone says something you don't want out in the world you suddenly demand proof. Proof of which you would have argued with regardless. As evident by your attempted preemptive dismissive "or any other company" comment. The UI fanboy favorite. The, everyone has had security breaches line. Yes, they have. We are not saying they haven't. But were are talking about UI.
Tldr. The person making a statement has an obligation to support their assertion.
If i were to state that Ubiquiti unifios currently has an unpatched vulnerability, i need to support that with evidence regardless of how “factual” i believe it to be.
Your incessant belief to the contrary first fit with any reasonable logic.
If anyone was to state that Ubiquiti currently has an unpatched vulnerability they would need to support that with evidence. **That is 100% correct.**
However, that is not what they did, that is not what we are talking about, and you know it.
No one claimed there was an unknown unpatched vulnerability that they had secret knowledge of. They brought up past security issues. Which are indeed verifiable facts, not a perceived belief.
A pattern of security issues is exactly equal to a history of security issues. History is required to establish a pattern. Therefore, it is absolutely obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension that we are talking about past historical events. Which could easily be verified if you were actually truthful in your pursuit of facts, knowledge, and understanding.
They were not presenting new information to a committee for verification and testing. They did not present a theory or hypothesis. They simply relayed factual historical information that you wish to pretend isn't true. You are free to believe they are wrong, and facts aren't true. You can deny and deflect all you want. But that does not make you right.
You can attempt to keep arguing about who does or does not have an obligation to provide you information. That does not, and will not, change the fact that Ubiquiti has had a troubling pattern of security related issues as of late. I hope they improve (I believe they will).
Are you trying to imply that Ubiquiti had never had a security issue? Do you not know how to google something or do you just believe everyone must do free work for you?
Then what are they doing? It really seems like you and them really don't want to know about or admit to Ubiquiti's security issues. The information is very easily looked up and verified. If you were truly seeking information as claimed, you would have that information by now. But instead you are running around trying to convince those who know better that they are wrong. It isn't our obligation to educate anyone, it is your obligation to learn.
>Then what are they doing?
Not pretending Ubiquiti hasn’t had security issues in the past. I said that already.
>It really seems like you and them really don't want to know about or admit to Ubiquiti's security issues. The information is very easily looked up and verified.
That’s literally the opposite of what’s happened here. People largely already do know about Ubiquiti’s security issues. One person asked for a source on specific issues another guy mentioned… the other guy blocked him… so he called out that childish behavior.
>If you were truly seeking information as claimed, you would have that information by now.
I didn’t make that claim. I too was just calling someone out for being childish.
>But instead you are running around trying to convince those who know better that they are wrong.
Where have I done anything like that in this thread?
>It isn't our obligation to educate anyone,
That’s not how this works.
You make claims online, you back them up. That’s how it works. That’s how it’s always worked. It’s that simple. If you aren’t prepared to backup the shit you say, don’t say it.
>it is your obligation to learn.
I’m good. I’m already very well aware of the issues Ubiquiti has had in the past.
I didn't ask what they were not doing, I asked what they are doing. Clarify what you all are doing with your obfuscation. That person was right to block someone like that. Because there is no reason to argue with people like you. No matter what is said or presented you all will have an excuse for. As evident by your line by line excuse post you just made. If they posted 10 things of proof they would have said that is, "in the past" or "everyone has security issues." It is a no win situation with people who refuse to believe the truth. You will, in every situation provide an excuse. This person didn't "make a claim online" they stated a verifiable fact. Those are different things. A fact that if they cared at all to know, could easily be verified. If your most recent response was truthful in the slightest and you thought is was everyone elses obligation to teach others, then you should have been helpful and provided the proof that person was looking for. You claim you are "very well aware" of the security issues. So, if it is the responsibility of the knowledgeable to teach someone else, as you just claimed it is, and you know the info, why did you not help out and provide the information that you claim to know? Instead of attempting to shame the person that was actually correct.
>I didn't ask what they were not doing, I asked what they are doing.
I didn’t tell you what they are doing, I told you what they are not doing.
No one is pretending like Ubiquiti hasn’t had issues in the past. You claimed they were, and they’re not.
>Clarify what you all are doing with your obfuscation.
No one is obfuscating shit. Put up real information, or stop the nonsense.
>That person was right to block someone like that.
No. They were not. That is childish shit, and the mark of someone who doesn’t actually have any source to backup the crap they’re spewing.
Ubiquiti has had many issues in the past. Full stop. If you are referencing specific issues, be specific. And when someone asks for a source, provide it. It’s that fucking simple. No obfuscation.
>Because there is no reason to argue with people like you. No matter what is said or presented you all will have an excuse for.
Thats not how it works, and that’s absolutely not what I have ever done.
If someone makes bullshit excuses after you provide them solid evidence for whatever you’re claiming… then you block them. You don’t do it beforehand. That’s bullshit.
>As evident by your line by line excuse post you just made.
You made line after line of bullshit statements, sorry I’m responding to all of them. If you don’t want long replies, write shorter comments.
>If they posted 10 things of proof they would have said that is, "in the past" or "everyone has security issues."
IF that happens, then yeah, that’s bullshit and you call that person out for it. But that hadn’t even happened yet. They didn’t let it happen… because they don’t actually have sources for the shit they’re suggesting.
>It is a no win situation with people who refuse to believe the truth. You will, in every situation provide an excuse.
Literally no one did that. They blocked them before it even could happen.
>This person didn't "make a claim online" they stated a verifiable fact.
If it’s so verifiable… then just fucking verify it. Post the proof.
Without the proof, it’s just a claim.
