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

Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

jahed.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 230 posts

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#221

Post by hulitu »

mhitza wrote: 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…

Openwrt has a good description of the various supported routers (v2, v3 etc.) and i had no issues with it.

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#222

Post by KETpXDDzR »

I can highly recommend looking at the router database of OpenWRT. I had bad experiences with DD-WRT. Mostly stability issues. According to my research, OpenWRT doesn't have as much functionality or router support. But, it's very stable.

My favorite feature is both is that you can easily add virtual APs. E.g., I have one virtual AP with net isolation (no access to other networks, Internet only) and clients can't see each other.

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#223

Post by pdonis »

Piskvorrr wrote: post #215
pdonis wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a specific problem with routers and certification for radio usage. No, there isn't, because it's perfectly possible to limit what frequencies and power levels the hardware can emit without affecting the ability to run custom firmware such as OpenWRT. The certification argument is a dodge used by router manufacturers to avoid having to give customers what they actually want. > There was already an airport w…

Um, no. The "airport radio" in question is weather radar, which does directional scans and is very sensitive to interference. Just choose the wrong regulatory domain, and you're messing up the spectrum in ways that are mostly invisible to you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_frequency_selection (some devices try to avoid this by scanning the spectrum for weather radars...user indignation at unavailable channels…

> The "airport radio" in question is weather radar

Ah, ok. Weather radar is very different from "airport radio". For the latter I have a very hard time seeing how someone's ordinary wifi router could cause interference, but weather radar antennas have to be much more sensitive.

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#224

Post by alias_neo »

wooben wrote: post #218
alias_neo wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can afford it, go one better. I started out buying expensive home Wi-Fi routers, and I now have a box of expensive home routers I've decommissioned because they have vulnerabilities and stopped receiving updates. Probably well over ~£1000-2000 spent on them over the past ~decade. Next I switched to separate Router/Switch/AP and started with a Ubiquiti EdgeSwitch 8 POE, EdgeRouter Lite 3 and an AP-AC-Pro. Later…

I would recommend installing Proxmox on the Protectli bare metal and running pfsense (I prefer opnsense) in a VM. Then you can run your unifi controller in a container on the same device. The i3 should be able to handle that, and you can use Proxmox to share some USB drives over NFS.

Thanks for the suggestion but "separation of concerns" is key for me; I also wouldn't want extra software running on my edge, even containerised. I have plenty of hardware (and several Kubernetes clusters) inside my network to run software workloads on.

For storage I built my "NAS" in the Silverstone CS381 (https://www.servethehome.com/silverstone-cs381-8-bay-matx-ca...) with an LSI HBA, Ryzen 9 3900X / 128GB RAM, 6 Intel NICs, 2 NVM.e SSDs + 1 SATA SSD for Proxmox and a bunch of HGST Ultrastar He10s as ZFS mirrors. I run the Unifi controller in a container on there.

Before the pfSense Protectli I was also running AdGuard Home in a container (which replaced Pi-Hole on a Pi) but Unbound + pfBlockerNG is more capable.

Re: pfSense / OPNSense; I was running OPNSense initially, but had some issues, I'm likely to go back if they're resolved; I find myself falling on the OPNSense side of the politics there.

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#225

Post by webmaven »

tablespoon wrote: post #220
scblock wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tractor right to repair issues include software. You might even say that software is the prime issue preventing repair of the newer from equipment. Parts with drm, unsupported software, etc.

> The tractor right to repair issues include software. You might even say that software is the prime issue preventing repair of the newer from equipment. Parts with drm, unsupported software, etc. My understanding is the farmers just want to be able to repair their tractors without dealer approval (e.g. replace broken parts). They're not looking to hack new features into the firmware and stuff like that.

> My understanding is the farmers just want to be able to repair their tractors without dealer approval (e.g. replace broken parts).

For which they need to circumvent or disable DRM, and be able to run the manufacturers diagnostic software (or be able to use 3rd party diagnostic software).

> They're not looking to hack new features into the firmware and stuff like that.

I think you may be reasoning from a set of assumptions about farm equipment that is out of date. Modern farm equipment is very sophisticated and ties into all sorts of external services (GPS, mapping and terrain, high resolution soil data, weather forecasts, etc.), and can do things like adjust the direction and spacing of rows, depth seeds are sown, selective harvesting, selective pest control, selective fertilization, and more. The software that controls all that isn't just 'firmware'.

Not to mention that the equipment sends every bit of data back to the manufacturer to power add on services they can sell to the farmer by subscription.

Farmers certainly like all these features. In fact they like them so much they pay for after-market upgrades for older (repairable) equipment to add features and 3rd party services. They don't like being stuck inside the manufacturers' walled gardens.

These things have passed the point of just being equipment or tools, and are now platforms in their own right, and farmers are in many ways no longer their owners, but just captive users.

While right to repair starts with re-enabling a local mechanic to replace a part, it doesn't end there. Not by a long shot.

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#226

Post by southerntofu »

dbeley wrote: post #216
southerntofu wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do all GL-iNet products support mainline OpenWRT? or is there exceptions?

By comparing https://www.gl-inet.com/products/ with https://openwrt.org/toh/start?dataflt%5BBrand*%7E%5D=inet the OpenWRT support doesn't seem to be 100% but almost all of them are. I personally own an AR750S and a MT300.

Thanks! In your experience, are they reliable with OpenWRT? My experience with commercial routers and access points (consumer grade) is that they need rebooting about every month because they start failing silently (eg. lights still on but wifi cannot be detected by clients).

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#227

Post by dbeley »

southerntofu wrote: post #226
dbeley wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By comparing https://www.gl-inet.com/products/ with https://openwrt.org/toh/start?dataflt%5BBrand*%7E%5D=inet the OpenWRT support doesn't seem to be 100% but almost all of them are. I personally own an AR750S and a MT300.

Thanks! In your experience, are they reliable with OpenWRT? My experience with commercial routers and access points (consumer grade) is that they need rebooting about every month because they start failing silently (eg. lights still on but wifi cannot be detected by clients).

Yes very! I use the AR750S as my home router and I never had to reboot it manually in any situation.

Though the updating process can be more streamlined, I had to redo all my configuration when updating from openWRT 19 to latest 21 (could have been my own mistake during flashing, at least I have firmware updates).

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#228

Post by dole »

bserge wrote: post #159
sgtnoodle wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could be! I think mine is a V2. My guess is an overheating component somewhere.

The 5Ghz is actually handled by a daughterboard using a mini PCIe slot (not sure about what the actual interface is tbh). And yes, it overheats, especially in sustained transfer. Slap a heatsink on all the chips and call it a day :D

Stock firmware and the 5Ghz band dies on me every few months requiring a reboot. interesting.

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#230

Post by Piskvorrr »

pdonis wrote: post #223
Piskvorrr wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, no. The "airport radio" in question is weather radar, which does directional scans and is very sensitive to interference. Just choose the wrong regulatory domain, and you're messing up the spectrum in ways that are mostly invisible to you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_frequency_selection (some devices try to avoid this by scanning the spectrum for weather radars...user indignation at unavailable channels…

> The "airport radio" in question is weather radar Ah, ok. Weather radar is very different from "airport radio". For the latter I have a very hard time seeing how someone's ordinary wifi router could cause interference, but weather radar antennas have to be much more sensitive.

Sure, but news channels usually don't distinguish this. "It's some sort of wireless problem at the airport, therefore airport radio."
Post reply on HN