Live data from Hacker News

Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

jahed.dev

91–100 of 230 posts

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#91
post #39

A bit of a tangent, but I recently discovered GL.iNet[0] and ordered a couple of routers and hotspots. HK vendor for network devices running forked OpenWRT with a bunch of extras and customization. I haven't had the time to dive deep enough into all of the code yet, but so far I'm very optimistic. Not perfect; some of the more interesting functionality (like site-to-site VPN) is tied to a proprietary closed SaaS with…

I recently found GL.iNet. I wish they release higher end products.

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#92

Last week I bought a TP-Link AX55 and went through the settings and enabled all the neat things and disabled all the regular consumer ease of access things (WPS, meshing things), and the only hidden networks in my area with the same app are several decibel away with a different MAC address. Either it’s not around in the newer models or it’s part of one of the regular consumer ease of access things.

Why disable mesh? I thought that will ensure the devices work together rather than compete (looking at fritzbox, but it seems they are all compatible).

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#94
Not trying to defend TP-Link or anything, but I recently bought a pair of mesh router from them and they work very well.

BTW, this hidden network probably uses another protocol (for the OneMesh). It is the 802.11s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11s), that uses its own encryption method based on Simultaneous Authentication of Equals (SAE) (yeah, that is the same as WPA3, however it came before it). It shows as hidden network on Wi-Fi Analyzer, but the network is not actually hidden in the same sense of a hidden Wi-Fi network: this simple happens because 802.11s has no concept of SSID.

The authentication of new devices happens when you pair a new router using the application available on Android/iOS (it has a web interface too but AFAIK it doesn't allow adding new mesh routers to the network). So it seems pretty secure for me, at least sans some security bugs that I am sure that the device should have. Doesn't bother me too much considering that most bugs that I saw on those consumer routers generally comes from the security from things like administration pages and not the Wi-Fi network itself (unless it is something like KRACK that affects all devices implementing the protocol).

Yeah, it is still pretty sh*t that they enable this by default, but if the router from the author of blog post is from one of their lines of mesh routers I do think this is kinda of made by purpose, because using multiple routers devices is kinda of the idea of a mesh network.

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#95
post #12

This type of whackery is (the primary reason) why I try to buy computing devices on which I can flash a clean OS (OpenWrt/DD-WRT for routers)[1]. It sucks because it limits my choices down to a few, but at the same time I feel like I don't throw out money at abandonware. [1] don't even get me started on TP-Link releasing routers with the same name but v2/v3/2020/2021 update where it's hard to even know if I'm buying…

The author touched on right of repair. I’d love to see a law requiring all devices to either be supported, or if being sunset, being required by law to provide tools/source/schematics to take over the device and extend its utility beyond the manufacturer’s willingness. Particularly a last firmware that disables anything requiring phoning home to continue to function. We saw that with OnHub recently, when after only 6…

There is a specific problem with routers and certification for radio usage. This makes right to repair harder. It's not just a legal issue. The ether is quite full and it mostly works because there are clear rules that devices must meet.

With user serviceable routers, bumping up power, or moving to locally forbidden (quieter) frequencies could become lifehacks. There was already an airport whose radio saw interference from extra powerful 5ghz wifi routers.

Locking down devices as a business model is bad. But Locking them down as a regulatory precaution to keep radio working is different.

How to keep every manufacturer from seeking excemption from right to repair under these rules would be challenging tho.

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#96
> they didn't provide a good hardware solution for 4G. That's right, my street doesn't have fibre despite being in the tech startup heart of London. So here I am with a TP-Link router.

Same situation, another UK city center, without fiber, and with an incredibly noisy, effectively useless 1Mbit ADSL line.

I really wanted something running an open firmware, but for LTE you really need something >= Cat10 for reliable home broadband, and there isn't a lot of choice at this end excluding crazy expensive commercial stuff - It's either Netgear or Huawie. After learning way too much about LTE, I ultimately settled on a Netgear M2 (MR2100) and a couple of magnetic MIMO antennas out the window, which has worked very well, and the firmware isn't terrible. I was initially repelled by the high price ~£400, but you really need the 5x carrier aggregation of Cat10 to get something reliable, the cheapo Cat4/6 TP link stuff is not worth the time IMO.

