Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TP-Link Begins Lockdown of Firmware In Response To FCC

Posted by timothy on from the climate-of-fear dept.

An anonymous reader writes: In response to an FCC rule that requires manufacturers to lock down computing devices (routers, PCs, phones) to prevent modification if they have a "modular wireless radio," TP-Link has begun locking down its routers to prevent firmware not signed by TP-Link from being installed. This essentially prevents open source OSs (OpenWRT, for example) from being used on routers. TP-Link may not be a prestige brand, exactly, but the company makes a lot of routers suitable for installing third-party firmware, precisely the sort of thing being locked down makes difficult if not impossible.

157 comments

  1. WOW by andydread · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So this is the end of open source firmware on basically any device with a radio

    1. Re:WOW by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this will mean that a new consortium will be created whose purpose will be to raise money to pay corporations to bless open source projects for their hardware.

      Or, a new company will rise up that uses open source firmware on their hardware (Buffalo does this, I think, with some of its routers)

      My initial reaction is to mourn the loss of another freedom, but it is in the name of security.

      I am conflicted. The same thing is happening on PC's with secure boot. It is arguable that this raises the bar for security but the down side is the fact that we lose some control over the devices we have.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    2. Re:WOW by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am conflicted. The same thing is happening on PC's with secure boot. It is arguable that this raises the bar for security but the down side is the fact that we lose some control over the devices we have.

      What's there to be "conflicted" about? In all of these cases, the "security" is "security AGAINST THE OWNER OF THE DEVICE," a.k.a. tyranny. It is unambiguously bad!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:WOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      So this is the end of open source firmware on basically any device with a radio

      As has already been well discussed, the FCC already specifically clarified that the only thing they have an issue with is the ability to use firmware to change the radio in a way that would go outside of allowable ranges, for example the ability to jack up the transmit power beyond what is legal for such a device.

      TP-Link is simply taking the lazy option, which doesn't really shock me considering they named their company "Toilet Paper - Link".

    4. Re:WOW by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      No, not exactly.

      That is one aspect of it, to be sure. But that is only one side.

      Another side is that, like an immunization, you are protecting the herd by making your system harder to crack and become a platform for attacks against yourself and others.

      There are always trade offs and compromises when it comes to security. It would be great if we could live in a world where people didn't do evil things and everything could be free and open, but that is not the world we live in.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    5. Re: WOW by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Another side is that, like an immunization, you are protecting the herd by making your system harder to crack

      No, stock firmware on consumer-grade hardware is unambiguously lowest-bidder buggy trash. Open-source replacement firmware is remarkably more secure. Secure bootloading insecure crap is just putting lipstick on the pig.

      Besides, the FCC said this wasn't their intent. We thought they were lying, so either they still are or now TPLink is. A shame, since I've been buying their gear lately for OpenWRT deployments, despite their annoying VLAN assignments. I can't see why they'd want to chase away customers, so I'll guess it's the FCC that's still lying.

      Open source gives the people too much power for a totalitarian regime to tolerate. Open source crypto is being attacked in parallel - neither can be allowed to exist without a regime change.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:WOW by mellon · · Score: 1

      Or, this is the end of relying on the incredibly shaky pipeline of hackable routers that closed-source router vendors accidentally release. That pipeline is preventing vendors of routers that can run open source software from finding a sufficient market to actually make anything. Yes, what the FCC has done here is bogus, but in the long run it may actually be good for OpenWRT.

    7. Re:WOW by macs4all · · Score: 1, Insightful

      My initial reaction is to mourn the loss of another freedom, but it is in the name of security.

      Isn't that always the excuse^h^h^h^h^h^h^h reason?

    8. Re: WOW by Gr8Apes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't see why they'd want to chase away customers, so I'll guess it's the FCC that's still lying.

      That's an incorrect presumption. It's not that they want to chase away customers, it's that to hit that checkmark to be able to sell hardware, they need to lock down the radio. Easiest cheapest way for them to do so? Lock the entire item down, or source a more expensive separate radio controller. I guess we know which way they went.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    9. Re: WOW by splashd · · Score: 0

      I agree. Dd-wrt and open wrt are at least on par, and often vastly superior to stock code, especially since the stock code is often relabled reference code from a chipset vendor.

      Why not allow for "unlock" a la cellphone vendor, where the default behavior is only allowing signed code, but an advanced user can unlock the device intentionally for open source use?

      --
      technical whipping boy, Occam's Strop (think about it...)
    10. Re:WOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It's the end of user-replaceable firmware on any device with a radio. They can still use FOSS fine and distribute the source. You just can't compile and install it yourself.

    11. Re:WOW by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      In all of these cases, the "security" is "security AGAINST THE OWNER OF THE DEVICE," a.k.a. tyranny. It is unambiguously bad!

      In this particular case, it's security against your neighbor modifying the firmware in their wireless device in such a way that it negatively affects the performance of your wireless device. That's the problem that the FCC is concerned with, since managing the use of the public airwaves is their primary reason for existing.

    12. Re:WOW by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      So this is the end of open source firmware on basically any device with a radio

      Probably just a transmitter not a radio in general, but that just a guess. I don't think there are regulations against receivers.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    13. Re:WOW by edtice1559 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Secure Boot hasn't protected the device against the owner in a decade. That may have been part of the original intent but that still doesn't make it the case today. Secure boot ensures that every step of the boot process is cryptographically signed. At any point you can reliably get the certificate chain and decide whether you want to trust that system. Sure this could be problematic in the somebody may only trust systems running an OS where the signer of the OS is Microsoft. This is done on Android devices where some systems won't let you connect if you're not running the stock firmware as verified by the signing chain. The phone can be configured to either only load the OEM software or you can flip the switch to allow your own. I'd like to see these systems accept connections from devices using alternative firmware signed by other trusted sources, but the idea of trusting a device running some unsigned software - or signed by an unknown source - is insane. We've been doing it so long, it probably seems normal but this is a function of spending too much time in the asylum.

    14. Re: WOW by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Besides, the FCC said this wasn't their intent. We thought they were lying

      It doesn't matter if they were lying, now we have proof to take to the FCC, and write more complaints about the "clarified" rule.

      This isn't the end.... we need to be on the watch for this kind of stuff, and bring it to the FCC as more examples and more proof that they are hurting people.

    15. Re: WOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or:
      They're stopping you from replacing firmware with preinstalled backdoors.

