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.

8 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. 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. 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.

  3. 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).

  4. 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

  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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.