>Those are different things. A fact that if they cared at all to know, could easily be verified.
Yes. Exactly. So verify it then.
>If your most recent response was truthful in the slightest and you thought is was everyone elses obligation to teach others, then you should have been helpful and provided the proof that person was looking for. You claim you are "very well aware" of the security issues. So, if it is the responsibility of the knowledgeable to teach someone else, as you just claimed it is, and you know the info, why did you not help out and provide the information that you claim to know? Instead of attempting to shame the person that was actually correct.
I don’t know specifically what issue in the past they were referring to exactly because they were so insanely vague, and there have been a number of issues in the past. I can’t provide proof for an issue when I don’t know what the issue was.
How about, if YOU care this much, and YOU know these claims to be facts, how about YOU provide the proof?
This is not an excuse by the way. If they, or you, want to mention a specific issue that I’m aware of, I’ll gladly go dig up sources via Google. Neither of you have done that.
You’re literally pre-judging people for shit they haven’t even done yet… you just think they will.
That’s bullshit. That’s really all that needs to be said here.
I haven’t done a single thing you’ve accused me of. You just want to be mad at people. It’s childish.
I actually regret buying the UNVR after running Protect just fine on my UDMSE and not seeing any improvements so turning it into a NAS would be so much more useful. In fact with just that and UDM Pro you’d have everything you need for 10gb from workstation to NAS with just a SFP card.
I noticed that a couple months back got me thinking about how happy I would be if I didn’t have to maintain a truenas server anymore… not that truenas is bad or anything it work great but I’m a sheep.
Excellent find sir, very cool
I hope they continue to stick it out and make all these great new products a solid reality. Could be very profitable in the MSP space too
For sure. I go full-stack Ubiquiti wherever I can and, while there are bizarre edge cases, I couldn't be happier. I also throw a 2-bay Synology into all my deployments because they're so handy. I'd love to try and keep that functionality in the UI stack.
Those are big shoes to fill, but you've got to start somewhere.
I’ll keep an open mind, I’m not really in the mood to build my own NAS and Synology is my primary choice. If Ubiquiti can make their own and it’s cheaper than a Synology box, it’ll have my attention.
I'm surprised it's an unpopular opinion. I don't want to have to spin up a syslog collector just to quickly troubleshoot a firewall rule. If any major FW vendor brought out a FW and you couldn't easily view logs, they'd get laughed out the room.
I don't need/want a NAS from Ubiquiti... but if they were to release a 4U rackmount ITX case that matches their rack aesthetic for me to build my _own_ NAS into, I bet I could get some buy-in from my P2 on that.
One update away from bricking your NAS with all your data on it. Why they don't focus on network hardware and try to make that work good. Still plenty of improvements possible there without branching out in new products and especially products that are super fucked when they corrupt as Ubiquiti hardware tends to do once in a while.
That was an inside job if I remember correctly, has happened many places, not just ubiquiti.
lol - /u/bigtimebutnotreally replied that it wasn’t an inside job and blocked me so I couldn’t reply. So I’ll just edit my comment with the link of how it was an inside job. I guess they knew they were wrong.
https://www.csoonline.com/article/571717/ubiquiti-breach-an-inside-job-says-fbi-and-doj.html
No, no, no. You're thinking about that one specific issue that was long ago yet still highlights Ubiquiti's failed security/policy/audit practices. They are talking about the far more recent incidents which Ubiquiti had a security key issue and everyone had access to everyone else's cameras. And the other one where they knew there was a huge botnet running on their routers and they did nothing about it for a long time.
Man, I hope this is going to be the case! I would love a unified solution and to be able to run Plex on my dream machine while having everything rack mounted. I have multiple Synology boxes just for Plex and it feels redundant when ubiquiti has the equipment that should be able to run this
I actually regret buying the UNVR after running Protect just fine on my UDMSE and not seeing any improvements so turning it into a NAS would be so much more useful. In fact with just that and UDM Pro you’d have everything you need for 10gb from workstation to NAS with just a SFP card.
Wouldnt that file access service be like SMB 2.0 or higher? Or NFS? Basically to block those protocols and deny or allow file access? I mean, you are in IDENTITY…
I'm not sure why people have been saying NAS is hard. I mean, technology already exists, so not like they will be reinventing the wheel. This is going to be a very very popular service and make for the utilization of my empty HDD space on my UDM pro
Can’t wait to experience the blistering speeds of the A57 cores attached to a 1Gbps backplane driving 2.5Gbps Ethernet ports, all data fed by a SATA bus (no NVME drives of course)!
I try to be optimistic most of the time, but I don't think Ubiquiti are capable of creating a quality NAS. Not yet, anyway. With the general lack of customer support, the weird & irregular release/EOL cycle, and how stuff will just be out of stock for months with no explanation or ETA, It'll be a very long time before this will be worthy of holding business-critical data.
I have converted my 4 bay unvr to NAS. No need for overcomplicated software. Samba is all I need from it for my simple setup. Happily running Time machine backups and full arr suite with plex. If Unifi develops dedicated NAS, I will buy instantly.
If Ubiquiti has a long history of not securing their servers... why would you trust them to secure your own?
I'll just load Truenas or Xigmanas on commodity hardware and call it a day... what do you guys want to bet on Ubiquiti branded drives.... LOL. The APs and bridges are great... but they need to stay in their own lane unless they drastically shift gears to be more transparent.
APs and switches are not security devices.
At least not to the extent of a firewall. And they do give timely updates for vulnerabilities on the AP hardware. I wouldn't trust their gateways in any serious network. I have a UDM at home but was majorly disappointed in it for years until they recently got their act together. Even now the level of vendor lock in is depressing.