    16. Re:WOW by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      security against your neighbor modifying the firmware in their wireless device in such a way that it negatively affects the performance of your wireless device

      No.... that's just a possible explanation for a reasoning behind the rule, BUT it does a lot more collateral damage, AND it does not actually provide that security.

      Your neighbor can still do the simplest possible thing imaginable, which is to attach an amplifier to their wireless device, and boost the signal power over the FCC PEP limits for unlicensed WiFi.

      Your neighbor can also run their microwave or cell phone which legitimately uses the frequency and can trash your WiFi performance.

    17. Re:WOW by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      Unambiguously.

      If interference was that important to the FCC, they'd make more spectrum available to all. Think about how measly the b and g spaces are compared to all that spectrum reclaimed from upper UHF TV channels. But companies who rely on cell frequencies bribe better than those who rely on WiFi.

    18. Re:WOW by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

      No.... that's just a possible explanation for a reasoning behind the rule

      No, if I understand correctly, it is the reason for the rule. It isn't a "possible explanation", unless you believe that there's some grand conspiracy behind the rule to shut down DD-WRT and similar projects.

      BUT it does a lot more collateral damage

      I agree, but the FCC has clearly stated that there was intention to prohibit open source operating systems for routers and that manufacturers are under absolutely no obligation to so.

      AND it does not actually provide that security...

      Things don't have to be 100% effective to be useful.

    19. Re: WOW by qeveren · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Meringuoid's Law cover this? XD

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    20. Re:WOW by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      TP-Link is simply taking the lazy option

      Key signing firmware doesn't sound like a lazy option, it just sounds like they implemented security in the most hostile way. After all the same change they made they could change to only a small portion of their code.

    21. Re:WOW by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And the beginning of a resurgence of high demand for consumer routers without built-in wireless. I can get by with access points - the only reason I need custom firmware is for the better routing/filtering/QoS

    22. Re:WOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't the FCC specifically mention DD-WRT at first?

    23. Re: WOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another side is that, like an immunization, you are protecting the herd by making your system harder to crack

      No, stock firmware on consumer-grade hardware is unambiguously lowest-bidder buggy trash. Open-source replacement firmware is remarkably more secure. Secure bootloading insecure crap is just putting lipstick on the pig.

      I won't dispute the case of router firmware, but The-Ixian also mentioned the case of "secure" bootloaders on PCs, which at least in theory, do provide some additional security (at the cost of freedom) for grandma's Windows box.

    24. Re: WOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignore conspiracy BS, this is about regulating the radio spectrum to protect licensed uses from 31137 h4ckz0rs who who use the emergency band to decrease their lag in Counter Strike or whatever the hell game it is.

    25. Re:WOW by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      So this is the end of open source firmware on basically any device with a radio

      No, this is the beginning of an endless arms race of developers rooting any device with a radio as fast as the manufacturers try to lock them down.

    26. Re:WOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except you have to trust your own devices. If you can't have the final say about what your own device does, then it's not trustworthy period. (Revocation of an order is just as important as being able to give an order.)

      Yes this implies a form of blind trust. We can't verify everyone nor should we. Nor should we place all of our software eggs inside of the code signing basket. Code signing has flaws. This has been demonstrated time and time again. The biggest one is what happens when a piece of malware manages to use the code signing mechanism to protect itself against the system's owner. This is exacerbated by all of these so called "Secure Boot" like systems having a common key protecting them. All it takes is one compromise and the entire security chain is broken for EVERYONE. The consequence of that compromise is: You have a broken security system that you are stuck with. You can't fix it or replace the compromised keys because you lack the keys needed to do so.

      This is what a lot of people are really asking for when they uphold code signing (even if they don't think of it this way themselves): "I'm too lazy to verify that random program that I downloaded from some website is safe, so rather than make me verify it before running it (like I should), I want someone else to verify it for me (so I can avoid responsibility) and say that it is safe (so I have someone else to blame if something goes wrong), despite the fact I've never met this person (usually) and would not dare trust them if I met them on the street. Also I don't want to verify the verification code (at runtime) either. So regardless if it's signed or not the environment may not be and I still don't care. I just want someone else to be done about my security without me having to do anything myself."

      We as a species still can't agree on basic rights. We have strife and war. We have ongoing suspicion of people in our own countries, including our own governments. What you may consider safe, I may not, and vise-versa. We can't really trust anyone right now with the power to dictate what computers and other internet connected devices can and cannot do. The best we can do is to trust our own small groups that we define. That requires the groups to be able to police themselves and that means they must have the final say. Even if that group only has one person in it.

    27. Re: WOW by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Can they handle 5ghz 802.11ac with MIMO yet? Last time I looked into open router firmware, they were all still pretty dysfunctional with their handling of the advanced 5ghz wifi modes & basically said, "use the open firmware for nat/routing, and get a separate 802.11ac access point for wifi."

    28. Re:WOW by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      It's not in the name of security in the sense that most people would think that means. It's about preventing the router from generating harmful interference to other radio services. Routers with open source firmware can often be set to operate on channels that are not allocated to WiFi in the US and thus interfere with the services that are licensed for those channels, but the FCC has not presented evidence that significant numbers of users are doing that or that harmful interference has actually occurred.

      Setting a router to operate on a non-US channel is rather useless for most US users, because the devices that attempt to connect to the router do not allow use of the non-standard channel and thus will be unable to connect. There are two notable exceptions. One is if the user device is also using open source software or was brought in from another country. The other is that the router is being used to make a wireless bridge connection to another open source router.

    29. Re: WOW by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      The FCC is not mandating that firmware be locked down. A mechanism that allowed the use of open source firmware but still made it impossible to use the router on a channel that is not authorized in the US would be fine with them. But most router manufacturers will take the path of least resistance, which is to lock down the whole thing.

    30. Re: WOW by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      I can't see why they'd want to chase away customers, so I'll guess it's the FCC that's still lying.

      That's an incorrect presumption. It's not that they want to chase away customers, it's that to hit that checkmark to be able to sell hardware, they need to lock down the radio. Easiest cheapest way for them to do so? Lock the entire item down, or source a more expensive separate radio controller. I guess we know which way they went.

      If you had a facility to have your modification of dd-wrt or successor certified with an appropriate digital signature, then you should be allowed to install that software on your own device. Perhaps you would like that kind of device without a bios chip or operating system. Where there is a legal affordable way to solve a problem, there is no obstruction.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    31. Re:WOW by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      I don't want them to lock out alternative firmware. What I want is that it should not be possible to install any unrecognized third party firmware unless I affirmatively authorize its installation, with the clear understanding that it is not from the manufacturer.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  2. Congratulations by NotInHere · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The FCC didn't claim this would happen, and it still happened. Congrats, FCC!

