Linksys WRT Routers Won't Block Open Source Firmware, Despite FCC Rules (arstechnica.com) 113
The FCC requires all manufacturers to prevent users from having any direct ability to change RF parameters (frequency limits, output power, country codes, etc). The easiest way for a router manufacturer to comply with FCC's guideline is to block the open source router firmware -- which is what TP-Link has been doing. But thankfully, at least one router manufacturer doesn't think blocking the firmware is the right way to go about it. Ars Technica reports: Linksys has been collaborating with chipmaker Marvell and the makers of OpenWrt to make sure its latest WRT routers can comply with the new rules without blocking open source firmware, company officials told Ars. Linksys' effort stands in contrast with TP-Link, which said it would entirely prevent loading of open source firmware on its routers to satisfy the new Federal Communications Commission requirements. "They're named WRT... it's almost our responsibility to the open source community," Linksys router product manager Vince La Duca told Ars. Cybersecurity experts have urged the router manufacturers to not block open source firmware.
Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
Excellent decision. I know what my next router will be.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
I still don't understand what lead to all this, I highly doubt putting a few more milliwatts out or using a few MHz on either side of the allotted spectrum was causing much (if any) actual harm.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Don't be deceived, it's still possible to flash custom firmware on a TP-Link device even after all their work. You can find more information via search on the openwrt forum.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet you still are supporting their practices by buying a TP-Link device....
Re: (Score:1)
I still don't understand what lead to all this, I highly doubt putting a few more milliwatts out or using a few MHz on either side of the allotted spectrum was causing much (if any) actual harm.
It's not like it's difficult to shunt the excess power to ground via a fuse of sorts. But it's definitely not cool if your mods cause interference... well, at least during peacetime.
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Fuck no. People are morons and we must not let people decide if it's OK to "[put] a few more milliwatts out" or using parts of the spectrum they're not supposed to. That's begging for localized shouting matches and overuse of allocated spectrum... where both are problems we already have.
The FCC absolutely did the right thing here, and so is Linksys.
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Informative)
The "open" 5 GHz band spans from 5030 - 5835 MHz [wikipedia.org]. Right smack dab in the middle of it at 5600 MHz is terminal doppler weather radar [wikipedia.org]. That's one of the radars used to make the pretty rainfall pics you see on the news reports. More crucially, airports use it to detect wind shear conditions which have brought down several airliners [wikipedia.org] in the past.
The problem is, because it's doppler radar, the frequency shift of the radar signal is crucially important, not just the return signal strength. So the FCC has carved out a band from 5250 - 5730 MHz and declared it DFS - dynamic frequency selection. Equipment can use these open frequencies, but if they do they have to monitor to see if weather radar is being used, and immediately shift to a different frequency outside this band if they detect weather radar.
A few routers do implement this frequency shifting. The vast majority simply block out those frequencies in their firmware (which is why your 5 GHz channel selection is limited to channels 36-48 and 149-165). But most third party firmwares are made in countries which don't have airports with TDWR radar (in fact most U.S. airports don't yet), so their governing agencies don't restrict these frequencies, so the firmware authors make no effort to limit use of these frequencies. Loading the third party firmware onto a router in the U.S.allows your router to spam these frequencies indiscriminately, leading to TDWR possibly being unable to detect wind shear or detecting it later than it could have without the interference, possibly causing another airliner to crash.
Re: (Score:1)
I have a brilliant idea. Let's put critical life/safety frequencies adjacent (on both sides) to frequencies we assign to mobile, unregulated consumer devices that number in the millions. What could go wrong?
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
There is finite usable spectrum, and Wifi had to go somewhere.
Usable spectrum in this case means:
* not absorbed by the atmosphere
* reasonable effective range per unit power
* harmless to organic tissues
* capable of penetrating typical construction materials
If you're aware of an unallocated band that you think the FCC has overlooked, feel free to contact them to ensure the oversight is corrected.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm a WiFi doofus but I've always had problems reconciling those last two. :)
Re: (Score:2)
maybe the wifi shouldn't have happened at all..at least not on that band.
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz were chosen because they're absorbed more by the atmosphere. 2.4 GHz matches up closely with the resonance of water molecules (which is why microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz - they heat up food by pumping energy into the water molecules). And 5.6 GHz is absorbed readily by raindrops for some reason I haven't yet been able to learn (which is why it's handy for weather radar).
Broadcasts on both bands thus attenuate more quickly relative to other frequencies. This not only makes them less useful for long-distance transmissions, but it makes them ideal for unregulated transmissions. The signal blasted by an unregulated device at these frequencies doesn't travel as far through the atmosphere, so the radius of its noise footprint is smaller compared to a different frequency. Basically, you can squeeze more devices closer together without interfering with each other at these frequencies. Both of these "features" make them ideal choices for open frequencies.
