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

121–130 of 230 posts

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#121

Post by 3np »

fomine3 wrote: post #82
lordnacho wrote: post #32

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…

This feature is stupid. I never buy TP-link products because I can't believe people who ship like this. ref: https://community.tp-link.com/en/home/forum/topic/160293

THANK YOU for that link, I didn’t realize that our self-hosted DHCP was facing attacks not only from the shitty ISP cable modem bit also from the TP-Link APs. Hopefully an upgrade will fix that. It really says something about their attitude:

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#122

Post by brewdad »

reaperducer wrote: post #119
ceejayoz wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

they have a dual 2.4/5 GHz network on the same SSID, but certain devices just cannot handle it My Canon wireless printer is one of those devices that can't handle it. If they both have different SSIDs, then it will connect fine. But if there are two with the same SSID, during setup if fails to ask the user for a password and therefore cannot connect. Meanwhile, Amazon's eero has removed the option to have different S…

I ended up naming my SSIDs SSIDNAME and SSIDNAME2.4 for just this reason. I had all kinds of problems getting my 2.4GHz devices onto my network when they shared the same name. PCs and tablets did fine but anything more obscure (smart switches for instance) was a mess.

I did not know that about the eero devices. Really glad I didn't "upgrade" to the newest Ring base station with eero built-in.

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#123

Post by BenjiWiebe »

3np wrote: post #118
fomine3 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feature is stupid. I never buy TP-link products because I can't believe people who ship like this. ref: https://community.tp-link.com/en/home/forum/topic/160293

THANK YOU for that link, I didn’t realize that our self-hosted DHCP was facing attacks not only from the shitty ISP cable modem but also from the TP-Link APs. Hopefully an upgrade will fix that. It really says something about their attitude: > And there seemed to be some misleading about "smart DHCP". This feature would not be enabled for no reason. It took >2y and >100 forum posts on the issue before they even ackno…

I see. So that's why our network broke when the power failed. My Linux router is slow to boot, and the tp-link's in AP mode ran out of patience.

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#124

Post by [deleted] »

ddtaylor wrote: post #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…

[deleted]

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#125

Post by stordoff »

radicaldreamer wrote: post #49

Eero seems like a company which makes simple, plug and play mesh routers and doesn't seem to pull anything funny with their equipment.

The main issue for me has been forced updates, which can fire off at inopportune times. They have been very stable though.

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#126

Post by sgtnoodle »

aceazzameen wrote: post #110
synergy20 wrote: post #41

Buy routers that can work with Openwrt, period. TP-Link actually has quite a few(not the newest models though, but the not-newest-model should work for 95% of the customers) that runs openwrt well. All my routers are running non-vendor firmware(e.g. openwrt) for the last 15 years, never had any troubles.

Yeah, this is what I recommend to anyone who knows anything about computers. It also depends on each person's needs though, since OpenWRT sometimes excludes the latest tech. At home we connect to a TP-Link Archer C7 running OpenWRT. It's only WiFi5, but we have zero issues streaming many 5ghz devices off of it. It's even held up fine while we both work from home. I also run a second much older TP-Link router using st…

I had OpenWRT running on an Archer C7 for a while, but the wifi was "unreliable". It's like the 5Ghz would just randomly stop flowing packets. I never root caused it, but since I stopped using it my home wifi experience has been generally boring in a good way.

I live near main street in a small touristy coastal town, and there's tons of access point beacons flying around. I only have a 10,000 sq. ft. lot and have three access points to cover it. I turned off "legacy" rates everywhere I could so hopefully all my beacons are 6Mbps+ with greenfield preambles.

Different wifi chipsets cope differently with congestion. Specifically, when packet collisions do occur, some chipsets miss both frames, while other chipsets successfully decode the frame of higher signal strength as long as there's enough of a difference. In low congestion areas it doesn't matter since packets rarely collide, but in high congestion areas it can make a big difference for throughput as packet collisions occur frequently.