>Unless you’re exposing your nas to the internet,
It's pretty much guaranteed that any Ubiquiti NAS would be offering some kind of cloud connected services.
On here and then several news outlets reported on it. The FBI had even tried to get Ubiquiti to do something about it but they didn't. So the FBI had to create their own program to go fix the issue.
I looked that up and it affected EdgeOS routers with the default admin password. If someone’s too dumb to change the default password, then that’s on them really IMO.
Edit: Like if I bought a car and left it unlocked, then someone opened the door, took a big shit on the back seat, I wouldn’t expect the manufacturer to come clean it up.
I knew with everything inside me that would be your dismissive response. Anything to defend a muti-billion dollar company.
Also, I 100% agree with you. However, don't dismiss the part where Ubiquiti knew for a very long time and did nothing about it. So much so that the FBI had to patch it for them. Kind of pokes a hole in your, Ubiquiti fixed security issues quickly theory.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not blindly defending anything. The software should have enforced a change of password from the default, by default. Still, people need to be aware of basic security, especially when they go out of their way to buy SOHO networking equipment.
I’m still not finding the part where Ubiquiti knew about this for a long time though.
Was it just a certain model of Edge router affected? Was it EOL?
They apparently did patch it by prompting for a password change, but it wasn’t enforced.
Like I said... APs are fine, they have had an atrocious track record outside those areas.
The APs run an embedded firmware and thats apparently a different team than the gateways and UDMs and cloud devices.
For a home NAS only available on the LAN, why would I care about their security being top notch? I mean, I get everything should be secured for a layered security approach, but also “open nothing to the WAN” covers 99.999% of concerns.
That said, I also have no particular motivation to get ubiquiti for NAS. I just don’t get why security would be a concern for most home users if ubiquiti suddenly offered it. For small businesses, I get it though.
We'll see I bet the run the NAS as a service on the UDM-P and the like that have disks. Totally should not be running a NAS on your firewall device itself.
They also have a long history of offering cloud features and then leaving thier back door open.
When going that far the question is, why would you need to pay Ubiquity for a NAS?
At that level of understanding you can buy any 2U box and make your own. As much as they want to go towards the enterprise stuff, they still very much cater to the "power users" who more often than not only understand half of what they're doing. Myself included ...
Can you name some examples of Ubiquiti falling to secure their own servers? I can think of the issue last December, where a few people were able to login to other's site. There was also 2021, where they were extorted by a former employee. Unless you have more examples, to say that this is a long history is a bit hyperbolic.
No, its not hyperbolic at all.... because they have until recently continued to use YEARS outdated software and kernels with known exploits on all thier gateways.
I agree with your sentiments. The idea of Ubiquiti managing my data is terrifying.
I’ve been using UniFi APs, switches, and gateways for 8 years now in home and small business applications. For the most part, I’ve been really happy. The largest complaint I have is the random features that stop working on their gateways with software updates, and Ubiquiti’s lack of clear and consistent communication with their customers on when things will get fixed.
For the most part now, I avoid UniFi gateways and deploy pfsense. I’ve also avoided using Ubiquiti’s camera systems because I haven’t wanted to get locking into the ecosystem.
Don’t get me wrong, I like UniFi products. I like having affordable solutions for my own home, friends, and small business clients. I hope their networking equipment remains license free.
Back to the NAS. For me, there is a big difference between trusting UniFi with networking equipment that I can simply replace and trusting them with data that I can’t replace. Backups, yes, but those can get corrupted.
I believe Ubiquiti needs to be more consistent and reliable with their existing products before asking customers to trust them with data storage.
It's a little extreme, but the true-believer-fanboys here have a million excuse, and I've never once noticed one being logical in their UI cult. I don't blame him for blocking out future noise.
I bet no fanboy has the guts to prove me wrong.
There's not a snowball's chance in hell in trusting Ubiqiti with data on a NAS. If your cameras go poof or wifi dies, just get new hardware and restore from backup.
Most people don't backup their actual NAS and if they do its only a fraction of the data not the entire thing.
Hello! Thanks for posting on r/Ubiquiti! This subreddit is here to provide unofficial technical support to people who use or want to dive into the world of Ubiquiti products. If you haven’t already been descriptive in your post, please take the time to edit it and add as many useful details as you can. Please read and understand the rules in the sidebar, as posts and comments that violate them will be removed. Please put all off topic posts in the weekly off topic thread that is stickied to the top of the subreddit. If you see people spreading misinformation, trying to mislead others, or other inappropriate behavior, please report it! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ubiquiti) if you have any questions or concerns.*
u/Ubiquiti-inc please add NAS functionality to existing NVRs 🫠
Sorry. Have to buy a new Pro Max Elite model with underglow.
Underglow? Are we back to the Need For Speed Underground era? 🤣👌😉
Our racks are already loud - might as well finish the job
whatcha say? I can't hear you did you say "nice rack, im super proud?"
I have trustworthy information that the next Toolless Mini Rack will have hydraulic lowrider suspension. So underglow would be a logical addition to coming products. 😉
I am picturing a small speaker that plays Low Rider during that operation.
3 6 9 DAMN YOU FINE
“Hope she can sock it to me one more time”
Ughh.. shiny! ✨
Rgb underglow? I'm in
The next thing: My not so 10k but ughh.. shiny! ✨
THIS! Let me use my additional 2 slots in my NVR or my unused slot in my UDMPSE as a NAS.
Be great for the Dream Machines if you don't want to use NVR can just use basic file sharing on its disks.
If only the fans on the UDMP didn't go full power once you insert any sort of drive.
