Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

prpl.works

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 140 posts

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#51

Post by huehehue »

la_fig_fontaine wrote: post #35
tgflynn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

radios cannot be permitted to listen on frequencies reserved for cell phones Is this true ? I've never heard of the FCC restricting receivers before. You don't need a license to buy or operate a HAM receiver.

> You don't need a license to buy or operate a HAM receiver. Why have you capitalised ham? What are you under the impression it stands for? Are you also one of those people that capitalises JAVA? What goes through the heads of people like you?

Many people capitalize HAM. Probably comes from a number of proposed origins [0]. No need to make a big deal of it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_ham_radio

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#52

Post by fencepost »

My contribution to the commentary:

I feel that the proposal to regulate device firmware and effectively ban non-vendor firmware is both overbroad and will result in significantly increased security risks faced by the general public (myself included). If the FCC chooses to go forward with this, it should also require and put in place penalties to enforce MANDATORY security updates from vendors within tightly constrained timelines, including to products which the vendors no longer sell or wish to support.

I have used various third-party firmware replacements (generally OpenWRT, occasionally DD-WRT) to replace firmware on routers with known security holes, undoubtedly including some for which patches were years late if ever delivered. I have done this for myself, friends, family and customers.

If the FCC mandates that I may not legally replace the firmware with secure versions unless they come from the equipment vendors without also taking steps to ensure the availability of those security fixes, then the FCC is acting to ensure that the state of network security in the United States is AND WILL REMAIN unacceptably poor.

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#53

Post by JoshTriplett »

lexicalscope wrote: post #26
kazinator wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context is more or less obvious from "FCC". We know from those three letters that it's not about, say, banning Ubuntu from your PC.

But the FCC regulates a great deal of equipment, and this is only targeting a very specific subset of that equipment - not all of it. I was initially pretty concerned as I'm a Ham radio operator, but this really does not concern me overly much now that it's clear it's: A) SDR/Modular only B) Consumer only

Quite a bit of "consumer" equipment is halfway to an SDR already, and a ruling like this would mean you could never write or release FOSS firmware for a wireless card. (Note that wireless cards with FOSS firmware exist today.)

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#54

Post by gsnedders »

lexicalscope wrote: post #9

This title is kind of click-bait - they aren't prohibiting operating systems, they _might_ be prohibiting installation of operating systems that are not approved on certain types of devices that allow software defined radio - that is, transceivers that can be tweaked easily by software. That is not at all the same thing as banning an operating system. This is already present insofar as hardware requirements in radios…

> This would prevent open/free components insofar as the actual driver, but would not permit the operating system itself from being installed.

If the SDR has a microcontroller, you potentially only need the firmware of the microcontroller to be signed (with the microcontroller checking the signature), and can have a fully free driver around it. You can even release the source of the firmware (and allow reproducible builds!) because it's guaranteed by the signature, not by the availability of the source.

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#55

Post by tgflynn »

la_fig_fontaine wrote: post #35
tgflynn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

radios cannot be permitted to listen on frequencies reserved for cell phones Is this true ? I've never heard of the FCC restricting receivers before. You don't need a license to buy or operate a HAM receiver.

> You don't need a license to buy or operate a HAM receiver. Why have you capitalised ham? What are you under the impression it stands for? Are you also one of those people that capitalises JAVA? What goes through the heads of people like you?

Honestly I don't know what was "going through my head". I think most letter case decisions are handled by my brain below the threshold of conscious awareness. I don't spend a lot of time agonizing over trivialities in my online comments that are completely irrelevant to my question or point.

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#56

Post by aianus »

feld wrote: post #45
aianus wrote: post #33

This is like banning guns cause people sometimes use them illegally to kill other people. Not very American. Just go after people who are causing illegal interference and leave the people who 'might be able to' alone.

Yeah, there is a gun problem in this country and this is a terribly flawed analogy.

A random American has a 1/10,000 chance of dying to a gun this year. Half of them are suicides. Hardly a 'gun problem' worthy of banning guns.

I have a higher chance of crashing my motorcycle and dying that way, do you support banning motorcycles too?

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#57

Post by lexicalscope »

gsnedders wrote: post #54
lexicalscope wrote: post #9

This title is kind of click-bait - they aren't prohibiting operating systems, they _might_ be prohibiting installation of operating systems that are not approved on certain types of devices that allow software defined radio - that is, transceivers that can be tweaked easily by software. That is not at all the same thing as banning an operating system. This is already present insofar as hardware requirements in radios…

> This would prevent open/free components insofar as the actual driver, but would not permit the operating system itself from being installed. If the SDR has a microcontroller, you potentially only need the firmware of the microcontroller to be signed (with the microcontroller checking the signature), and can have a fully free driver around it. You can even release the source of the firmware (and allow reproducible b…

Good call - similar to how you load firmware for Wifi using a blob a lot of the time. But for a lot of advocates of this they still might not be okay with this as they don't want any blobs. Which I can get, but even more reason it's kind of alarmist in my view.

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#58

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

la_fig_fontaine wrote: post #35
tgflynn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

radios cannot be permitted to listen on frequencies reserved for cell phones Is this true ? I've never heard of the FCC restricting receivers before. You don't need a license to buy or operate a HAM receiver.

> You don't need a license to buy or operate a HAM receiver. Why have you capitalised ham? What are you under the impression it stands for? Are you also one of those people that capitalises JAVA? What goes through the heads of people like you?

It's a reasonably-common capitalization.

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#59

Post by lexicalscope »

matheweis wrote: post #46

I was slightly surprised about a week ago when I came across the NPRM by accident and realized the comment period was already over. But, I'm more taken aback though by the reactions here to this guy's (admittedly alarmist) thoughts... From reading the comments here, it sounds like only a couple people scanned past the headlines. TL/DR, Eric (Who is actively involved in the OpenWrt project), makes a very good case tha…

I actually completely agree with you on this - what they're proposing is going to stifle a lot of wireless hacking and will be overall harmful to try to avoid what is probably already at best a marginal problem. Most people that overpower their equipment already burn it out very quickly, and I don't think I'd worry about it as much as they are.

I think the alarmist point of view on this actually hurts his points though - because it comes off as a less legitimate concern than I think it actually is. It is something we should be concerned with, because FCC rules are often hard to change once they're made.

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#60

Post by lexicalscope »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #53
lexicalscope wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the FCC regulates a great deal of equipment, and this is only targeting a very specific subset of that equipment - not all of it. I was initially pretty concerned as I'm a Ham radio operator, but this really does not concern me overly much now that it's clear it's: A) SDR/Modular only B) Consumer only

Quite a bit of "consumer" equipment is halfway to an SDR already, and a ruling like this would mean you could never write or release FOSS firmware for a wireless card. (Note that wireless cards with FOSS firmware exist today.)

Yeah - it sucks and this FCC rules is concerning, but not as concerning as I initially thought it was.

Don't get me wrong - I think this is a stupid rule, but I just don't think it's as big a deal as the article, and title in particular, make it out to be.

Post reply on HN