Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Clarifies: It's Legal To Hack Your Router (betanews.com)

Posted by timothy on from the know-your-place-citizen dept.

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.

14 of 85 comments (clear)

  1. Does this really change anything? by hidden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Does this really change anything? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Informative

      And the easiest way for users to give it the finger is not to buy that broken boxes and instead return to what we did in the 90s, using old computers as routers.

      It's not like you can't build computers that have similar power consumption levels as those routers, with the added bonus that you can actually remove all the parts you don't need that only pose a security risk by their mere existence.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Does this really change anything? by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Cheapest devices will continue to suck, news at 11?

      Better devices will get better, because they'll have a modular design by following the actual implementation recommendations they gave. They just want the radio block not to have the gain turned up by the main processor. That is it. That is all. Honestly, this is what they should have been doing already under the old guidance. The "new" rule is just a friendlier way than saying, "You've been doing it wrong for 10 years" and leave everybody worrying about fines, or fighting over what the old rules really said. They were never allowed to sell devices that the user could turn up over the output limit; they were always supposed to be unable to be turned up by the user without physical modification.

      And that is better for people that want to violate the rules, too, because external, modular amplifiers that are on the black market now are much, much stronger than the modifications that people can do in firmware. Everybody wins, except the cheapskates.

    3. Re:Does this really change anything? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... isn't it still likely that the easiest way for manufacturers to comply will be total lockdown?...

      Well, then it will be the manufacturers to blame, not the FCC.

      .
      If the current crop of manufacturers wimp out and lock down the devices, then I am sure some alternatives will crop up that are not locked down (besides the RF stuff). Or,you could even grab an old PC and use that as a router.

      On other forums, I've read comments about how the mod'ers want to be able to change the frequency to non-WiFi channels because the WiFi channels are too busy where they live. Those same people noted that they are not concerned with what other radio devices they would be affecting, so long as they can up the power of their access point and change its frequency. For that reason, I feel the FCC is going in the correct direction with this latest revision.

    4. Re:Does this really change anything? by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is no reason for an extra OS, because any additional microcontroller will only be managing the radio, and there is no reason to use an OS for that; you can just program the firmware to run directly.

      All they really have to do though is compile the max gain into the existing firmware instead of letting the OS set it on boot. They have to cut/paste a couple lines from one .h file to another. Horrors. The rules on the max output wattage don't change very often; historically, I don't think it has ever been increased. The total net benefit of that being configurable has been zilch.

      People handwaving about things getting "locked down" are a bit breathless. There is no reason companies are going to spend extra money on engineering hours to lock down stuff other than the radio gain and modulation settings.

      The router stuff isn't being prevented or restricted in any way, those are simply the devices where some models were not following the rules. Basically, they moved too much of the radio init code into software out of laziness. The radio is a hardware radio, though, not software; so we're just talking about moving OS driver code into firmware, and all that gets moved is the init. There is no way they're going to save money by trying to "lock down" the OS, which is not really doable anyways.

      Remember, software defined radio is more expensive than hardware radios, because of the processing requirements. So the radios were already all hardware. That is why the FCC engineers are a bit surprised and disappointed in the public and the doomsday speculation.

    5. Re:Does this really change anything? by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      This applies to less than 1 percent of the public. I'd bet if you build your own router the day will come that will make you automatically a candidate for closer monitoring.

    6. Re:Does this really change anything? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      And the easiest way for users to give it the finger is not to buy that broken boxes and instead return to what we did in the 90s, using old computers as routers.

      It's not like you can't build computers that have similar power consumption levels as those routers,

      Sadly, that rapidly gets expensive. Your computer can be as small/cheap/low-power as a router, pick two.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Does this really change anything? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People handwaving about things getting "locked down" are a bit breathless. There is no reason companies are going to spend extra money on engineering hours to lock down stuff other than the radio gain and modulation settings.

      You're half right. Companies are not going to spend extra engineering hours on this stuff. So rather than going through and locking down specifics they'll likely just disable write and JTAG interfaces after shipping and you get a read-only device for your pleasure.

      Oh but what about official firmware updates you ask?
      I've yet to own a device that's ever received one.

  2. No one with a clue thought it would be illegal ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  3. Re:No one with a clue thought it would be illegal by QuasiEvil · · Score: 2

    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.

  4. Re:No one with a clue thought it would be illegal by DewDude · · Score: 2

    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.

  5. Vint Cerf knew it would be illegal ... by davecb · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  6. It only makes it worse... by davecb · · Score: 2

    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
  7. Slashdot says the author doesn't exist by davecb · · Score: 2

    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