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

OpenWrt Two Approval

openwrt.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 133 posts

Re: OpenWrt Two Approval

#81

Post by misiek08 »

donnachangstein wrote: post #45
wtallis wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> suggesting some Chinese shitbox PC off AliExpress as the ideal platform to run it on? How reasonable do you think it is to be this automatically suspicious of any computer coming from China? A generic low-cost barebones Intel PC certainly has plenty of space for compromised firmware to hide, but it's implausible that a Chinese intelligence agency would indiscriminately deploy an attack that made use of a compromise…

> How reasonable do you think it is to be this automatically suspicious of any computer coming from China? Based on their track record? Pretty fucking reasonable. I would say that most probably isn't malicious collaboration with the CCP, rather sheer incompetence. Shipping secure anything just isn't part of their culture. Read a comment on HN the other day from someone that evaluated Huawei hardware for a telco and s…

Im curious how you are currently writing those comments. Other than most of the hardware is made in CN or TW, there is not so much records targeting normal people. Also you get good hardware cheap, it just works and helps us going forward. Enterprise crap from companies like Intel (especially their server disks) are nightmare for years now and last Juniper and Cisco hardcore bugs in software causing soft-drops without any metrics rising on-device - good luck with that. I’m more than happy using CN stuff than imaginary safer and better US crap.

Re: OpenWrt Two Approval

#82

Post by throwaway48476 »

numpad0 wrote: post #22
neilv wrote: post #11

GL.iNet is a popular brand, though I can't find a Wikipedia page for it. https://www.gl-inet.com/about-us/ says: > GL Tech (HK) Ltd: #601, 5W, Hong Kong Science Park, N.T. Hong Kong > GL Intelligence, Inc.: 10400 Eaton Place, Suite 215, Fairfax, VA 22030 I'm a little curious about this. One of the reasons that some people run OpenWrt is for improved security. In the general security space, a Shenzen company isn't the…

I'd like an L3Harris gamer router with IBM CPU, Intel ROM/RAM, Xilinx DSP, and Analog Devices modem, all at $49, but only if there's going to be such a thing, ever...

L3 would make it $49k...

Re: OpenWrt Two Approval

#84

Post by close04 »

xvilka wrote: post #54
donnachangstein wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How reasonable do you think it is to be this automatically suspicious of any computer coming from China? Based on their track record? Pretty fucking reasonable. I would say that most probably isn't malicious collaboration with the CCP, rather sheer incompetence. Shipping secure anything just isn't part of their culture. Read a comment on HN the other day from someone that evaluated Huawei hardware for a telco and s…

> Read a comment on HN the other day from someone that evaluated Huawei hardware for a telco and swore it was so full of holes to be unusable. Do you have a link? Would be nice to know more technical details.

Someone evaluated Huawei hardware for many telcos years ago and a lot of them decided the equipment is not only usable, it’s the best choice. So which ones were the incompetents or shills?

Re: OpenWrt Two Approval

#85

Post by simoncion »

3np wrote: post #35
neilv wrote: post #11

GL.iNet is a popular brand, though I can't find a Wikipedia page for it. https://www.gl-inet.com/about-us/ says: > GL Tech (HK) Ltd: #601, 5W, Hong Kong Science Park, N.T. Hong Kong > GL Intelligence, Inc.: 10400 Eaton Place, Suite 215, Fairfax, VA 22030 I'm a little curious about this. One of the reasons that some people run OpenWrt is for improved security. In the general security space, a Shenzen company isn't the…

I'm less concerned with their jurisdiction and company profile than their absent software/firmware maintenance. I have a bunch of their different models and in practice most of them are unusable today (based on ancient upstream with missing important updates; their sources are a huge mess with scarce and out-of-date docs so have fun resolving that yourself; device dtb/driver require unavailable patches; IIRC their st…

You should be aware of how much collaboration the OpenWRT folks have with -say- Ubiquiti Networks. [0] And yet, OpenWRT runs fine on the UAP-AC-LITE and -LR.

I'd wager there's nearly zero collaboration between the overwhelming majority of the hardware manufacturers that create hardware that OpenWRT runs on and the OpenWRT folks.

Your concern is entirely unwarranted and -if I might be a little uncharitable- seems to come from a position of ignorance (whether actual or feigned, I cannot tell).

[0] Less than zero.

Re: OpenWrt Two Approval

#86

Post by lzlrd »

> * 10G SFP

> * 5G copper

> * 4 port 2.5G copper

> * 1-2 port 1G copper

Should've gone for at least two 10G ports and dropped the extra two 1G ports...