    1. Re:Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The FCC are not enforcing this, they are enforcing lockdown of the radio (and for VERY good reasons... channel 14 is bad...).

      If OEM's are too lazy to sort out radio and OS (like android) well... more fool them

    2. Re:Congratulations by pla · · Score: 3, Interesting

      and for VERY good reasons... channel 14 is bad.

      What? Best channel on the list, it virtually never sees any contention from countless annoying wifi-enabled phones/tablets/laptops passing by!

      Just tell your router you live in Japan (and pray it doesn't have the interface localized), and bam, good to go!

    3. Re:Congratulations by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      If OEM's are too lazy to sort out radio and OS (like android) well... more fool them

      That's not a reasonable position to take, given that our freedom is collateral damage!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:Congratulations by ThatTreeOverThere · · Score: 2

      Can US laptops connect to channel 14, though? i.e. a laptop whose WiFi adapter is set to US restrictions

    5. Re:Congratulations by NotInHere · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The FCC aren't enforcing it, yes, and I agree that it was not their goal. Still the impact of their decision remains the same.

      You can run apps on Android devices. That's the single reason why android devices have separation, even though separation costs more in manufacturing. For routers, separation just isn't an option economically.

      If the FCC had cared, it would have required separation, or just left the state as it was, but they didn't do either.

    6. Re:Congratulations by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      The FCC aren't enforcing it, yes, and I agree that it was not their goal. Still the impact of their decision remains the same.

      You can run apps on Android devices. That's the single reason why android devices have separation, even though separation costs more in manufacturing. For routers, separation just isn't an option economically.

      If the FCC had cared, it would have required separation, or just left the state as it was, but they didn't do either.

      No, the FCC should not enforce separation. They should let the manufacturer deal with it however they want.

      Some will lock it down completely.
      Others will leave it fully open, having locked it down in hardware.
      Some will do it by separating their radios and routing firmware.

      In fact, #3 is how ALL wireless routers currently work - they have a main routing CPU, and attached to that is the WiFI radios through some interface. So they are separated, just they're usually treated as one unit.

      To be honest, what's actually going to happen is router chips will be locked to their region - you buy a North American router, and the hardware bits will show which channels it's allowed to transmit on. This is easy to do, and leaves the opportunity open for fully customizable firmware since hardware is enforcing the channel lockouts.

    7. Re:Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does DVDs from the US work in Japan?

      Hey, I wouldn't be surprised if the wifi didn't work. That's the behavior I've started to expect nowadays.

    8. Re:Congratulations by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You can run apps on Android devices. That's the single reason why android devices have separation, even though separation costs more in manufacturing. For routers, separation just isn't an option economically.

      Just what difference do you think exists in routers and Android devices? Often they are both some linux system with binary driver for the radio. There's no reason and no effort the Android model can't be applied (i.e. let people tinker with the OS, but keep the radio a binary).

    9. Re:Congratulations by jwdb · · Score: 2

      What? Best channel on the list, it virtually never sees any contention from countless annoying wifi-enabled phones/tablets/laptops passing by!

      Methinks you misunderstand GP, be that accidentally or purposely. Either way, the reason channel 14 is so clear in the US is because it's illegal to use it. That channel overlaps with licensed spectrum users, and by using 14 in the US you'll be interfering with them. Depending on the level of interference you may one day get a visit from the FCC, along with a heavy fine.

      There's a reason you have to trick your router to get it to allow you to use 14.

    10. Re:Congratulations by Cramer · · Score: 1

      No trickery at all... I go to the radio setup page and select "14". It's not my fault [censored -- more than one manufacturer, actually] and Broadcom are idiots. With the regulatory zone set to "US" neither should allow 14. (this is straight out of the US retail box.)

      Yes, to get my Dell/HP laptops to use 14 I have change their zone. (which is just a registry setting in windows)

    11. Re:Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I was using channel 14 had a friends newer laptop not able to connect to 14. My sister's phone couldn't either.

    12. Re:Congratulations by jwdb · · Score: 1

      Maybe no "trickery" in the case of your router, but definitely in GP's, who said he had to set it to Japan.

      But yes, it is your fault if you set it to channel 14 and cause interference, especially seeing as you know you shouldn't be able to. Broadcom does not indemnify you for any interference you cause. This is on top of the ethical point that you're willfully causing interference and don't seem to care.

      I have a commercial access point that comes with no restrictions whatsoever as to which channels you can set it to, which is why it also comes with a warning label saying it must be set up by a professional. If I put it on channel 14 of the 2.4 GHz band, or on any but the lowest 4 of the 5 GHz channels, then I'm responsible for the interference and it'll be me who the FCC fines.

  3. WRTNode by lazarus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't have first hand experience with it, but if you are an aspiring OpenWRT hacker then you might want to look into WRTNode. Using third party proprietary hardware is always fraught with peril anyway.

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
    1. Re:WRTNode by emj · · Score: 2

      I don't have first hand experience with it, but if you are an aspiring OpenWRT hacker then you might want to look into WRTNode. Using third party proprietary hardware is always fraught with peril anyway.

      There are lots of these but they are often 4x as expensive just like this one. At $40 it's really expensive for what you are getting, if you do not need all those features which you mostly don't.

    2. Re:WRTNode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have first hand experience with it, but if you are an aspiring OpenWRT hacker then you might want to look into WRTNode. Using third party proprietary hardware is always fraught with peril anyway.

      I wouldn't touch MediaTek even with a long pole anymore. Their mobile platforms atleast are completely closed including the linux kernel. (Albeit there are some source code leaks)

      To me the most interesting platform is the Turris Omnia currently. Marvell Armada 385 that it has, is in upstream linux, decently fast (975 Mbps routing with NAT), has some decent low level spec manuals available, and comes with a custom OpenWRT out of the box. And even the bootloader (u-boot) has support for the SoC in upstream (Possibly not for the specific platform)

      Alternatively you can just use boring old x86.

  4. Except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except the FCC has repeatedly stated time and time again they have no intent of hurting third party open source firmware and they're solely focused on the radio component not causing interference. They even recently modified these rules to appease people worried about this:

    http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/11/fcc-we-arent-banning-dd-wrt-on-wi-fi-routers/

    So I have a sneaking suspicion this support employee has no damn idea what they're actually talking about.