Re: (Score:2)
The absorption peaks for water and other gases in the atmosphere [wikipedia.org] are significantly higher than the 2.45
Re: (Score:1)
There is finite usable spectrum
And here I thought the wave was analogue.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Excellent explanation. Visually, devices that interfere with TDWR displays appear as a wedge that is several degrees wide. The wedge obscures everything from the center of the display to the edge. Here's an example:
http://fpvlab.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=69438&d=1452686140
Re: (Score:1)
Here's a thought, though, maybe a contrary opinion: with the huge number of wifi devices now, it's probable that even with no intentional misuse of channels, that some wifi devices will malfunction, either failing to do DFS correctly, or skipping onto the wrong channel; Shouldn't we maybe modernise the doppler radar, adding spatial diversity and time of flight characterisation to their systems.
Cellular networks are all moving to SDMA and beam forming, 802.11ac accesspoints already incorporate spatial divers
Re: (Score:3)
Radio is not reliable when shared, regulation or not. It only works when the players work together perfectly. When does that ever happen? It's like cooperative multitasking os's expecting applications to behave. It's a fool's game. If this radar is crucial, maybe we shouldn't share this band with consumer electronics. The FCC failed hard here.
Re: (Score:2)
They seem to be use in a few locations in Puerto Rico, and were interfered with by non-wifi point-to-point devices. An image of a screen showed fixed straight lines a few pixels wide. Teapot, meet tempest.
To be fair, one should arguably reserve that channel in countries that use these oddly low-frequency radars...
Re: (Score:1)
I'm very familiar with DFS, but these rules seem highly restrictive. I buy a *lot* of Mikrotik outdoor AP/routers, and they all have the option to enable "SuperChannel" mode, which bypasses license control, and allows the radio to use all frequencies and power settings that it supports, including channels outside the ISM bands. I always understood that it is the operator of radio equipment's responsibility to ensure that they comply with all relevant laws and regulations. I have on occasion used SuperChann
Re: (Score:3)
1. Routers are more often being built using an SoC that includes (at least one) wireless chipset.
2. Wifi cards are more often being built without builtin firmware storage, meaning it has to be loaded at runtime.
Thus, you've got a device with a wireless chipset whose firmware is either stored along with the main firmware stoarge, or has to be loaded by the OS. Think of it like a computer where the e
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
. . . Asus?
Cause Linksys isn't the only ones doing it and otherwise they are pretty shitty devices.
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the new WRT routers is that they sell for twice the value of comparable hardware from other vendors. And if you look carefully, you can find models which are just as good, if not better, in running 3rd party open source firmwares such as OpenWRT.
The original WRT54G was cheap, that's why it succeeded.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point of custom firmware when you have to put it on crap Belkin hardware?
"Despite FCC Rules" (Score:1)
The FCC rules do not mandate, either directly or indirectly, that OS firmware be blocked. Stop spreading this FUD.
FCC statement [fcc.gov]
Summary (Score:5, Informative)
The FCC rules do not mandate, either directly or indirectly, that OS firmware be blocked.
Which was already explained in the Summary.
I know this is /. and nobody reads TFA, but you could at least read a little bit past the title and at least read the summary.
A title has limited number of words and characters: "despide FCC rulins" is as mush as the author managed to cram into it.
And the FCC *IS* causing most manufacturer to lock their firmware. FCC doesnt madante litteraly against opensource and user-upgradeable firmware, but the ruling is strict. No unlawful signal shall be emitted by a device. Under no circumstances.
- Either a manufacturer has to jump through some complex hoops to find a solution which both open and user accessible (following the spirit of the GPL license used by some component. And litteraly following GPLv3) AND at the same time prevent the end-user from emitting signals that fiolated FCC rules (e.g.: emitting on a EU-only frequency in USA).
- Or the manufacturer could just lock everything in a box, and only let cryptographically-signed firmwares in, and call it a day. (and hope no GPLv3 got violated in the process).
Nearly every constructor goes for the latter. Only LinkSys Fritz and a few other go for the former
Re: (Score:2)
Or the manufacturer could just lock everything in a box, and only let cryptographically-signed firmwares in, and call it a day. (and hope no GPLv3 got violated in the process)
It does not violate the GPL if they only allow signed firmware.
As long as they provide the source code, they are fulfilling their licensing obligations.
Re: (Score:2)
True of <= GPLv2.
Untrue of >= GPLv3.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It literally says in the first sentence of the summary that the FCC rule requires that manufacturers prevent users from changing the RF parameters. There's no claim that the FCC rule says that you have to block OS firmware. It should be obvious to anyone that the easiest way to prevent users from changing the RF parameters is to block OS firmware (that's the second sentence of the summary, by the way), but the story is that Linksys is going to find another way to lock down the RF module without blocking O
Re: (Score:2)
No, but the chip radio vendors are too cheap to hide the secret bits in the silicon, so the router vendors tivo the firmware...