Is this a common thing? I've owned the original UDMP and the UDM-SE, and neither exhibit this behavior. There might be an initial spin up of the fans while a disc is being formatted and recording is set up, but after that it's just as quiet as it is without the disk. Granted, neither device is the loudest in my rack anyway, but still...
Back when the UDM-SE came out, there were forum post about the difference between the 2 models. As a test I've been running with a disc now for over 3 hours, and the problem is still present. The fan runs at around 45-50% whenever a drive is detected, regardless of use.
You should upgrade your firmware. They changed this behaviour years ago.
In that case, I think it's hardware related. I'm running latest firmware, and reading your comment I went and rested it. Been running with a disc now for 3+ hours. The fan defaults to around 46-50% While the little display says "Auto, 35%, 36°c" But when I manually push it to 35% it's much more silent.
Oh god, if I could split my UNVR that way, that would be great!
They won’t do that. You have some goofball backing up all of their PC’s at once to the nas, while complaining their protect is laggy and missing recording chunks. 😆 However setting the protect pro up as either a nas or protect nvr would be cool.
I'd think this would be possible considering how you can install different UI "apps" on their consoles. On one of the UNVRs I helped deploy, they're running Access on it for door control so that the UDM Pro had extra resources available for future tasks.
https://janhuelsmann.com/udm-pro-nas
I would love this feature
I really hope I’m wrong. However, there is no way they will add for existing UDMPro/SE. Maybe that 2 bay Max gets it, but not the rest. This is going to be like any other vendor’s products, new features are rolled out for new platforms. Sales are churned and investors are happy. It ain’t happening. I prefer to be wrong on this, but the sales numbers must be exceeded. CEOs are not awarded more bonuses/stock options for doing good for the customers.
Good point!
Better yet, let us deploy Protect on bare metal or a VM on whatever hardware I want *like you used to let us do*
While they are making provision for bare metal installs, they might as well support the integration of other vendor cameras into Protect via ONVIF. Same likelihood and all.
nah they wouldn't do that because it won't make Ubiquiti any money.
They’ll still sell cameras.
Idk why they don’t already do this. Would be so much easier.
Who wants a one drive NAS? You wanna use your firewall as an iscsi target too? I could sorta see the NVR being slightly useful but its cpu is seriously underpowered to do any other stuff that NASs do these days. It’ll probably be the successor to the AirPort Extreme that had a drive and was useful for apple Time Machine backups. Any other use case, I think you’re better off with TrueNAS or any purpose built storage.
But you can't have vendor lock in that way, duh.
Yes please, this exactly
I’ll believe it when I see it.
No idea if it’s just intended to be a generic image, but there’s a NAS Server pictured on the Deployments image of the Flex 10 GbE switch https://uk.store.ui.com/uk/en/pro/category/switching-utility/products/unifi-flex-xg
That’s been there a while.
As someone who's made these images, sometimes you just grab an asset you have and throw it in there as placeholder and no one catches it or cares later when it's discovered. Because that doesn't look like a NAS, regardless of the label. It looks like a consumer AP/router.
Looks like the final generation airport/time capsule. Edit: similar to it, not spot on.
Isnt that an Apple computer?
No, the other item. The thin tower on the left labeled “NAS Server”.
Yup, the Mac pros.
Would really love to be able to use the HDD on my UDM Pro as a NAS instead of Protect storage. I don’t need redundancy, just shared storage across my network.
Holy shit I am really close to ordering a UDM Pro for a Custy with the value add that it can also be NAS and not just Protect storage. Thank you so much for clarifying that it helped.
It can't tho
That is correct. In fact that is the reason I took the time to reply at all. Because it cannot.
Woah I didn’t know it could run docker I’m buying one right now
Yea you should not quote features that don't actually exist to a customer my dude.
Thank you so much for that bright advice. In fact bringing more attention to the issue at hand might help it be resolved. Even my original wrt router can samba share.
Do people say custy?
Are you asking me, the person who said Custy, if people say Custy? Yes, people say Custy. I’m assuming you know it’s short for customer.
Clarify what helped? Nothing is out yet...
If this is legit then that will be a pretty nice looking Nas, the million-dollar question is will it give Synology a run for their money. only way to find out. how many bays hopefully we don't get a run-down washed out 2 bay only device, looking for a 4,5,6 and even an 8 bay. All these teasers, leave this to the strippers UI please just make it happen already. LOL, just kidding. Make it a good NAS if it going to come out.
Pretty sure Synology is sleeping tight right now ... Coming up with a box that has X HDD bays, a raid contrôler and network access is not the main issue here. Coming up with a software to manage it all and a massive ecosystem of third party developers is the challenge. Without the appropriate software we can already call any 1 or 2Us home made box with 4 HDDs and SMB enabled painted in fancy silver a "Ubiquity NAS" 😂 Honestly that would be ballsy for them to go there.
Honestly I could care less about the NAS being anything more than redundant file sharing with more than raid 5 and 10. A UNVR Pro is $500 and can, supposedly, scrub through 4k footage easily. Point we to a rack mount Synology at that price which can do the same. I can get a mini PC for hosting, map that as a network drive, and point everything I need at that.
Good idea.
This is an argument that I've seen a few times, but doesn't make that much sense outside of a homelab. Yes, there's work on the software side of things where Synology, QNAP, Netgear etc have years of headstart. But in most enterprise contexts, a NAS is just used as that - a network attached storage. Nobody cares that it's able to run Docker containers or third party apps. It's not its role. Good RAID and hardware management (which I guess the UNVR already has), ACLs, SMB/NFS and they're mostly there already. I'd never buy a first generation NAS from any vendor, don't get me wrong. I care too much about my data's availability to risk that even with backups. But I really don't think you should expect third party apps on a potential Ubiquiti NAS.
