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

OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]

cnx-software.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 126 posts

Re: OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]

#101

Post by gpvos »

wyager wrote: post #64
cpncrunch wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, this was all known when 5Ghz wifi was introduced, so it was a trade-off (see the 2013 NTIA report for details). I don't think it makes sense for them to move all existing services in the 5Ghz band to a completely new band (which might not work anyway, due to the technical requirements of doppler windshear radar). It probably also wouldn't make sense to limit wifi to a small range of the 5Ghz band.…

Having government-locked software of any sort is not freedom.

Even the FSF is willing to compromise on that, as long as the locked software is hardware-locked and totally unchangeable by anything and anyone (including things like over-the-air updates), so it can be considered part of the hardware, and as long as it does not have access to main memory or can otherwise interfere with the free-software part of the system.

Re: OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]

#102

Post by slacka »

blfr wrote: post #99
mindslight wrote: post #12

Better off just building your own router. The high brow option is an embedded motherboard and minipcie wifi card. If the hardware is powerful enough to MASQ gigabit, it won't be obsolete for a decade. And you can upgrade wireless standards with a new card. The only reason there's such an upgrade cycle for consumer routers is that they're built shoddily and with the slowest CPU possible. And as much as I appreciate sp…

Better off just building your own router. Highly unlikely and unnecessarily expensive. It's also a hassle to make a nice enclosure for what you build. Instead, you can currently consult the OpenWRT website, pick up any of many widely available $50 routers, and be set. I don't care if it can MASQ gigabit since I don't have a gigabit connection. Whatever slowest CPU possible they put in there is more than enough to run…

Yeah there was a dead zone in my house that was so bad, I was about to buy a $100 repeater. Then on a whim, I googled "DD-WRT bridge" sure enough there's some black magic that allows me to use my old WRT54g without creating more e-waste. Also, my new Asus router had to be rebooted about once a month until I found and flashed it with Asuswrt-Merlin firmware.

Just in the past year, I've found 2 great uses for custom firmware, rejuvenate old hardware and improvements to official f/w. I'm going to do some more research and send them a piece of my mind:

https://www.fcc.gov/comments

Re: OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]

#103

Post by jdiez17 »

trynumber9 wrote: post #89
yellowapple wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the same problem that Windows PCs have had for two decades now. The hardware is effectively equivalent; it's now a matter of trying to "add" value with shitware. This is especially true of Windows laptops nowadays; you're pretty much relegated to 1366x768 screens, shitty dual-core or hyperthreaded single-core processors, maybe 4GB of RAM, and Intel graphics at best. Anything better is still at the prices they wer…

> hyperthreaded single-core processors I don't think Intel has marketed a single core processor since the Core 2 era. You may want to look at Windows laptops again: it's now possible to buy a 1920x1080 13.3", 8GB RAM, and a 256GB SSD for $600 without any bloatware. It does have a weak dual-core hyperthreaded processor, but this allows it to omit fans.

Yeah, and 1366x768 is only really still around in the very low end or the very small.

Re: OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]

#104

Post by keeperofdakeys »

Fr0styMatt88 wrote: post #76
stephengillie wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only reason there's such an upgrade cycle for consumer routers is that they're built shoddily and with the slowest CPU possible. A lot of this is that consumers have been taught that routing, NAT, etc isn't done by a general purpose computing device like a PC or server, but that those tasks MUST be relegated to an appliance. But compute is compute, and antennas are antennas. And the word "appliance" has long he…

I hadn't actually put those thoughts together - which is funny considering I've been working a lot with embedded boards lately. So.... how could you custom-build something akin to say, the Netgear Nighthawk (Netgear R8000)? I'm thinking multiple 802.11ac antennae with all that new multi-user beamforming stuff that's been released lately. Is there open firmware that supports that / do the commodity Linux drivers suppo…

All the fancy wifi stuff is part of the wifi chipset, which most router vendors tend not to have any hand in - especially for consumer stuff. (also, beamforming is a very misleading term). You can basically buy a card that does all this stuff 'off the shelf', and could even plug it into a laptop. Though, antenna placement may be something you'd need to do some research on.

Re: OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]

#105

Post by keeperofdakeys »

esaym wrote: post #34
atmosx wrote: post #18

I recently bought an ADSL modem/router TP-Link 8970 (or something). The thing is awesome, except for that fact that it doesn't support OpenVPN... Supports PPTP or IPSec. Now if only, I could install OpenWRT on it. Since OpenWRT makes ROUNDS around every custom software I've seen on low-end ADSL modem/routers makes me wonder why on earth companies don't just ship OpenWRT and get over with it?

