Slashdot Mirror
Why Cybersecurity Experts Want Open Source Routers (vice.com)
derekmead writes: A coalition of 260 cybersecurity experts is taking advantage of a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) public comment period to push for open source Wi-Fi router firmware.
The cybersecurity experts asked the FCC on Wednesday to require router makers to open-source their firmware, or the basic software that controls its core functionality, as a condition for it being licensed for use in the US. The request comes amid a wider debate on how the FCC should ensure that Wi-Fi routers' wireless signals don't "go outside stated regulatory rules" and cause harmful interference to other devices like cordless phones, radar, and satellite dishes.
The cybersecurity experts asked the FCC on Wednesday to require router makers to open-source their firmware, or the basic software that controls its core functionality, as a condition for it being licensed for use in the US. The request comes amid a wider debate on how the FCC should ensure that Wi-Fi routers' wireless signals don't "go outside stated regulatory rules" and cause harmful interference to other devices like cordless phones, radar, and satellite dishes.
Below is the text of another comment a career security professional (myself) submitted to the FCC on this issue. Specifically, this is regarding the FCC's proposal to essentially outlaw open routers, by requiring that the firmware be boot-locked.
Based on 18 years of professional experience in network security, in both the private sector and government, the proposed rule causes significant concern for information security posture. There are three primary reasons. The legitimate goals of the FCC could be achieved in an alternate manner which does not cause the same widespread security vulnerabilities, by instead requiring that output power levels and any other critical parameters be limited to legal levels by a separate chip. This approach would be far superior to effectively banning proper security practice for the ENTIRE operating system and all utilities on the device, as the current proposal does.
1
The proposed rule which requires that manufacturers disallow firmware updates (other than signed manufacturer updates, typically provided for only a very short time), makes it much more difficult to prevent incidents such as the $45 million loss at TJX and the Target breach. In both cases, the victim companies were initially targeted because insecure wifi devices were in use. To reduce future occurrences of such breaches, it is imperative to be able to update devices which use wireless networking. Especially when a vulnerability such as Shellshock is discovered, it is imperative that risks be mitigated immediately.
Updates provided by the manufacturer may at first seem to be a possible solution, but are not actually a viable solution for two reasons. Manufacturers generally do not provide long-term updates, updates for devices more than about one-two years old. In many cases, no updates are offered at all to handle issues after the date of sale. It is not reasonable to anticipate that organizations and families will replace their network gear every year or two - firmware updates are needed, including for devices which are a few years old. Perhaps ESPECIALLY for devices which are a few years old.
Secondly, updates from the manufacturer are not a viable solution for more sensitive government and private organizations due to the response time required. In the first 24 hours after the release of Shellshock, thousands of systems were compromised. For many networks, it is critically important to mitigate the threat during this initial time frame. Manufacturer full updates were not available for several days to several months, as we first discussed the best long term solution and that solution propagated downstream from the authors, to the subsystem maintainers, distribution maintainers, OEM repackagers, and finally out to customers after testing at each level. In the meantime, temporary MITIGATIONS were performed on-site by network engineers and security contractors. These vital mitigations which protected sensitive networks in the interim would be illegal and prevented by manufacturer locks under the proposed rule. In simple terms, the proposal makes it illegal to manufacturer equipment which can be _quickly_ protected against new threats to our cyber security.
2
Another reason that the proposed rule is problematic is that the manufacturer default firmware, with all available features designed to be as easily accessible as possible, is not appropriate for any environment in which security is a concern. A central tenet of information security, and security in general, is that the attack surface should be as small as possible - services not needed for a particular installation should not be installed and enabled. The only software which definitely cannot be exploited is software which is not installed or not enabled. Therefore, the most secure firmware tends to be that with as many features _removed_ as possible, with only those items required for the current role installe
Ban isp from forcing you to rent there hardware / make them give you a true bridge mode / pure Ethernet handoff
The TPP effectively takes control of the www. If we follow the adage of "the Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it," then we can see that what will most likely develop is a network that is outside of the www. The easiest way to implement such a network in the U.S. is with Wi-Fi-type devices, but if those devices are locked down, not just legally, but physically, then this task becomes yet harder, especially with the ridiculously low power limitations placed on consumer controlled devices.