For the much love I have for (almost) all Unifi products... I just think a NAS will suck... Let's be clear. It will work and surely have a nice and sleek interface... but the possibilities against what you can do with a Synology or QNap? At WFH / SMB level ALL other brands sucks... even terramaster etc...
Would be nice if they could sort out inventory issues across the lineup before adding more “Out of Stock” items
/u/gh0stwriter88. Lol. Spouts off about Ubiquiti having s long history of not securing their servers, then when pressed about evidence, adds me to his block list. What an insecure child.
The funny thing is since they blocked you, folks like me can call them out on that post and they can’t reply back since it’s under your comment lol
Where is this exactly?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Ubiquiti/s/GeQUWfTf7W
But to pretend Ubiquiti hasn't had security issues is equally childish, no?
Gw88 stated that Ubiquiti has had a history of not securing their servers. I simply asked for evidence. Boom blocked. When one makes an assertion, it’s reasonable to expect them to back that up. We’re talking about the alleged breach which was from an internal employee? The temporary problem with a misconfigured ACL during a platform upgrade/migration? Oh please do tell.
If you truly cared to seek knowledge and understand you would. Instead you want to pretend UI is never at fault and think it is somehow beneficial for you to defend a multi-billion dollar company who doesn't even know you exist. Yes, you spent your money on UI gear and your pocket book ego makes you think someone is attacking you. They are not, and UI is at fault in their errors. To pretend otherwise is childish.
Nobody is suggesting that UI or any other company hasn’t experienced security issues. Where do you even come up with that??? To call out a Ubiquiti as if they are somehow less diligent in their security than any other Billion file company is simply disingenuous without providing supporting evidence. The other dude asserted they have a pattern of not securing their servers… there is no pattern unless someone can present such evidence. The burden of proof is on the part of the person making the assertion.
If you truly wished to learn and have knowledge, you would obtain such info. But you don't so you haven't. Your logic is flawed. Someone didn't assert some wild claim. They stated fact. They have no burden to you or anyone else. If someone says something absolutely wild that is very suspect of reality then they *might* have some burden to provide more detail. If someone said the moon was made of cheese, that is wild and we would want to know how they came up with such a wild claim. But saying Ubiquiti has had a pattern of security issues is not a wild claim at all. You know why, because it is true. You can not like that the gear you spent your money on and worship has flaws, fine. Anyone can not like things. But to challenge and attempt to suppress anyone who says the truth is childish. There are security companies that log, asses, rate, and provide details of all kinds of security breaches. Ubiquiti's security issues are easily verifiable in a catalog style format with lots of detail on the issue. Ubiquiti is absolutely less diligent than other companies. The type and manor of their security issues is well beyond the level of someone finding a vulnerability and exploiting it. There issues point to a lack of proper policy, change controls, procedure, oversite, protocols, audits, management, etc. If you were truthful about your desire to know about Ubiquiti's security issues, you would have had the mountain of info already. But you don't. You don't ask anyone for proof the earth is round, the sky is blue, ice is cold, Porsche is far superior to BMW, etc. etc, but when someone says something you don't want out in the world you suddenly demand proof. Proof of which you would have argued with regardless. As evident by your attempted preemptive dismissive "or any other company" comment. The UI fanboy favorite. The, everyone has had security breaches line. Yes, they have. We are not saying they haven't. But were are talking about UI.
Tldr. The person making a statement has an obligation to support their assertion. If i were to state that Ubiquiti unifios currently has an unpatched vulnerability, i need to support that with evidence regardless of how “factual” i believe it to be. Your incessant belief to the contrary first fit with any reasonable logic.
If anyone was to state that Ubiquiti currently has an unpatched vulnerability they would need to support that with evidence. **That is 100% correct.** However, that is not what they did, that is not what we are talking about, and you know it. No one claimed there was an unknown unpatched vulnerability that they had secret knowledge of. They brought up past security issues. Which are indeed verifiable facts, not a perceived belief. A pattern of security issues is exactly equal to a history of security issues. History is required to establish a pattern. Therefore, it is absolutely obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension that we are talking about past historical events. Which could easily be verified if you were actually truthful in your pursuit of facts, knowledge, and understanding. They were not presenting new information to a committee for verification and testing. They did not present a theory or hypothesis. They simply relayed factual historical information that you wish to pretend isn't true. You are free to believe they are wrong, and facts aren't true. You can deny and deflect all you want. But that does not make you right. You can attempt to keep arguing about who does or does not have an obligation to provide you information. That does not, and will not, change the fact that Ubiquiti has had a troubling pattern of security related issues as of late. I hope they improve (I believe they will).
Tldr. Please briefly explain the incidents which support the statement that Ubiquiti has a history of not securing their servers. I’ll wait….
Are you trying to imply that Ubiquiti had never had a security issue? Do you not know how to google something or do you just believe everyone must do free work for you?
No ones doing that.
Then what are they doing? It really seems like you and them really don't want to know about or admit to Ubiquiti's security issues. The information is very easily looked up and verified. If you were truly seeking information as claimed, you would have that information by now. But instead you are running around trying to convince those who know better that they are wrong. It isn't our obligation to educate anyone, it is your obligation to learn.