Re: OpenWrt Two Approval

#87

Post by u8080 »

microtonal wrote: post #41
miohtama wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you recommend Western companies that would be able to produce similar hardware at the same price point?

MicroTik is European (Latvian) and makes some affordable routers. Their own RouterOS is closed source, but many models are supported by OpenWrt (no experience). If you are willing to spend more, OPNsense (Netherlands) also sells hardware. In the old days one could also recommend PFsense hardware, but they are becoming more and more closed (though you can usually run OPNsense on the same hardware). QNAP is Taiwanese.…

I would like to avoid Mikrotik at all costs since they are not only running questionable proprietary software, but has a history of GPL violation.

Currently they provide sources for GPL components this way, what a joke of a company:

>To get a CD with the corresponding source code for the GPL-covered programs in this distribution, wire transfer $45 to MikroTikls SIA, Ūnijas iela 2, Riga, LV-1039, Latvia.

Re: OpenWrt Two Approval

#88

Post by cushychicken »

numpad0 wrote: post #22
neilv wrote: post #11

GL.iNet is a popular brand, though I can't find a Wikipedia page for it. https://www.gl-inet.com/about-us/ says: > GL Tech (HK) Ltd: #601, 5W, Hong Kong Science Park, N.T. Hong Kong > GL Intelligence, Inc.: 10400 Eaton Place, Suite 215, Fairfax, VA 22030 I'm a little curious about this. One of the reasons that some people run OpenWrt is for improved security. In the general security space, a Shenzen company isn't the…

I'd like an L3Harris gamer router with IBM CPU, Intel ROM/RAM, Xilinx DSP, and Analog Devices modem, all at $49, but only if there's going to be such a thing, ever...

This gave me a good laugh XD

Re: OpenWrt Two Approval

#89

Post by bobmcnamara »

wtallis wrote: post #48
donnachangstein wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How reasonable do you think it is to be this automatically suspicious of any computer coming from China? Based on their track record? Pretty fucking reasonable. I would say that most probably isn't malicious collaboration with the CCP, rather sheer incompetence. Shipping secure anything just isn't part of their culture. Read a comment on HN the other day from someone that evaluated Huawei hardware for a telco and s…

What kind of security vulnerabilities do you think an incompetent PC OEM is going to accidentally introduce to a barebones PC that's basically shipping an Intel reference platform and no SSD ? Or that GL.iNet might be able to introduce to a system where OpenWRT is assembling the firmware image that gets flashed to the board, and if there are any closed-source components they'd be coming from Mediatek and not develope…

> What kind of security vulnerabilities do you think an incompetent PC OEM is going to accidentally introduce to a barebones PC that's basically shipping an Intel reference platform and no SSD?

Historically remote code execution in the IME.

> an incompetent PC OEM

And then it never gets patched.

Re: OpenWrt Two Approval

#90

Post by 3np »

simoncion wrote: post #85
3np wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm less concerned with their jurisdiction and company profile than their absent software/firmware maintenance. I have a bunch of their different models and in practice most of them are unusable today (based on ancient upstream with missing important updates; their sources are a huge mess with scarce and out-of-date docs so have fun resolving that yourself; device dtb/driver require unavailable patches; IIRC their st…

You should be aware of how much collaboration the OpenWRT folks have with -say- Ubiquiti Networks. [0] And yet, OpenWRT runs fine on the UAP-AC-LITE and -LR. I'd wager there's nearly zero collaboration between the overwhelming majority of the hardware manufacturers that create hardware that OpenWRT runs on and the OpenWRT folks. Your concern is entirely unwarranted and -if I might be a little uncharitable- seems to c…

What does that have to do with anything? I'm speaking about experience of deploying existing gl.inet devices, marketed as "fully open source" with OpenWrt being front-and-center in marketing, as well as being promoted on the OpenWrt wiki.

That someone from the community has made OpenWrt run fine on Ubiquiti gear has nothing to do with my comment and is not indicative of anything (if anything perhaps supporting the notion that glinet should be able to do better).

> Your concern is entirely unwarranted and -if I might be a little uncharitable- seems to come from a position of ignorance (whether actual or feigned, I cannot tell).

Yeah, that's quite uncharitable. Did you read the last line of the comment you replied to?

Speaking of ignorance... How many new embedded devices have you personally ported OpenWrt (or any Linux dist for that matter) to? How many glinet devices do you have experience deploying self-compiled builds to? How much time have you spent digging through their sources and patches?

Post reply on HN