    1. Re:Except... by internerdj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Frankly, the easiest way to comply is just to lock everything down. It doesn't really matter how much the FCC bends over backwards to accommodate third party open source firmware. The ruling made it harder to make a business case for letting the end user change the firmware. Someone was bound to comply this way, probably a lot of someones.

    2. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, then I'd imagine if their profits are impacted enough from people switching away to some competitor that does not lock the bootloader, there will be a business case for unlocking the bootloader while still following the FCC's rules.

      Although, personally I just use the things as dumb radios and let an old box do the firewalling and routing. I guess if this becomes common enough, I'll just buy a WLAN PCI card and be done with it.

    3. Re:Except... by davecb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If they lock it down, they become legally and financially resposnible for compliance-critical bugs like the glibc DNS one.

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    4. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, TP-Link in particular should think twice how hard they want to make flashing alternative firmware. Their routers are the most frequently recommended routers for OpenWRT and firmwares which are based on OpenWRT, for example Freifunk. The stock TP-Link firmware of various routers however has been plagued by mal- and misfeatures. There are much better products from other manufacturers if you're going to use the firmware that comes with the router, so blocking the path to alternative firmware could have a serious impact on the sales of TP-Link routers.

    5. Re:Except... by The-Ixian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As far as I am aware, TP-Link is the hardware behind a lot of different brands including, if I am not mistaken, Google and Apple branded routers.

      People would have to do some research before buying and I doubt that anyone but a die-hard open source fan will ever 1) do the research and 2) base the purchase decision on this issue

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    6. Re:Except... by somenickname · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wonder if this is the reason TP-Link has been moving away from Atheros based wireless gear. If you look at reviews on Amazon, TP-Link has been incrementing version numbers on some of their products and replacing the Atheros chip with chips that require binary blob firmware. As far as I know, Atheros is the only chipset that doesn't require a binary blob firmware and it's trivial to hack the kernel module so, dumping it for other chipsets might make sense (at least from their perspective) from a compliance standpoint.

    7. Re:Except... by Junta · · Score: 1

      But a router 'firmware' is really a software install. It's architecturally not that distinct from a laptop, with firmware/microcode for things like radios.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    8. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People who want to install open firmware aren't going to randomly purchase a router and hope it's compatible. They're going to go to the DD-WRT site and purchase a router from the compatibility list. I don't see a problem.

    9. Re: Except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Citation?

    10. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone hasn't read the fine-print of their EULA.

    11. Re:Except... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      dumping it for other chipsets might make sense (at least from their perspective) from a compliance standpoint.

      If that was the case they wouldn't need to sign the firmware.

    12. Re:Except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFAIK, there is no open firmware for ath10k-powered chips. So, if you want 802.11ac, you have to live with binary blobs... again. :(

    13. Re: Except... by davecb · · Score: 1

      Statute of Frauds (1600ff)

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    14. Re:Except... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      the FCC has repeatedly stated time and time again they have no intent of hurting third party open source firmware and they're solely focused on the radio component not causing interference.

      "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it"

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  5. Don't these routers have external memory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If the memory isn't built into the wireless chip itself, what is to prevent JTAG or desoldering of the flash chips to install new firmware?

    Figured I may as well ask since once one does this, the rest will follow.

    1. Re:Don't these routers have external memory? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Does you no good if the bootloader on the soc wont run anything not signed.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    2. Re:Don't these routers have external memory? by JonathanP.Bennett · · Score: 1

      These routers use UBoot, not a bootloader baked into the SoC. I doubt they have done anything too fancy, probably just checking for signed firmware when the user uploads it. I would suspect that even just using a serial connection to interrupt uboot would be enough to circumvent the checking. We won't know for sure until somebody does a complete evaluation/reverse-engineer of it.

    3. Re:Don't these routers have external memory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If the memory isn't built into the wireless chip itself, what is to prevent JTAG or desoldering of the flash chips to install new firmware?

      The fact that such are 1000x more of a PITA than just flashing new firmware is what prevents it. An option that only works for 1 out of a thousand potential users is not a practical option.

    4. Re:Don't these routers have external memory? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      So what's to stop you from changing the boot loader? Most of these devices use U-Boot or some variant so if the manufacturers provide their U-Boot alterations, it's not like one cannot remove the "secure boot" option from the hardware. Yes, it may require JTAG and eliminate a lot of folks from just flashing third party stuff at the drop of a hat, but it's not like guys like me (who have the JTAG equipment) cannot do what we want.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:Don't these routers have external memory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Routers have done the signing before, you usually just use an local exploit in their webapp (they never fix the local exploits.)

    6. Re:Don't these routers have external memory? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

      In nearly every SoC currently available now, the chain is:
      IROM (or similar) bootloader baked into the SoC. This verifies the signature of uboot, and jumps to it for execution
      Uboot then takes over, verifies the next step in the chain (if configured to do so), then jumps to it if it verifies.

      Note: The IROM signature checks prevent you from replacing uboot with something that does not enforce signature verification.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    7. Re:Don't these routers have external memory? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

      Most modern SoCs have the ability to verify u-boot prior to execution. Either the public key, or a hash of it (The little documentation I could find on TI's architecture was that to avoid storing 2048 bits in efuses, they stored a 128-bit hash of the 2048-bit key in efuses. The chip would verify the key (while in flash, could not be changed due to fixed hash), then use that key to verify uboot. TI had extensions to uboot to support hardware accelerated verification of the next stage in the boot chain.

      Note: My bit counts might be off. Might be 1024/256, 4096/256, or ???

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    8. Re:Don't these routers have external memory? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't this a GPL violation? If any of the software they use is GPL v3 then they can't tivoize it in this way.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Don't these routers have external memory? by JonathanP.Bennett · · Score: 1

      I grant you that the ability exists on many SoCs. What remains to be seen is whether TP-Link has actually done the secure-boot chain starting with the SoC. If one of the OpenWrt devs could get their hands on one of these locked down devices, we'd find out pretty quickly. I still suspect it's just a check in the stock firmware's web interface.

    10. Re:Don't these routers have external memory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing prevents you from doing that. You don't even have to go that far: Only the web interface rejects alternative firmware files. The bootloader is still unlocked, and it has a recovery mechanism which can be used to flash any firmware over TFTP. It's like DVD encryption: The goal is to make it sufficiently inconvenient to deter average users. It will work just as well.