Re: (Score:2)
no.. they're allowing the driver to set out of band behavior. The chip itself should limit that.
FCC: "protect from flash & installation of DD- (Score:2)
Here's the exact wording of what the FCC required manufacturers to do before they can sell a device in the US. This is copy-paste from the FCC rule:
Describe in detail how the device is protected
from "flashing" and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT.
After we wrote thousands of letters to the FCC, the wording was slightly changed. The practical effect is still that most manufacturers will in fact lock the firmware, because the FCC's requirements are mos
Re: (Score:2)
How is 802.11ac support in OpenWRT?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Weren't broadcom the worst for not open sourcing their drivers?
Re: (Score:2)
Intel doesn't make chip for home routers. It's either Qualcom Atheros, Broadcom, Marvel, Realtek, and maybe others.
A good decision (Score:2)
I certainly hope that the FCC does not begin enforcing this with fines and threatened jail time. Having the ability to install new firmware can improve the security of the device.
Another thing to consider is that 2.4g is pretty much open game. You have to accept any interference that comes along in this frequency range due to its designation. The FCC should not care so much, as long as no one is putting out so much power that they are cooking meat.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This action is not a violation of the FCC rule in question. That rule defined a chain of responsibility for purposes of assigning blame when and only when someone is using their wireless router beyond the scope of FCC approved frequency/intensity ranges.
For a fine to come about, someone has to flash the firmware (easy it seems) with another firmware that does not respect the FCC mandated boundaries (I think that would require changing the source and recompiling for most of them) and then pick a frequency a
Re: (Score:2)
The first time someone releases an open source firmware with a cell phone jammer mode built in, you'll see them change their tune rapidly.
Because cell phones work in frequencies a WiFi router would be capable of transmitting in? Or consumer WiFi hardware has enough power to jam a cell phone?
You might, and I stress *might* be able to push a 2.4GHz WiFi device far enough out of spec to affect the SNR on a Sprint 4G signal using the 2.5GHz band, but I still don't think it'd be powerful enough to actually jam unless you were at the fringe (though having used Sprint 2.5GHz back when they ran WiMax on it, there were a lot of fringes...)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, that was funny.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly hope that the FCC does not begin enforcing this with fines and threatened jail time.
Threats of jail time for router manufacturers?
Re: (Score:2)
Security of the device is not the FCC's concern. Interference to other operators is.
Compromise (Score:3)
Firmwares that ask the country you are in. Choosing US greys out the appropiate sections. If clients lie, then the company shouln't be at fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They could put up a big warning when you change the values. Don't be so closed minded. All products already do in the manuals anyway (which nobody reads)
The world is a lot bigger than the USA
Re: (Score:2)
Since the US seems to have the most restrictive radio requirements, set the router to default to US rules, and only allow the user to change it if they put in their GPS coordinates which lie outside the US. Most users probably won't bother.
Re: (Score:2)
How so? To my knowledge, the EU doesn't reserve a big band smack in the middle of the 5GHz WiFi spectrum for some kind of weather radar related to airports, and has more 2.4GHz channels available to it too (except channel 14 which only Japan has).
Re: (Score:2)
That is how Ubiquiti handled it until the FCC went after them. Now Ubiquiti radios intended for the US market are locked to prevent this.
Why was there ever really any doubt... (Score:3)
Suckers for scare tactics??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... that some router manufacturers were going to do this?
Because it's easier to just lock the firmware than go to the trouble to lock down part of the hardware. Linksys went out of their way in this case to meet the requirement and allow 3rd party firmware. Counter example is TP Link, who just locked their routers firmware.
Re: (Score:2)
Or a lazy one.
Which to be truthful is probably most of them... but that doesn't make the excuse any better.
Re: (Score:2)
Of if a manager looked the cost of the engineering time to lock down the hardware and allow 3rd-part firmware vs. just locking down the firmware; and demanded that engineering just lock out alternate firmwares. The best engineers in the world can be crippled by a PHB.
Re: (Score:2)
If that is the least expensive option, then the engineer is doing a fine job.
Re: (Score:2)
Going to do what?
The cost competitive nature of the consumer access point market is going to lead to all of the manufacturers doing this eventually. It will be less expensive for integrated radio hardware to support restrictions through the firmware so eventually that is how they will all work.
Re: (Score:2)
Allowing end-user updates to the firmware (ie, not necessarily only vendor approved firmware images), while not allowing the end user to make updates to power utilization or frequencies used by the on-board radio.