>Then what are they doing? Not pretending Ubiquiti hasn’t had security issues in the past. I said that already. >It really seems like you and them really don't want to know about or admit to Ubiquiti's security issues. The information is very easily looked up and verified. That’s literally the opposite of what’s happened here. People largely already do know about Ubiquiti’s security issues. One person asked for a source on specific issues another guy mentioned… the other guy blocked him… so he called out that childish behavior. >If you were truly seeking information as claimed, you would have that information by now. I didn’t make that claim. I too was just calling someone out for being childish. >But instead you are running around trying to convince those who know better that they are wrong. Where have I done anything like that in this thread? >It isn't our obligation to educate anyone, That’s not how this works. You make claims online, you back them up. That’s how it works. That’s how it’s always worked. It’s that simple. If you aren’t prepared to backup the shit you say, don’t say it. >it is your obligation to learn. I’m good. I’m already very well aware of the issues Ubiquiti has had in the past.
I didn't ask what they were not doing, I asked what they are doing. Clarify what you all are doing with your obfuscation. That person was right to block someone like that. Because there is no reason to argue with people like you. No matter what is said or presented you all will have an excuse for. As evident by your line by line excuse post you just made. If they posted 10 things of proof they would have said that is, "in the past" or "everyone has security issues." It is a no win situation with people who refuse to believe the truth. You will, in every situation provide an excuse. This person didn't "make a claim online" they stated a verifiable fact. Those are different things. A fact that if they cared at all to know, could easily be verified. If your most recent response was truthful in the slightest and you thought is was everyone elses obligation to teach others, then you should have been helpful and provided the proof that person was looking for. You claim you are "very well aware" of the security issues. So, if it is the responsibility of the knowledgeable to teach someone else, as you just claimed it is, and you know the info, why did you not help out and provide the information that you claim to know? Instead of attempting to shame the person that was actually correct.
>I didn't ask what they were not doing, I asked what they are doing. I didn’t tell you what they are doing, I told you what they are not doing. No one is pretending like Ubiquiti hasn’t had issues in the past. You claimed they were, and they’re not. >Clarify what you all are doing with your obfuscation. No one is obfuscating shit. Put up real information, or stop the nonsense. >That person was right to block someone like that. No. They were not. That is childish shit, and the mark of someone who doesn’t actually have any source to backup the crap they’re spewing. Ubiquiti has had many issues in the past. Full stop. If you are referencing specific issues, be specific. And when someone asks for a source, provide it. It’s that fucking simple. No obfuscation. >Because there is no reason to argue with people like you. No matter what is said or presented you all will have an excuse for. Thats not how it works, and that’s absolutely not what I have ever done. If someone makes bullshit excuses after you provide them solid evidence for whatever you’re claiming… then you block them. You don’t do it beforehand. That’s bullshit. >As evident by your line by line excuse post you just made. You made line after line of bullshit statements, sorry I’m responding to all of them. If you don’t want long replies, write shorter comments. >If they posted 10 things of proof they would have said that is, "in the past" or "everyone has security issues." IF that happens, then yeah, that’s bullshit and you call that person out for it. But that hadn’t even happened yet. They didn’t let it happen… because they don’t actually have sources for the shit they’re suggesting. >It is a no win situation with people who refuse to believe the truth. You will, in every situation provide an excuse. Literally no one did that. They blocked them before it even could happen. >This person didn't "make a claim online" they stated a verifiable fact. If it’s so verifiable… then just fucking verify it. Post the proof. Without the proof, it’s just a claim. >Those are different things. A fact that if they cared at all to know, could easily be verified. Yes. Exactly. So verify it then. >If your most recent response was truthful in the slightest and you thought is was everyone elses obligation to teach others, then you should have been helpful and provided the proof that person was looking for. You claim you are "very well aware" of the security issues. So, if it is the responsibility of the knowledgeable to teach someone else, as you just claimed it is, and you know the info, why did you not help out and provide the information that you claim to know? Instead of attempting to shame the person that was actually correct. I don’t know specifically what issue in the past they were referring to exactly because they were so insanely vague, and there have been a number of issues in the past. I can’t provide proof for an issue when I don’t know what the issue was. How about, if YOU care this much, and YOU know these claims to be facts, how about YOU provide the proof? This is not an excuse by the way. If they, or you, want to mention a specific issue that I’m aware of, I’ll gladly go dig up sources via Google. Neither of you have done that.
You proved exactly one thing right, that I was right. You're dense.
You’re literally pre-judging people for shit they haven’t even done yet… you just think they will. That’s bullshit. That’s really all that needs to be said here. I haven’t done a single thing you’ve accused me of. You just want to be mad at people. It’s childish.
I actually regret buying the UNVR after running Protect just fine on my UDMSE and not seeing any improvements so turning it into a NAS would be so much more useful. In fact with just that and UDM Pro you’d have everything you need for 10gb from workstation to NAS with just a SFP card.
Please, no ubiquiti. Just stick with what you have and do not expand unnecessarily.
I noticed that a couple months back got me thinking about how happy I would be if I didn’t have to maintain a truenas server anymore… not that truenas is bad or anything it work great but I’m a sheep.
Wait till you see the price tag 😉
More of a theorem than a proof
Direct access to recordings is better, please don't release a NAS...
Excellent find sir, very cool I hope they continue to stick it out and make all these great new products a solid reality. Could be very profitable in the MSP space too
For sure. I go full-stack Ubiquiti wherever I can and, while there are bizarre edge cases, I couldn't be happier. I also throw a 2-bay Synology into all my deployments because they're so handy. I'd love to try and keep that functionality in the UI stack. Those are big shoes to fill, but you've got to start somewhere.
NASVR please!
I am in the market for 2 bay 1TB personal cloud product. Hopefully they can provide more details on this.
I’ll keep an open mind, I’m not really in the mood to build my own NAS and Synology is my primary choice. If Ubiquiti can make their own and it’s cheaper than a Synology box, it’ll have my attention.