    11. Re:Don't these routers have external memory? by JonathanP.Bennett · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is a very good point. The question is, is any of the stock firmware covered by GPLv3? Linux kernel is GPLv2, which does not have the tivoization clause.

    12. Re:Don't these routers have external memory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An option that leaves only 1 out of 1000 people with an open router is a practical option: You can't silence everybody, but you can silence one in thousand.

    13. Re:Don't these routers have external memory? by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      That's why the GPL is so good for embedded devices, and why so many embedded device vendors hate it.

  6. Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You screwed up, you trusted us!

  7. Oh well by siuengr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Glad I already returned my TP-Link and bought an Asus. I had the C9 Archer and it was terribly unstable. I guess TP-Link will be falling into obscurity again.

    1. Re:Oh well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be naive, other manufacturers are starting to lockdown too...

    2. Re:Oh well by siuengr · · Score: 1

      Don't be naive, other manufacturers are starting to lockdown too...

      Still open for now, and I already have custom firmware on it. If all the major companies do start locking down firmware, then I think it is a great opportunity for some startups touting that they still have open firmware to make their way into the market.

    3. Re:Oh well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Siuengr thinks ASUS firmware is superior. Lol. Derp.

    4. Re:Oh well by entropy01 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that Asus is a great choice anymore either. I copied this from a Full Disclosure release:
      # Exploit Title: ASUS RT-N56U Persistent XSS
      # Date: 2/2/2016
      # Exploit Author: @GraphX
      # Vendor Homepage: http://asus.com/
      # Version: 3.0.0.4.374_239

      1 Description:
      It is possible for an authenticated attacker to bypass input sanitation in
      the username input field of the Server Center page. An interception proxy
      is not required with the use of the developer console and changing the
      field value of the username after the third verification task is complete,
      and before the password sanitation begins in the modify_account.asp file.

      Alternatively, an attacker can bypass client side sanitation all together
      by submitting a valid option and then changing the parameters in an
      interception proxy.

      There is a small amount of server-side sanitation, but this is easily
      circumvented by making sure (in this example) the field value ends up
      looking like this. user"> Keeping the the
      src parameter as far to the right as possible appears to circumvent any
      server-side sanitation attempts.

      2 Proof of Concept

      1)Login to router

      2)navigate to:
      http://aidisk/modify_account.asp?account=user&new_account=user&new_password=123&confirm_password=123

      3 Solution:
      Don't buy ASUS Routers.
      **********NOTE******************
      Other router models are likely affected by this vulnerability as they
      appear to share the same or similar firmware (example: RT-N66U).
      I have been unable to confirm this theory as the vendor is unresponsive.
      http://seclists.org/fulldisclo...

    5. Re:Oh well by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Honest question... Why would you want a Wireless Router period today? Wired router plus access point(s) seems to work much better than the wireless router hidden away from an interference perspective.

      I will admit to being pretty happy with my Asus routers, but between interference with other equipment, range limitations, and a few other issues, I am planning on moving my Mom to a Ubiquity edge router with two access points for her condo, and a similar arrangement for my home. (I have already separated the PicoCell and Sonos bridge from the router, and put the Asus router on a top shelf of the bookcase to make things almost work.

    6. Re:Oh well by siuengr · · Score: 1

      I guess you missed the part where I said I already had custom firmware on it.

    7. Re:Oh well by siuengr · · Score: 1

      Not saying they are perfect, but at least I can still get custom firmware. They all have their quirks, that's why being able to getting a great open source community that can find and fix the issue fast is important. This specifically looks like an issue with Aidisk, which is their file sharing application. Opening up outside access to you network is trouble to begin with.

    8. Re:Oh well by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You're not supposed to use the stock firmware.

    9. Re:Oh well by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I haven't run ethernet to the right spot or PoE for an access point yet. So despite my router being in a utility room in the basement, it covers my small house and I have nowhere better to place an access point.

    10. Re:Oh well by siuengr · · Score: 1

      Guess you missed that I am running custom firmware.

    11. Re:Oh well by jonwil · · Score: 1

      I have an 802.11n WiFi router (that also has an ADSL2+ modem built in) and I can get WiFi signal in every part of my small apartment and even outside on the street. I have no need to spend the extra money buying a separate access point (or the extra power running one vs the power usage of my current router)

    12. Re:Oh well by siuengr · · Score: 1

      None of them are perfect. This exploit looks like it is related to their disk sharing application, which I have disabled. If you open up outside access, it is just another route for attack. At least when you have open firmware, people having a chance to fix it on their own instead of relying on a company to do it for them.

  8. Shame, I liked TP-Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If it can't run OpenWRT without soldering, it's not useful for me. Same goes for any other router that doesn't run a variant of OpenWRT, RouterOS or IOS-*.

    Guess I'll be shadowing the OpenWRT forum for my next purchase.

    1. Re:Shame, I liked TP-Link by bobbied · · Score: 3, Informative

      Exactly.. That Netgear WRT1900ACs is a sweet system. Nice CPU, two radios, Managed switch, Lots of flash, enough RAM, USB2 & 3 and even an eSATA connection. PLUS the manufacturer is running OpenWRT as their default firmware and are supporting the development by releasing the source code. Now with the "s" variant out, the plain WRT1900AC is available for just over $100. Hard to beat that. Heck, just using it for the managed switch part is almost cost effective for a 5 port switch, but add the routing, file sharing, USB ports and it's a fine multipurpose tool.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Shame, I liked TP-Link by richy+freeway · · Score: 1

      You mean Linksys...

    3. Re:Shame, I liked TP-Link by bobbied · · Score: 1

      My bad... Yes.... http://www.linksys.com/us/p/P-...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  9. TP-Link Sales Decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    TP-Link is about to see their sales decline. Their cheap shit was eagerly consumed by DIY types putting openWRT on it and frankly you could do some interesting things with it. But, this makes them into just another cheap-shit proprietary Chinese junk network equipment vendor.

    I'll pass, thanks.

    P.S. Isn't it great how well the FCC listened to all those comments that they solicited? Don;t you feel like your voice matters? That you're part of the system? That your government works for you and takes your concerns into consideration?

    1. Re:TP-Link Sales Decline by bobbied · · Score: 1

      P.S. Isn't it great how well the FCC listened to all those comments that they solicited? Don;t you feel like your voice matters? That you're part of the system? That your government works for you and takes your concerns into consideration?