I always figured that some might lock their firmware down entirely in response to the new regulations, but I also figured there would be some that wouldn't... and competition will probably drive virtually all of the manufacturers who would have otherwise allowed such end-user upg
Come on, man! (Score:1)
"doesnâ(TM)t"
This makes Slashdot look like a shit-hole. Do you guys have no pride?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine that any risks would depend on encoding. If utf8 is used, for instance, then filtering out the invalid characters amounts to at most a half-dozen or so extra lines of C code beyond that of what you would find in a very naive decoder, any risks beyond that are non-existent, and the benefit gained is access to international character sets, as well as many symbols that cannot be adequately represented in ascii.
The only excuse to not implement it in this day and age now is laziness.
And he
Re: (Score:2)
My unscientific survey has concluded that people would rather complain about burnt toast instead of adjusting the setting. In other words, you will hear crying about no unicode, instead of the editors correcting the type. Your political elections operate under the same rules. It's all complaints and denials.
Attn: Slashdot
We don't need no stinking unicode! Don't let the crybabies ruin this place.
I have to post AC due to the karma damage my opinion suffers for speaking out.
how about letting us us the degree symbol or the cents sign or umlaut or ae ligature. we can still ban emojis and I would be quite content.
Re: (Score:2)
support for that would turn this place into emoticon hell. Fuck that.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
We get to use more frequencies than the US. I've owned wireless devices which couldn't connect to networks on channel 13, because they were hard locked to US rules, despite being sold in Europe. I sincerely hope that they only strictly enforce a chosen set of rules, instead of enforcing which set of rules the users can choose.
Don't use channel 13.
Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
1, 6, 11, and 14 where available are the only channels anyone should use. They allow the most non-overlapping use of the available spectrum. If you use anything else, you've now limited the choices of everyone around who wants to avoid interference.
IMO AP vendors should really lock down the channel selection. The legitimate reasons to use any other channels are so rare and specialized that it at least shouldn't be easy to do.
Re: (Score:1)
While it is common in Europe to use the same channels as in the US (1, 6, 11), we can make better use of the spectrum with four channels, 1, 5, 9, 13. See the link you provided. Even with 802.11b, the overlap is small and limited to the attenuated edges of the channel bandwidth. The gained fourth channel more than offsets the negligible problems caused by interference. Channel 14 is not available in Europe.
Gross Misrepresentation of the Rules (Score:1)
The FCC rules do NOT, I repeat, do NOT forbid allowing users to adjust output power. Nor do they prohibit allowing users to change frequency.
They do, however, prohibit allowing users to increase the power beyond that for which the device is type certified, or adjust the frequency outside the range for which it is certified. All type certified devices are allowed to operate at lower than the maximum output power.
Also, the rules apply ONLY in the 5GHz U-NII band and NOT ANY OTHER BAND.
If you actually read the
FCC: must protect from flashing DD-WRT (Score:2)
Here's the exact wording of what the FCC required manufacturers to do before they can sell a device in the US.
> The nerd media has been misrepresenting this since day 1
This is copy-paste from the FCC rule:
Describe in detail how the device is protected
from "flashing" and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT.
AFTER we wrote thousands of letters to the FCC, the wording was slightly changed. The practical effect is sti
Ps: the stated purpose of Patriot Act is for terro (Score:2)
Ps, it is error to just read the part about "the purpose of this law is to ______" and then assume it does exactly that and nothing else, as you have done. The Patriot Act says "the purpose of this act is to protect Americans from terrorism ". That must mean it's a good law, right? Protecting people from terrorism is good.
No, you actually have to read what the law REQUIRES. That's more important than its claims about WHY it exists. In this case, the FCC rule did explicitly require
Features (Score:5, Informative)
All this on a $79 router.
Re: (Score:3)
Some devices are even cheaper. The ZSUN sdcard sharing adapter is only 11$ off amazon. It can run openwrt, meaning basically all of your listed features are possible (vlan not so much, only 1, unconnected, physical ethernet header).
I has 2 wifi radios, so it makes a very cheap repeater, and has a reasonably fast internal SDCard slot, so it could do light duty fileserving. With a little hardware modification, it could do USB print serving as well. (Designed to be powered from a USB port, but is wired in h
Re: (Score:2)
But then I have to trust that the stock firmware doesn't do nefarious things like phone home or present a back door. And I don't have that level of trust at all.
Which router model? (Score:2)
WRT54GL? Can it do gigaspeed with these open source firmwares?
RF parameter? (Score:2)
Since when was a country code (up there in the datagram levels of the network model) a parameter of the radio frequency?
I know that different ranges of properties are permitted in different countries, and those may be keyed by lists under country codes - but if that's what they mean they've chosen a really shitty way to express it.