I didn't even know OpenWRT could work on a DSL modem? I wonder what it would take to get it working on the new ATT IPDSLAM based DSL network?

From my experience, you'll also lose DSL functions when you do. It's all proprietary from what I've read.

Re: OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]

#106

Post by PhasmaFelis »

dogma1138 wrote: post #92

Asshats brought it on themselves, don't commit felonies and mess with regulatory bodies... There is no reason in the world to run Wifi on outlawed channels other than pure selfishness to have a better connection and not be on the same base band or expansion bands as your neighbors. The FCC even allowed people to run low power transmitters on the restricted channels 12/13 but stated that channel 14 is banned and asked…

> Asshats brought it on themselves

I've been using Tomato firmware for years, and I never did anything illegal with it. How did I bring it on myself exactly?

> you'll still be able to use DD-WRT or w/e you want

RTFA: Vendors will have to “describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT”

As far as I know, all of the issues at hand could be solved with baked-in hardware lockouts without otherwise affecting custom firmware, but that's not what the FCC is demanding.

Re: OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]

#107

Post by the_ancient »

cpncrunch wrote: post #71
quotemstr wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kill all humans. That's a surefire way to prevent any more violations. After all, "one is too many". Your comments indicate that you're not even trying to balance different public interest concerns.

I'm a pilot, so I understand the issue first-hand. The simple way to balance all interests is to separate the radio software from the router software. Are you more interested in getting a cheap flashable router than in air safety? This has nothing to do with freedom, but more to do with people/companies being too cheap to separate the radio from the router software.

>>Are you more interested in getting a cheap flashable router than in air safety?

Yes, I do not fly, have no interest in flying and could care less if the entire aviation industry went bankrupt. I stopped flying the day the TSA took over the airports.

Freedom is more important to me than Flying.

Re: OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]

#108

Post by the_ancient »

cpncrunch wrote: post #54
madez wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reasonable answer to that is to regulate wifi frequencies world wide and modify weather radars if necessary. That would solve the interference problem while keeping the firmware open. Freedom is better.

As I understand it, this was all known when 5Ghz wifi was introduced, so it was a trade-off (see the 2013 NTIA report for details). I don't think it makes sense for them to move all existing services in the 5Ghz band to a completely new band (which might not work anyway, due to the technical requirements of doppler windshear radar). It probably also wouldn't make sense to limit wifi to a small range of the 5Ghz band.…

However in reality manufacturers will do what ever is cheapest for them under the regulation, not what allows for the most freedom

So under this rule they will simply make the entire appliance non-flashable as it will be the cheapest way to comply with the regulation.

Re: OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]

#109

Post by the_ancient »

lelandbatey wrote: post #8

Alright, after searching on this a little bit more, it seems that the FCC is not prohibiting the installation of software like OpenWRT or DD-WRT, but are instead mandating that there is software for the radios only that ensures they operate in the manner they are certified for. There is much more information in the HN comments from a previous time where this was discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9959088

This is where technical regulations meet with real world implementation. To have a "locked down" radio will increase the cause of the Appliance, computers and other devices. Manufacturers will take the cheapest way to implement these regulations, the cheapest way will be to lock down the entire device. An example of this is the Lenovo WiFi White lists in BIOS, there are other ways for Lenovo to comply with the regulation but it is cheaper to simply only allow approved wifi modules instead of implement a more costly solution

So while the rules may not directly ban custom firmware, that will be the implementation result of these regulations. less than 1% of consumers ever customize their devices so if a manufacturer even has to Spend $0.01 more per device to enable the ability to customize they will not do it.

Re: OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]

#110

Post by tankenmate »

mariuolo wrote: post #94
pdabbadabba wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And as much as I appreciate spectrum partitioning, we really need to get the major wifi chipsets completely reverse engineered so we can blow away this ambiguous spectre of "unauthorized" modifications and turn them into something normal. Randos stomping on ch12-15 isn't an actual problem - but that widespread rulebreaking coupled with the unknown of what further mods could do is scary to regulators. Destroy that u…

Can a single modified home router actually cause disturbance to a RADAR? Or are we talking about a widespread use of such devices?

Short range radar no, long range yes. The problem with using those frequencies (for WiFi) are that they are very useful for radar, they reflect off rain drops very well and propagate in the clear very well.
Post reply on HN