[deleted]
It says they're accepting feedback until August 16th... So until 12 days ago.
The initial comment period has been extended September 9th. This was requested by the ITT and TIA.
OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]
21–30 of 126 posts
Re: OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]
#22As a skeptic I have to wonder whether Google lobbied for this prior to their OnHub release. I'm also expecting Apple to announce some sort of router on Sep 9 to go with HomeKit + AppleTV. Both parties would have a vested interest in locking down the open source router ecosystem.
Re: OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]
#23The unintended consequences of this will be millions upon millions of compromised devices all over the world with owners completely unable to solve the problem themselves.
Or the router manufacturers will properly modularize their designs so that the parts you need to replace to fix a compromise are separate from the parts that ensure that the radio stays on legal frequencies, under legal power limits, and uses legal modulation modes.
The cheapest way to ensure those things is to do it in software, which is how we get into this situation in the first place. Modularization will cost more, and what manufacturer is going to willingly sign up for that?
Re: OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]
#24This appears to me to be a clear-cut example of prior restraint, if common sense standards of free speech are to be applied to source code.
Re: OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]
#25This makes a great reason to buy Chinese equipment. Do that, it might be substandard, but you preserve your freedom.
Unless of course their equivalent of the NSA doesn't install something that runs next to the firmware independently. > http://www.infoworld.com/article/2608141/internet-privacy/sn...
[deleted]
Re: OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]
#26If you're in the US please take 5 minutes and do something about this. This is a big deal.
Make a phone call about this:
> 1 (888) 225-5322
Send an email:
> Chairman Tom Wheeler: Tom.Wheeler@fcc.gov
> Commissioner Mignon Clyburn: Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov
> Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel: Jessica.Rosenworcel@fcc.gov
> Commissioner Ajit Pai: Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov
> Commissioner Michael O’Rielly: Mike.O'Rielly@fcc.gov
Write a letter:
> Federal Communications Commission
> 445 12th Street, SW
> Washington, DC 20554
source: https://www.fcc.gov/contact-us
Re: OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]
#27As a skeptic I have to wonder whether Google lobbied for this prior to their OnHub release. I'm also expecting Apple to announce some sort of router on Sep 9 to go with HomeKit + AppleTV. Both parties would have a vested interest in locking down the open source router ecosystem.
If you are not using a Google or Apple router, I don't see why they would care if you are running third party firmware on your router.
If you are using a Google or Apple router and they do not want you to replace the firmware on it they could use signed firmware already. They would not need to have the FCC tell them that they have to use signed firmware in order to use signed firmware.
If there was some way to use third party firmware on a non-Google, non-Apple router in order to interact with Google or Apple routers in a way that compromises something Google or Apple are trying to do, then maybe Google or Apple would have an interest in trying to stop that...but this would not be an effective way to stop that.
It would not be effective because people would simply build their own routers using a PC with a wifi card to attack the Google or Apple routers, instead of attacking by replacing firmware on stand-alone consumer routers with firmware that supports that attack.
I can't think of anything else. Did you have some other vested interest in mind?
Re: OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]
#28I 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?
Asus does ship a open source fork of Tomato (AsusWRT) on at least their high-end routers. I've used it, it's actually pretty decent.
Re: OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]
#29If you're in the US please take 5 minutes and do something about this. This is a big deal. Make a phone call about this: > 1 (888) 225-5322 Send an email: > Chairman Tom Wheeler: Tom.Wheeler@fcc.gov > Commissioner Mignon Clyburn: Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov > Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel: Jessica.Rosenworcel@fcc.gov > Commissioner Ajit Pai: Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov > Commissioner Michael O’Rielly: Mike.O'Rielly@fcc.gov Write…
PLEASE put in comments on this proceeding, everyone! WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Re: OpenWRT vs. FCC – Forced Firmware Lockdown? [video]
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's the highbrow option, what's a mini-ITX motherboard with an AMD 5350, 4GB RAM, an SSD and an Intel 4-port gig-e card plus the onboard gig-e? Scout NewEgg for combos -- you too can run a fully supported OS on x86-64 instruction sets with familiar hardware, but at a low cost of both purchase and power.
You built a server that also happens to route? I was thinking the low brow option would be an old laptop, but that's not going to suffice for someone who wants to keep up with wireless protocols (due to the same FUD under discussion). Obviously you can fix this (coreboot or modded BIOS), but specificity and tinker factor is going way up. It's the rise of low power general boards that really make this practical. I tri…
I was thinking the low brow option would be an old laptop, but that's not going to suffice for someone who wants to keep up with wireless protocols
Many laptops have mini-PCIe slots for the WLAN, so you could buy a new card and stick it in. Note that if you want to run 5GHz and the laptop didn't previously support it, you might need new antennas too.
The other caveat is that with some laptops the BIOS will allow only a particular WLAN card to be used. Which is annoying.