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#127

Post by jcrawfordor »

howdydoo wrote: post #104
rocqua wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My PC has a 5ghz wifi antenna, and I can install any OS I want. Why should a router be any more locked down than my PC? The FCC takes illegal broadcasting VERY seriously and I think that should deter people from becoming criminals.

1) The scale of the problem seems much lower on PCs because Windows and MacOS respect local regulations, Linux has an infrastructure to do so that works by default in some distros but not others, but overall the Linux market share is small and as is PC WiFi adapters are more often sold in country-specific variants with hardware restrictions than the chipsets in routers are (and usually have lower hardware Tx power limits). Overall, the architecture of WiFi is such that it's rare for a PC to make these kinds of decisions anyway. If it's an infrastructure mode network, the AP dictates channels.

2) FCC enforcement is, in general, rare. It usually requires specific complaints from commercial broadcasters in order for the FCC to respond. In the ISM and WiFi-specific bands, enforcement is extremely difficult because enforcement methods like radio direction finding are inherently difficult for the frequencies involved and even more difficult because of the high noise floor and large number of sources in urban environments. Even if the FCC allocated significant resources (which they do not), it would technically be difficult to enforce these regulations.

The FCC has closed more than half of field offices and laid off half of the enforcement staff over the last ten years. They have eliminated most of their field enforcement teams and now only have teams (perhaps only a handful, they don't say but the best public info I've found suggests 5) based out of the DC area that have to fly out. It's been very frustrating to see the FCC eliminating enforcement resources these days, but the reality is that enforcement has become far more difficult and less effective over time due to advancements in the technology. Direction finding FM pirate stations is technically pretty easy and something the FCC is very effective at (especially since FM broadcasters inform the FCC promptly). Just about everything else... fat chance of the FCC doing anything about it unless they can do so at an organizational/regulatory level (e.g. fining manufacturers or large scale operators). At the field level it's just too expensive and unproductive to try to track down individuals who have configured their WiFi routers in violation.

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#128

Post by Terry_Roll »

lordnacho wrote: post #32

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…

You can use wireshark to access the server on the device, its what they use when they update firmware, but have you used a modded powerline adaptor to access engineering settings in white goods like modern fridge freezers because alot of them have a cpu controlling everything and you access it using the mains plug?

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#129

Post by hnlmorg »

I'm not at all surprised by this article because I recently purchased a new TP-Link router (Archer something IIRC) and it's quite honestly the worst router I've ever run. I goes down several times a day, dropping all network traffic that isn't TCP. Thus DHCP, UDP DNS and ICMP echo all fail.

My old router is > 5 years old Asus (possibly as much as 10 years old!!) and literally held together with electricians tape. I've had an array of physical failures due to age from the antenna no longer standing up to the power button no longer functioning and I've used electricians tape to fix all of them. But for the stuff that matters it still works extraordinary well.

So I figured it was only a matter of time before that router died completely and I'd need a new one. And I figured it has been so many years since I last upgraded that my new device should be amazing in comparison. But man was I wrong.

After getting kicked out of an important Zoom call last week (and weeks of issues and debugging too) I finally lost my temper, unhooked the router and went full on Office Space[1] on it.

I'm now back to running the old router. A router that's older than both of my kids. A router that had earned its retirement. I'm going to replace it with a Draytek device in the new year. Given I'm mostly working from home these days I want something reliable. But I'm also thinking Draytek will last me another ~10 years so it will work out cheaper than the TP-Link crap. In fact I'll never buy another TP-Link device again.

[1] For those who haven't seen Office Space: https://youtu.be/fjsSr3z5nVk (also definitely watch the movie. It's great!)

Re: Hidden Networks in TP-Link Routers

#130

Post by somerandomqaguy »

haneefmubarak wrote: post #98
rocqua wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

Not in manufacturing so I'm just speculating here. But I'd imagine that would create a new set of logistical issues, specifically instead of one bill of material that can be applied everywhere with controlled applied via software, now you need N BOM's, when N is the market region that has a slightly different set of RF transmission rules.

Not infeasible but certainly a significant increase in cost.

Post reply on HN