Slashdot Mirror
TP-Link Begins Lockdown of Firmware In Response To FCC
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.
So this is the end of open source firmware on basically any device with a radio
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.
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.
Does you no good if the bootloader on the soc wont run anything not signed.
No sir I dont like it.
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.
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).
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!
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.