Slashdot Mirror
FCC Clarifies: It's Legal To Hack Your Router (betanews.com)
Mark Wilson writes with an update to an earlier report that the wording of new FCC regulations could mean that it would be illegal to modfiy the software running on wireless routers by installing alternative firmwares. Instead, The commission has now acknowledged that there was more than a little confusion from people who believed that manufacturers would be encouraged to prevent router modifications. The FCC wants to make it clear that most router hacking is fine and will remain fine. With a few exceptions, that is. In a blog post entitled Clearing the Air on Wi-Fi Software Updates, Julius Knapp from the FCC tries to clear up any misunderstandings that may exist.
Sure. I'm glad to know what the intention of the rule is, but isn't it still likely that the easiest way for manufacturers to comply will be total lockdown?
No one with a clue thought it would be illegal to hack your router. There might have been a few idiots spouting that but there are always idiots spouting on the Web. The issue is that certain changes - increasing your transmission power - ARE illegal and have long been illegal. The FCC is looking at putting out rules to prevent that from being possible, or at least make it much more difficult. The easiest way to implement those rules for manufacturers is to prevent the router from running anything other than the default firmware. The FCC made some changes to their wording which may or may not reduce that likelihood a bit. But the changes are largely cosmetic and the possibility of manufactures making changes which prevents users from changing their firmware is still a real concern. It may not be illegal but if you can't do it, does that really matter?
doesnt that limit firmware to authorised versions only...
Wish I had mod points, I'd bump you up. Nobody actually thought the FCC was going to make hacking your router illegal. It's outside their jurisdiction anyway as long as it doesn't change the electromagnetic emissions. The reality is that the easiest way for a manufacturer to assure compliance is to sign the firmware and lock the hardware to that signature, effectively preventing any firmware modification. If anybody thinks manufacturers are going to take the intentional hard road in the design just so a tiny subset of their customers can go in and modify things, you're nuts. Effectively the FCC is still boning us all.
Probably not manufactures in general, but is it really nuts to believe that some still might?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The issue is that certain changes - increasing your transmission power - ARE illegal and have long been illegal. The FCC is looking at putting out rules to prevent that from being possible, or at least make it much more difficult.
There are a few cases where increasing your power; as well as operating "out of band" are legal; well..actually....there is one. You can operate a 802.11 wifi device under Part 97 (amatuer radio) if you have an amateur radio license and comply with the other rules of what you can and can't use Part 97 for. There are hams using off-the-shelf WiFi with modified firmware to operate under PArt 97 rules to create wireless networks that can be used by emergency services or for other authorized Part 97 services. One example is streaming video of say...the finish line of a marathon where hams are providing some logistical services. VOIP has also been played around.
Again, you have to have a ham license to operate in this fashion; and you cannot provide a public internet connection over it; or at the very least; it must be extremely limited.
There's a few open source/custom hardware platforms out there geared towards custom networking equipment. Personally I use the PC Engines APU http://pcengines.ch/apu.htm It's the best router I've ever owned
You can run whatever software you want on a computer, as long as any wifi cards are using official firmware to guarantee that they follow FCC rules.
By making your own computer all you are doing is changing the protocol by which you need to communicate with an FCC controlled device ( TCP/IP -> PCI/PCIE)
It's doesn't matter what kind of software you run on your home made router for the same reason it doesn't matter what software you run on the computers connected to your store bought router.
Trying to add new protections that guard the firmware is a lot harder than taking away the command that the OS sends to the radio firmware.
The problem isn't the "firmware." One problem is language; people are describing the router OS as "firmware," but it isn't; that is regular software. Being installed on flash drive doesn't turn it into "firmware." But there is a hardware radio, which in most cases has real firmware. Currently, that firmware just does whatever the processor tells it to do. All they have to do in many cases is alter the radio firmware to use compiled-in radio power and modulation limits.
The ones that are harder are where it is a single System on Chip, and the radio firmware is not accessible to the device programmer. But in that case, any attempt to lock it down would require adding an external microcontroller. An extra controller that limits the output power is going to be a lot easier than one that attempts to implement some sort of DRM scheme. But the real change will come easy; the SoC vendors will just make a tiny, tiny change so that the memory address for the gain can't be altered. That is what will really happen; the companies making the routers won't even have to change anything. It is already normal for microcontrollers to have a fuse bit that can be programmed to prevent further changes to certain parts of memory. This is what that is for. And it won't affect the OS, which will still have to be able to receive security updates.
So... Just to be obvious, it's all fine and dandy to flash firmware into routers that don't come with WiFi?
Then I guess we should hope manufacturers realize in time that there is a market for such routers. One of the cases where having FEWER features is a feature.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Unless firmware lockdown is banned, it will be the result, regardless of what FCC says. If manufactors have to lock one part, in this case wifi power and they never designed their systems to do so, they either have to make major changes, which cost money to develop and produce. It suddenly doesn't become a question how they feel about their hardware being flashed, but more if they can justify the costs to allow it. They likely can't if the competitors just lock their devices.