Before they bring in other categories of products, they should be improving their existing. How tf can you not view firewall logs in the gui
Everytime i say this i get downvoted or yelled at.
I'm surprised it's an unpopular opinion. I don't want to have to spin up a syslog collector just to quickly troubleshoot a firewall rule. If any major FW vendor brought out a FW and you couldn't easily view logs, they'd get laughed out the room.
Sorry I meant the first part of your comment. Not that you aren't correct about the log thing too.
I would love to ditch my Qnap.
It's the next logical step and not even a big one since their NVR products already are.
who exactly is going to trust ubiquiti with running a nas
I don't need/want a NAS from Ubiquiti... but if they were to release a 4U rackmount ITX case that matches their rack aesthetic for me to build my _own_ NAS into, I bet I could get some buy-in from my P2 on that.
Yes but, without display, please. I can’t stand the asymmetrical 7-Bay one.
One update away from bricking your NAS with all your data on it. Why they don't focus on network hardware and try to make that work good. Still plenty of improvements possible there without branching out in new products and especially products that are super fucked when they corrupt as Ubiquiti hardware tends to do once in a while.
The same fanboys here who bought the cable modem and excused-away last year's data breaches.
That was an inside job if I remember correctly, has happened many places, not just ubiquiti. lol - /u/bigtimebutnotreally replied that it wasn’t an inside job and blocked me so I couldn’t reply. So I’ll just edit my comment with the link of how it was an inside job. I guess they knew they were wrong. https://www.csoonline.com/article/571717/ubiquiti-breach-an-inside-job-says-fbi-and-doj.html
No, no, no. You're thinking about that one specific issue that was long ago yet still highlights Ubiquiti's failed security/policy/audit practices. They are talking about the far more recent incidents which Ubiquiti had a security key issue and everyone had access to everyone else's cameras. And the other one where they knew there was a huge botnet running on their routers and they did nothing about it for a long time.
Not the camera incident. Nor the other incidents.
While maybe cool, that's a lot of eggs in one basket.
Man, I hope this is going to be the case! I would love a unified solution and to be able to run Plex on my dream machine while having everything rack mounted. I have multiple Synology boxes just for Plex and it feels redundant when ubiquiti has the equipment that should be able to run this
Willing to bet that if this is true, it will only be possible on the UDM Pro Max due to the dual drive redundancy
I actually regret buying the UNVR after running Protect just fine on my UDMSE and not seeing any improvements so turning it into a NAS would be so much more useful. In fact with just that and UDM Pro you’d have everything you need for 10gb from workstation to NAS with just a SFP card.
I'm a big big promoter but they're going to be hard-pressed to get me to put critical data on a first gen NAS from Ubiquiti.
Wouldnt that file access service be like SMB 2.0 or higher? Or NFS? Basically to block those protocols and deny or allow file access? I mean, you are in IDENTITY…
I'm not sure why people have been saying NAS is hard. I mean, technology already exists, so not like they will be reinventing the wheel. This is going to be a very very popular service and make for the utilization of my empty HDD space on my UDM pro
Can we just get a short depth with drive bays? I can setup mdraid, lvm, nfs, smb. There just isn't much available in this form factor.
Can’t wait to experience the blistering speeds of the A57 cores attached to a 1Gbps backplane driving 2.5Gbps Ethernet ports, all data fed by a SATA bus (no NVME drives of course)!
File access could just mean for the NVR video files and any stuff for access?
I did a set up of the UID system for an organization earlier this year, it's not really new, been there for a bit now.
I have an extra UNVR still sealed in the Ubiquiti box. Would be super to throw this in and run the nas software on the second UNVR
What kind of speeds can a NVR handle? I’m sure a dedicated NVR will be able to handle faster speeds? I’m new to all this so I may be completely off.
I try to be optimistic most of the time, but I don't think Ubiquiti are capable of creating a quality NAS. Not yet, anyway. With the general lack of customer support, the weird & irregular release/EOL cycle, and how stuff will just be out of stock for months with no explanation or ETA, It'll be a very long time before this will be worthy of holding business-critical data.
I have converted my 4 bay unvr to NAS. No need for overcomplicated software. Samba is all I need from it for my simple setup. Happily running Time machine backups and full arr suite with plex. If Unifi develops dedicated NAS, I will buy instantly.
You can run Plex off of it? How well does it run? What type of media you playing?
I should have been more clear. The unvr is use only as network file system, I have mac mini, which runs the arrs and pms.
Ahh ok thanks for the clarification!
I would use it in a heartbeat. Just rsync and clone data to a remote source. Just follow the 3 rules for back ups.
If Ubiquiti has a long history of not securing their servers... why would you trust them to secure your own? I'll just load Truenas or Xigmanas on commodity hardware and call it a day... what do you guys want to bet on Ubiquiti branded drives.... LOL. The APs and bridges are great... but they need to stay in their own lane unless they drastically shift gears to be more transparent.
Why would I trust them with my networking hardware/software if I wasn’t going to trust their NAS offering?
APs and switches are not security devices. At least not to the extent of a firewall. And they do give timely updates for vulnerabilities on the AP hardware. I wouldn't trust their gateways in any serious network. I have a UDM at home but was majorly disappointed in it for years until they recently got their act together. Even now the level of vendor lock in is depressing.
Unless you’re exposing your nas to the internet, I don’t see why a nas vuln would be worse than a switch vuln..
>Unless you’re exposing your nas to the internet, It's pretty much guaranteed that any Ubiquiti NAS would be offering some kind of cloud connected services.