      The FCC, or more specifically the commissioners are political hacks, ALL of them. It's been a long time since the FCC was actually controlled by people who actually understood the technical and business issues upon which they decide. They are driven by lobbyists, political donations and the people who nominated them and not what's good for the people. It's sad, but that's what your government has become, The FCC is just one of the more obvious examples of it.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:TP-Link Sales Decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll lose a dozen sales at most. The general public has no idea what openWRT just the same as they have no idea what Linux is. This will have no more impact than systemd has had to the public.

  10. Don't even waste your time by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    I tried OpenWRT on a cheap TP-LINK router and it barely managed 1/3 of the throughput of the stock firmware.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Don't even waste your time by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I tried OpenWRT on a cheap TP-LINK router and it barely managed 1/3 of the throughput of the stock firmware.

      I found your problem.. "cheap"

      Try something a bit better such as the Netgear WRT1900AC which will perform at least as well with the stock firmware as the OpenWrt build.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Don't even waste your time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not a matter of cheap or expensive. Many routers with gigabit Ethernet don't have a sufficiently powerful CPU for routing at wire speed. They offload some of the work to special purpose function blocks in the SoC. These accelerators often conflict with advanced routing features, which makes it difficult to implement them cleanly in OpenWRT. It creates endless special cases and most of the work is specific to particular SoCs, so the chance of code reuse is slim. In a market where SoCs change even between versions of the same product, making these detail optimizations seem highly unattractive.

    3. Re: Don't even waste your time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is why you just DIY a router from old laptop/computer or something.

      On top of it being immediately more powerful, you can now do some fun stuff, like blocking abusive IPs / ads / proxy / VPN so it is now transparent to any device behind it.
      No more Windows 10 overriding HOSTs and making apk sad.

      Some scripts here and there and you can enable/disable these features per-local-IP.

    4. Re: Don't even waste your time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a good reason to use a decent gigabit switch behind your router.

      That is, unless you have an insanely fast connection.

    5. Re:Don't even waste your time by mattventura · · Score: 1

      Which is entirely the problem of the router being crap. It doesn't take that much CPU power to route at gigabit speeds, even with NAT. Needing NAT accel to hit gigabit speeds just means the device is junk to begin with. It's one thing to use a routing ASIC on some core router designed to route tens of gigabits or more, but on a home router there's no excuse.

    6. Re: Don't even waste your time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Routers with several gigabit Ethernet ports usually have a built-in switch. The router doesn't slow down LAN traffic, but some people actually do want to route more than ca. 250Mbps between LAN and WAN or WLAN. I could get a 400Mbps internet connection here.

    7. Re:Don't even waste your time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such is the state of consumer routers. Most of these devices still get by on a single MIPS core with a CPU clock in the middle triple digit MHz. With internet connections in excess of 200Mbps becoming more widely available and growing demand for cryptographic services on home routers, the CPU power will have to make a leap forward soon.

  11. Chinese Backdoors by Catmeat · · Score: 1

    I've seen claims, or expressions of suspicion that Chinese-made networking gear may have Chinese government backdoors.

    I have no idea of the credibility of such. But it seems now the FCC wants to prevent people from taking steps to reduce that possibility. by using open firmware.

    1. Re:Chinese Backdoors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if you can't have hardware backdoors...

    2. Re:Chinese Backdoors by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't the back doors be in silicon?

  12. so what if HP locks there systems to windows only by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    so what if HP locks there systems to windows only that as it's easier to due that and only need to have an windows only bios / firmware update tool.

  13. This isn't very new for TP-Link by operator_error · · Score: 5, Informative

    The last few routers I've bought for family and friends have been TP-Link, and of course I immediately flash them all with OpenWRT. The last two routers I bought had firmware from October that was locked down, just like TFA makes note of. I wasn't pleased with the google effort and time required to get to where I wanted to go.

    As I recall, first I had to find a sort of neutral flashing dd-wrt firmware from early last year, that was possible to be flashed by TP-Link's firmware. Then, since TP-Link's October's firmware was useless, I had to flash the router with a much older version of their firmware, making the unit an April TP-Link router. Once I got that far, I was able to flash to OpenWRT as planned.

    I'm happy with the units price and performance under OpenWRT, however I will look to other vendors from now on. Of course I must also blame the FCC, which sort of hurts because lately the FCC has been making a lot of good calls for its actual constituents, (while ignoring its paid-for lobbyists).

    1. Re:This isn't very new for TP-Link by d4fseeker · · Score: 2

      What other vedors? TP-Link is just following the EU and US rules, all other vendors will follow suit very soon. I'm more worried about the phrasing in the EU-equivalent to the FCC rule which, if interpreted correctly, forbids the device from being USED with modified firmware.

    2. Re:This isn't very new for TP-Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of correct / sort of not correct.

      All the rules say is that the manufacturer has to have a security mechanism to stop the radio transmitter operating out of compliance with the FCC rules.

      TP-Link have chosen to take the cheapest possible route to implement this, by just blocking all modifications.

      (And who could blame them? Options are spend a tiny amount and lock it down, or spend a bunch more on a more granular lockdown, all for a commodity device with probably fairly small profit margins).

  14. Embarassing error by the FCC by davecb · · Score: 2

    Regrettably, they seem to have mistaken channel-based hardware with cryptographically-signed (linux, bsd) databases of allowed channels for something completely different, completely programmable "software defined radios".

    The latter are an unsolved problem for the FCC: the former are the chip designers and the Linux networking team working hard to make it easy for the FCC... and being treated badly.

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  15. Re: well, that's unexpected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Nothing in the regulations prevent use of open source, put the blame where it lies.

    With TPlink not having a reason to specifically accommodate open source.

    At least the FCC does have a reason to regulate the relevant spectrum.

  16. What about the rest of the world? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about the rest of the world? Have they locked down routers sold in europe for example?

  17. A Problem, or an Opportunity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What this will lead to is an open source hardware/software platform, immune to OEM regulation. Imagine a modular router system like arduino or Raspberry PI running routers. I imagine there will be a kickstarter project for an open source WRT or DD-WRT router because of this. Other platforms like Mikrotik will be IMMUNE, as the modular nature of their firmware is germane to their product.

  18. How wlll the FCC deal with the glibc DNS bug? by davecb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The FCC's rule change makes the manufacturers responsible for compliance, not the owner/operator. How, then, will the vendors deal with the updates required by the glibc bug, http://linux.slashdot.org/stor...