By forcing the hardware to be flashable, then all companies will be forced to find a solution. The problem is that I don't think FCC can ban locks. Their power lies with wireless signals, which mean they basically say they want to lock everything they have power to lock. They now make a statement that they didn't intend to lock the wired and routing parts of the firmware, but I don't think they ever had the power to do so. In other words, their new statement means nothing.
I don't see a happy end in this for anybody. Either the result is locked routers or overpowered routers. I don't want either, but I can't see any other option to be realistic. I even have a hard time seeing FCC being able to back down even if they want to. Their job is by definition to prevent signals from causing problems for others and they can't ignore that.
Actually now that I think about it, FCC should be able to make rules about chips controlling the power settings. If they require two numbers to the power controlling hardware and the hardware then uses the lowest value and one of those inputs is fixed with write once memory, then the power setting can be capped at production time. Since this involves the power setting directly it might be able to pass as something FCC can demand legally. If the power is controlled this way, FCC will have a big don't care for the user reachable firmware. It can be debated if it is a good design, but I can't think of anything else the FCC can do to enforce signal power and not lock routers.
I don't want my router putting out a lot of power. It's more secure if it's not reachable from outside my house. I already use wire where I can.
I expect you will still be able to buy some high end hardware that will be owner friendly. I doubt the cheaper stuff will though.
Careful now. Don't make yourself a target.
They are just trying to keep you safe. Quit being a spoiled child and listen to those who know better than you what's good for you.
That's basically what I said 4 postings ago in this subthread. Apparently I should have posted it anonymously to avoid being downmodded...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
He and Dave Taht wrote the reply to the former rulemaking proposal, which *specifically* asked how the vendor would prevent purchasers from flashing it with DD-WRT. Please see the IETF submission at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comme...
davecb@spamcop.net
Regrettably, routers are designed to be extremely cheap, and have only one cpu and OS. Specific vendors (as noted in the IETF submission) have publicly claimed that the FCC rules require them to prevent any modification to the device, and lock it down.
IMHO, that gives them "forced obsolescence", and sales at full list price for newer models with bug-fixes.
davecb@spamcop.net
http://hardware.slashdot.org/~Mark+Wilson says "The user you requested does not exist, no matter how much you wish this might be the case."
Vint Cerf, on the other hand, definitely exists, and his and Dave Taht's submission to the FCC pointed out that the problem existed, no matter how much you wish this might not be the case.
davecb@spamcop.net
So... Just to be obvious, it's all fine and dandy to flash firmware into routers that don't come with WiFi?
I don't see why not. It's not like any firmware you can flash on to a wired-only router is going to ever cause any interference on any broadcast frequencies.
Wired routers are just little embedded computers with 5 integrated NICs
The problem is that the firmware for a wireless router is that it is monolithic. If they had split the firmware into parts (i.e. like one for the wifi controller, and one for the OS), then you should logically be able to flash the OS to whatever you want and keep the wifi controller software the same. This would be analogous to changing OSes on your desktop but keeping the PCI wifi card firmware the same.
It is you who is being disengenuous. We see advertisements on Ebay for items worth - ohhh - fifty bucks. They are advertised for some ridiculous price like $1, plus $100 shipping. The vendor who offered that fifty dollar item gets real close to 100% markup. Are we going to argue that he didn't "sell" the item at a profit?
GP makes a valid point. DIshonest people play with words to make their dishonesty look honest.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
One of our regulars Bruce Perens, has a good writeup on this. You can read his filing here:
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comme...
There was a Slashdot post about it but I didn't look for it. Ah - it was just a few results down so I'll include it:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
You can thank him later. At least he tries and he seems to sum things up fairly well.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Laws and regulations don't really stop anyone. What they do is establish that they're punishable actions. Laws against murder do not, for example, prevent people from murdering others.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Bruce's petition has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Why bother posting it?
I've kept ledgers. Money in, money out. Accounts receivable, etc ad nauseum.
If PP receives cash in return for body parts, then they've sold body parts. That is the bottom line.
That's like they claim that no federal tax dollars are spent on abortions. Utter bullshit - a huge part of their income comes from taxes. Without the taxes, they couldn't keep their doors open. Keeping their doors open enables them to perform abortions. Bottom line - tax dollars enable PP to perform abortions, despite what their imaginative accountants claim.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
These FCC comments do not dissuade me from the concern that whether or not that was the intention of the FCC rule-making, the effect will be to lock down router firmware. Locking down the firmware is one of the easiest way to address the FCC's concern. How else are router manufacturers going to prevent modification to the values place in control registers of commodity I/O devices? The processors in these devices don't have the necessary capabilities to lock these parameters down using a virtual machine model, and the commodity I/O devices don't have any built-in mechanism to prevent other than blessed values to be placed into control registers. Clearly the FCC still values their concerns about preventing us from misusing our devices over our concerns about securing our devices.