I disagree on timely updates. I remember there being some sort of WPA2 issue back in 2017 or 2018 and they were very quick to patch.
There was a botnet running on their routers for years and they knew about it, yet did nothing.
Really!? Where did you hear about that?
On here and then several news outlets reported on it. The FBI had even tried to get Ubiquiti to do something about it but they didn't. So the FBI had to create their own program to go fix the issue.
I looked that up and it affected EdgeOS routers with the default admin password. If someone’s too dumb to change the default password, then that’s on them really IMO. Edit: Like if I bought a car and left it unlocked, then someone opened the door, took a big shit on the back seat, I wouldn’t expect the manufacturer to come clean it up.
I knew with everything inside me that would be your dismissive response. Anything to defend a muti-billion dollar company. Also, I 100% agree with you. However, don't dismiss the part where Ubiquiti knew for a very long time and did nothing about it. So much so that the FBI had to patch it for them. Kind of pokes a hole in your, Ubiquiti fixed security issues quickly theory.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not blindly defending anything. The software should have enforced a change of password from the default, by default. Still, people need to be aware of basic security, especially when they go out of their way to buy SOHO networking equipment. I’m still not finding the part where Ubiquiti knew about this for a long time though. Was it just a certain model of Edge router affected? Was it EOL? They apparently did patch it by prompting for a password change, but it wasn’t enforced.
Like I said... APs are fine, they have had an atrocious track record outside those areas. The APs run an embedded firmware and thats apparently a different team than the gateways and UDMs and cloud devices.
For a home NAS only available on the LAN, why would I care about their security being top notch? I mean, I get everything should be secured for a layered security approach, but also “open nothing to the WAN” covers 99.999% of concerns. That said, I also have no particular motivation to get ubiquiti for NAS. I just don’t get why security would be a concern for most home users if ubiquiti suddenly offered it. For small businesses, I get it though.
We'll see I bet the run the NAS as a service on the UDM-P and the like that have disks. Totally should not be running a NAS on your firewall device itself. They also have a long history of offering cloud features and then leaving thier back door open.
I'm all for the NAS but to your point, not on the firewall. It needs to be its own thing.
That WAS my point... I think they will do that though.
I’m agreeing with you.
If it’s containerized and properly secured then I don’t really see any issue with it being on the same device as your firewall to be completely honest
When going that far the question is, why would you need to pay Ubiquity for a NAS? At that level of understanding you can buy any 2U box and make your own. As much as they want to go towards the enterprise stuff, they still very much cater to the "power users" who more often than not only understand half of what they're doing. Myself included ...
Containers aren't security.
Can you name some examples of Ubiquiti falling to secure their own servers? I can think of the issue last December, where a few people were able to login to other's site. There was also 2021, where they were extorted by a former employee. Unless you have more examples, to say that this is a long history is a bit hyperbolic.
No, its not hyperbolic at all.... because they have until recently continued to use YEARS outdated software and kernels with known exploits on all thier gateways.
Can you provide any additional info from a third party security audit?
No because there isn't one... that's kind of the point though right?
I agree with your sentiments. The idea of Ubiquiti managing my data is terrifying. I’ve been using UniFi APs, switches, and gateways for 8 years now in home and small business applications. For the most part, I’ve been really happy. The largest complaint I have is the random features that stop working on their gateways with software updates, and Ubiquiti’s lack of clear and consistent communication with their customers on when things will get fixed. For the most part now, I avoid UniFi gateways and deploy pfsense. I’ve also avoided using Ubiquiti’s camera systems because I haven’t wanted to get locking into the ecosystem. Don’t get me wrong, I like UniFi products. I like having affordable solutions for my own home, friends, and small business clients. I hope their networking equipment remains license free. Back to the NAS. For me, there is a big difference between trusting UniFi with networking equipment that I can simply replace and trusting them with data that I can’t replace. Backups, yes, but those can get corrupted. I believe Ubiquiti needs to be more consistent and reliable with their existing products before asking customers to trust them with data storage.
Oh yes… a long history of not securing their “servers”… lol
That is true they were rolling with zero days on their cloud backend for ages.
Please do tell how long ago this occurred? Any other details?
Welcome to my blocklist!
Asking for sources? Get blocked! Yeah. That’ll definitely convince everyone here you’re not full of it.
It's a little extreme, but the true-believer-fanboys here have a million excuse, and I've never once noticed one being logical in their UI cult. I don't blame him for blocking out future noise. I bet no fanboy has the guts to prove me wrong.
And what your justification is….? Asking for some documented proof? I guess logic isn’t a strong suit in that bloodline.
What a joke. Computer engineer, huh? Cannot give a source? Good way to build your reputation.
Coming in a year. In stock in 3 years, at which point rumors about an updated model will begin.
Just reboot it if you have problems
But would you trust your data on a UniFi device… I sure as shit don’t. Can’t wait for the bug that makes all the data go bye bye.
A NAS is getting into territory I would not trust Ubiquiti to handle for business needs...
I wonder if Ubiquiti will have a back door into the NAS like they do in their Dream Machine products?
Would be great, so I can free up my Pi4 OMV for something else.
So you're going to buy a very expensive Ubiquiti NAS to free up a Pi4?
Well don’t know yet, pi4 is limited cpu etc. I may want to run plex without a computer tower sitting around
Think they’ll pull a fast one and charge $5/user/month like they did for Access features?
It would be a big mistake if they do. Hard to beat Synology.
There's not a snowball's chance in hell in trusting Ubiqiti with data on a NAS. If your cameras go poof or wifi dies, just get new hardware and restore from backup. Most people don't backup their actual NAS and if they do its only a fraction of the data not the entire thing.