[edit]

At the time there was one industrial LTE router manufacturer that caught my eye "Teltonika" which ship with OpenWRT as the official firmware! but at the time they only had a Cat6 modem. They now appear to have added a Cat12 one! "RUTX12 and it's price is not dissimilar to the Netgear M2:

https://teltonika-networks.com/product/rutx14/

If I was buying again id give this a shot.

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#97

I had a related problem with their PowerLine TPA-4220 devices yesterday. It turns out there's a DHCP server on it that you can't turn off! It's supposed to be smart and know when there's another DHCP server on the network, but it appears that this sometimes doesn't work. So I found that my laptop sometimes ends up configured on the wrong subnet, which of course kills the internet connection. The thing is, the web int…

I had a similar experience with my Netgear Orbi; they have a dual 2.4/5 GHz network on the same SSID, but certain devices just cannot handle it (including apparently Facebook's Oculus and quite a few smart home devices). Turns out you can split them up into separate SSIDs, but only by telnetting into your base station and each satellite and running some cryptic commands on each. It used to be possible via the web UI,…

Our network at home has both 2.4 and 5 on the same SSID, with no issues (and I have an oculus). Is this just a Netgear thing?

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#98
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author touched on right of repair. I’d love to see a law requiring all devices to either be supported, or if being sunset, being required by law to provide tools/source/schematics to take over the device and extend its utility beyond the manufacturer’s willingness. Particularly a last firmware that disables anything requiring phoning home to continue to function. We saw that with OnHub recently, when after only 6…

There is a specific problem with routers and certification for radio usage. This makes right to repair harder. It's not just a legal issue. The ether is quite full and it mostly works because there are clear rules that devices must meet. With user serviceable routers, bumping up power, or moving to locally forbidden (quieter) frequencies could become lifehacks. There was already an airport whose radio saw interferenc…

If we didn't allow for an exemption but still required full compliance, perhaps manufacturers could physically limit the output from the power amplifiers and/or use blowable fuses in the chips to set a non-modifiable power limit. I imagine that the same could be done for frequency management either on board (bandstop filtering) or on chip (once again, blowable fuses to set disallowed frequencies).

I know that there will still be enterprising folks who modify their hardware itself to try to get around these limitations, but such enterprising people are already more than capable of physically modifying their existing hardware.

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#99
post #51
post #39

A bit of a tangent, but I recently discovered GL.iNet[0] and ordered a couple of routers and hotspots. HK vendor for network devices running forked OpenWRT with a bunch of extras and customization. I haven't had the time to dive deep enough into all of the code yet, but so far I'm very optimistic. Not perfect; some of the more interesting functionality (like site-to-site VPN) is tied to a proprietary closed SaaS with…

>[0]: https://www.gl-inet.com/ I just checked out their site and their offerings look underwhelming. Their top of the range home router costs $90 and supports 802.11ax... but only at 1200Mb/s. You could buy a mid-range 802.11ac router with similar speeds, made by ASUS years ago, on sale. I guess you could argue "Openwrt" is worth the premium, but ASUS routers have asus-merlin for open firmware.

I have their AX router, Flint and the CPU is actually good on this thing - ARM-A53, Quadcore 64-bit, basically it's a Raspberry PI 3. Most routers come with ARM-A7, an old 32 bit arch, and not all of them are quad-core.

When I use OpenVPN, I get over 100 Mb/s with Flint, and I do not think your wireless performance comparison is right, you need 3 antennas to get 1200 Mb/s on AC/Wifi 5, and there are only a couple niche desktop PCIE adapters that can do that.

I get 30-40% higher real-world wireless throughput from Flint compared to two high-end AC routers I tested. If you want to really dig into wireless performance, you would have to test real-world throughput. It certainly doesn't have all the bells and whistled of Wifi 6E and 160 Mhz channels.

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#100
> I had to move away from Asus as they didn't provide a good hardware solution for 4G. That's right, my street doesn't have fibre despite being in the tech startup heart of London. So here I am with a TP-Link router, spamming unwanted waves. Do I really have to drop another £100 on new hardware just because TP-Link doesn't want to offer a boolean flag? What a waste. Maybe it's finally time to build my own router.

I'm pretty sure building your own router is going to cost more than $100.

Post reply on HN