    The vendors of anything that can't be reflashed by their users are now responsible to the FCC for any compliance-critical errors in their devices. A DNS hack can can allow anyone to change to an illegal channel or use an illegal power level.

    Similarly, the vendors are at risk of being named in class-action suits for anyone whose router gets hacked through their negligence. Especially in the US, where suing people seems to be the national hobby (;-))

    Do you suppose some tiny Taiwanese firm can afford to do a recall like an auto manufacturer, and fix all their locked-down devices? Or be haulded into a US court without going broke? I suspect not...

    Locking down your products for the US market because "it's easy" may turn out to be a company-killing error.

    --dave

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
    1. Re:How wlll the FCC deal with the glibc DNS bug? by jandrese · · Score: 2

      For what it is worth, very few consumer routers use glibc because it's too fat. Your point still stands that once a product is out of it's usually narrow service window then it will become impossible to fix. Worse, the vendor supplied firmware is often of poor quality (limited feature set, insufficient NAT table, buggy, and sometimes even with remote security exploits) and the best way around that was to install OpenWRT or similar.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:How wlll the FCC deal with the glibc DNS bug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why you don't co-mingle wireless access points with routing and/or firewall functions. Rogue wireless signals can be a really big deal which is why the FCC is trying to keep it under control. And the owner of the rogue wireless device is still just as culpable as the manufacturer. Wireless ISPs have been fined millions of dollars for operating non-compliant equipment that unintentionally interfered with airport operations. TDWR in particular can have problems with even the tiniest rogue wireless signal - even one a hundred miles away - and when that happens it becomes a viable safety issue for air traffic.

      The FCC really has no choice but to take measures needed to keep licensed wireless spectrum clean. It's not an open playground for haxor kiddies to mess around with. Now with that said, if the FCC would get off of their ass and open up more spectrum for public use then much of this problem might go away on its own.

  19. not as bad as it seems. by nimbius · · Score: 3, Informative

    tplink still makes quite a number of decent standalone wireless access points with injector capability. ive never used their AIO devices, but instead ive built a network at the office with a central gentoo router connected to a switch, and the AP's locked to vlans with an IDS sniffing the network. FWIW if you need alternatives, pc engines Geode based alix routers are great (AND include AES offload at the cpu level for true random number generator acceleration.)

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  20. Different Markets by kamaaina · · Score: 1

    I recall I purchased one of TP-Link's Mini Pocket Router. There was a US version that did I could not install openwrt but there was a Chinese version that could. So hopefully we can still purchase ones outside of the country that can be modified.

  21. Who Knew by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    That the figurative back-door man would be worse than the actual back-door man?

  22. Just moving the market overseas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All I have to do now is find replacement manufacturers - China has a ton.

    1. Re:Just moving the market overseas by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      All I have to do now is find replacement manufacturers - China has a ton.

      What is a TP-link equivalent manufacturer, then?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  23. My wireless is not vunerable by satch89450 · · Score: 1

    I've been worrying about the ability for wireless routers to withstand any significant attack, particularly given the reponsiveness of the manufacturers of the things (like, none at all) to exploits. So I made a decision to put my wireless router behind a firewall that keeps bad people in the cloud from playing.

    Yes, the firewall would cost money ($70 for the computer, $0 for the firewall software -- I'm using CentOS and IPTABLES) and it's another box, but that box protects my inside network, so that I abide by the rule "Never expose Microsoft gear to the bare Internet." As a bonus, I run the router in bridge mode, so that my firewall gets to answer DHCP requests instead of the router. Makes packages like Dropbox work properly even for wireless devices.

    I use LANsync quite a bit, because the repository at work has some DVD ISO images, and an update or addition causes quite a bit of network traffic without LANsync. With LANsync, the traffic is between my fileserver and the wireless device, and the uplink carries only the administrative traffic.

    What I'm looking for is a wireless card I can put into a CentOS 7 box, so that I don't have to have the lashup I have now. It also means my resulting wireless router/server would be considerably more future-proof than my no-longer-supported Cisco branded router is. (Rebanded Linksys, I think.)

  24. 5-10% Drop in Sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure TP-Link won't mind the resulting 5-10% drop in sales...

  25. Locking up the device for the FCC is hogwash by rp100 · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing that TP-Link is choosing to lock out all open source software on their devices and blaming it on the FCC.

    There is no reason TP-Link or any other vendor can't use signed radio firmware enforcing region specific regulatory limits. Almost all countries have these rules (most follow the US FCC or the EU ETSI, but some have their own). The purpose is to prevent unauthorized use of the unlicensed spectrum. The limits include: allowed RF channels, effective indicated radiated power (EIRP), and Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS) which protects incumbent services (Military and weather radar) that share the more recently authorized 5 GHz channels (Extended UNI-II)

    This is something that PCs have done for years. . The radio is untouchable by user, yet the PCs can run all sorts of open source operating systems. WiFi adaptors have their own embedded firmware that is controlled by the chipset maker (Broadcom, Intel,...)

  26. In other news, TPLink sales implode by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    I would never buy a TPLink device (well, to be fair, *any* consumer router) that I couldn't replace the firmware on. It's been very well established that router firmwares are crap.

    My router choices are based on the DDWRT HCL. (I'd try OpenWRT, but having to set up a complete toolchain and compile the thing is a bit of a turnoff for me.)

    1. Re:In other news, TPLink sales implode by Microlith · · Score: 2

      You don't have to compile the thing. They produce a large number of pre-built images ready to go for a large number of routers.

    2. Re:In other news, TPLink sales implode by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      .....*facepalm* I honestly don't remember finding anything involving prebuilt binaries, last time I looked. Granted, this was also many years ago, so... *shrug*.

      Thanks for pointing that out for me!

  27. No external antenna, one ethernet port by SuperBanana · · Score: 2

    With only a PCB-trace antenna and one ethernet port, that is nearly useless.

    --
    Please help metamoderate.
  28. Re:The TITANIC FAIL of Logan Abbott (vs. apk) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, you're the titanic fail. We've got enough evidence of harassment/spamming/bypassing bans to have you effectively court-ordered off the internet for many years, APK.

    And we are going to get it done very soon, with monetary damages included.

    So remember, Alexander P. Kowalski, we can find you, we can serve you court papers, and we can cut you off from your source of life and livelihood because you continue to abuse it.

  29. this is information coming from tech support by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Tech support is not paid to define or even know corporate policy. Asking customer service reps about this is like asking the cashier in the drive through at McDonald's what the next version McD's app will be like.

    This means nothing at all.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  30. A drop in the bucket. by westlake · · Score: 2

    TP-Link is about to see their sales decline. Their cheap shit was eagerly consumed by DIY types putting openWRT on it and frankly you could do some interesting things with it.

    The TP-Link router is a mass market consumer product that retails for $20 and up when purchased from outlets like Amazon.com.

    The DIY market is microscopic and always has been.

  31. Firmware lock not needed by phorm · · Score: 1

    Really, we don't need a firmware/BIOS/etc lock in software (even if it's partly ROM software). Just give us back a jumper or something similar that's defaulted to "no updates" in a place where most people won't mess with it. For those that really want to tweak their own hardware, just flip the jumper. For others, updates are not allowed.

    Or, if you really want to make things convenient for everyone: jumper open=signed updates only; jumper closed=allow unsigned updates.

  32. No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FCC has no say in the matter; we do not recognize their claims to authority and will not only ignore them, but will actively circumvent and aid others in the same.

    We also will no longer use TP-Link, they lost our business.

    1. Re:No! by mark-t · · Score: 1

      What will you do if other router manufacturers also do this?

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  33. FCC, scapegoat, Dumb or Anti-Terrorist driven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anytime a regulator writes a rule, they have to remember that any reaction to that ruling will be met in the cheapest possible way. It's very rare for any company to "do the right thing" when adhering to any regulation. If it's cheaper for them to lock down they device and they assume X loss to those who want to modify it will be less costly than changing their designs to be more modular, they will do it.

        I can only suspect that the FCC's ruling is only in part to keep the wattage ratings in check but to also keep possible terrorists from making software changes to allow them to build a communications system that is not as monitor-able.

  34. A Write Once Register would solve this issue by The+Other+White+Meat · · Score: 1

    All that needs to happen is that new radio chipsets need to have a write-once register that can be used to lock the chip to a specific radio band. They could manufacture one chip for global use, and a simple write to that register by the router manufacturer would lock it down to a region. No need to deal with locked firmware at all.

    --

    --- Generation X: The first generation to have SIG lines inferior to their parents... ---
    1. Re:A Write Once Register would solve this issue by JoelKatz · · Score: 1

      Imagine if a particular algorithm were banned in the US. You might say that Intel could have a write once register that, if set, would stop the CPU from executing that algorithm. But then you need hardware to detect what algorithm the software is making the CPU perform, and that's not simple. I'm pretty sure your write once register idea is closer to that level of difficulty.

      The FCC was responding to a case where an interference mitigation algorithm was either disabled or implemented incorrectly. The device was operating on a frequency it was authorized to operate on, but not correctly following the high-level interference minimization algorithmic requirements for that frequency. This is not a hardware on/off switch but a sophisticated software algorithm that the FCC requires to be implemented, and tested for correctness, to legally operate on frequencies that can interfere with radar systems.

      I strongly disagree with the FCC, but this was not a reasonable alternative.

  35. I bought a TP-Link router last year by NapalmHorn · · Score: 1

    And I bought it especially because it was on the support hardware list for OpenWRT. TP-link is not the only manufacture on that list. I think others who make routers that are open will get business from people who want open source firmware for their devices. But I don't know how big of a market this is.

  36. Intentional Misuse by JoelKatz · · Score: 1

    The idea that manufacturers should be compelled to secure their products against intentional misuse by the purchaser is just ridiculous. Consumer products are not sealed black boxes, they are collections of repurposable components.

  37. Don't they need to regulate ERP, too? by tsm1mt · · Score: 1
    Interestingly, this still won't make sure that the router's radios are in compliance.

    Isn't the rule a certain level of ERP (effective radiated power), not raw wattage out of the radio.

    How does the stock firmware know to reduce the output power to compensate for the 24dbi gain antenna you attached?

    OTOH, keeping the consumers in their legally allocated spectrum sounds like a noble cause, but now it's more difficult to get "below" channel 1 and down into the relatively empty Part-90 allocation I'm authorized to use just below 2.4Ghz

  38. TP welcome to my 'don't buy list' by vovin · · Score: 1

    Going from the 'buy' to 'don't buy' list. Ouch.
    I hope Asus keeps up with their OpenWRT support.

  39. What methods are locked down? by anwyn · · Score: 1

    Did they lock down the serial port interface to uboot? What about the jtag port? Can you upload using the jtag port?

  40. $230 for a router? AYFN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wondering or that is the going rate. My 4 year old WNDR4500 is good enough to handle streaming netflix wireless br, youtube on two wireless devices, and chromecast audio streaming spotify on 4 wireless devices without any noticeable drops. And if something drops on chromecasts audio (1 sec every 5 minutes), which is the most obvious drop, I blame the driver!

  41. Republicanism behind this for of thought. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another slashdoter said it best.
    What's there to be "conflicted" about? In all of these cases, the "security" is "security AGAINST THE OWNER OF THE DEVICE," a.k.a. tyranny. It is unambiguously bad!

  42. Sue them by el_jake · · Score: 1

    A clash action against fcc for violating the fourth amendment would be a start. There action are so wrong and misaligned. Are they bought by Crocks In Suits?

    --
    In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep.
  43. FCC wants this? by fikx · · Score: 1

    So, I haven't looked at the latest FCC rant, but is the push towards specifically not allowing alternate firmware (are they afraid some one will be able to remotely install new firmware on random routers?)?
    Or is the push to secure routers in general, and this company completely screwed it up by locking out one method of securing routers by replacing their crap firmware?
    Who messed it up? FCC? or TP?

    --
    AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
  44. Re:$230 for a router? AYFN by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Personally I have a fleet of WNDR4300's to play with myself. I have to build my own OpenWRT software for them, but the configuration to do so is out there. I'm just looking a that AC1900 and drooling given it's extra elbow room, USB 3 and eSATA port. The WNDR4300 is about $40 used on E-Bay, where the AC1900 is seen at $130 all day long and sometimes less than that.

    Unfortunately your WNDR4500 doesn't seem to be supported and with the Broadcom legal issues doesn't seem likely it ever will.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  45. Re:$230 for a router? AYFN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (anon so as to not undo mods) You mentioned $100 for the 1900AC earlier, and $130 or less here.... dunno about that -- $180 at Amazon and other retailers... I've seen $139 on Ebay (provenance unknown) and also for refurbs.... I think a more realistic price to cite is the $180. And based on that, looks like the 1900ACS model is the same price now, so I'd go with that.