Linksys WRT routers won’t block open source firmware, despite FCC rules

But come June 2, a lot of other routers will block third-party firmware.

Read the whole story

 

[minorDistraction]

The fallout of this will be that most routers sold in Europe won't be able to run FOSS either. Thank you, Uncle Sam.

 

[Belisarius]

minorDistraction[/url]":3jfvk5cl]The fallout of this will be that most routers sold in Europe won't be able to run FOSS either. Thank you, Uncle Sam.

No, thank you morons who couldn't follow simple regulations that are in place for good reasons. This, as always, is why we can't have nice things.

 

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I have to wonder why the FCC decided to treat routers/APs as a special case; when wifi NICs have been handling most of the regulatory-playing nice in software for years without much comment.

Ages ago, in the dark times, there used to be a lot of 'zOMG, we have only closed source windows drivers and you need to suck it up and use NDISwrapper because the FCC!'; but these days CFG80211 connects to a little database of regulatory info to tell the drivers what they are and aren't supposed to do; and nobody seems to have any major problems. Still some NICs with proprietary firmware; and probably a few kiddies doing dubiously licit things with modified drivers; but the world is full of ghastly RF noise sources.

Given that most of these routers are running (usually defective) Linux builds anyway, why is the arrangement used in Linux clients not good enough?

Are APs worse because they sit there radiating 24/7, or are client devices just next on the chopping block?

 

[Derecho Taketh Away]

Look forward to the router GUI's of the future; featuring two buttons to click:
"Passkey On" & "Passkey Off" /s?

 

[helel ben shachar]

Well, props to Linksys for turning a lemon of a ruling into something workable. This nod to the open source crowd will be missed by most consumers, but those in the know will probably remember this goodwill gesture and follow with their dollars.

 

[dafogman]

“They're named WRT… it's almost our responsibility to the open source community,” Linksys router product manager Vince La Duca told Ars.

Wait, wait, wait...you are looking out for your customers? Wow! That's a change from the usual corporate world. This alone puts Linksys at the top of the list for my next router. I had the old WRT54GL and loved it.

 

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

minorDistraction[/url]":g7meaa91]The fallout of this will be that most routers sold in Europe won't be able to run FOSS either. Thank you, Uncle Sam.

One wonders how many vendors will ship a 'non-US' firmware and...accidentally...fail to keep it from being flashed to US devices.

It's not surprising that most vendors are taking the cheapest way out; but(as with cheap DVD players frequently not enforcing region codes all that strongly) if they can offer the customer the features they want without incurring too much legal exposure through technically shoddy implementation of 'required' features, they have an incentive to do so.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

While I do apploud Linksys for their efforts, but at same time I feel like all these is much ado about nothing due to Lynksys pricing this router at $230 !!
I am not aware of many people who buy home wireless router for $230 - would think - "let's change default firmware".
WRT54GL was so successful since it had perfect recipe: a decent hardware, cheap price, terrible original software and it was easy to modify.

Any person technical enough to go through the process of changing firmware, should and would stop and get Ubiquiti USG+AC Pro AP or an Amplifi system if you much less technical.

 

[necrosis]

Hahahah! This article and you picture the Linksys WRT1900?

Linksys REFUSED to give out the code necessary to PROPERLY make a OpenWRT for this router. Advertised the hell out of you being able to load a 3rd party firmware and after months of lies they finally started doing returns outside the return window.

The Linksys WRT1900 was a total clusterfuck.

 

[ajmas]

I imagine they could move the frequency limitation to the radio device and then even if you screw up the OS programming, you are still frequency limited by the radio chip? Remember you can turn a Raspberry Pi into a router, so the USB wi-fi dongle would the final frequency block limiting point, so there is no reason they couldn't take an equivalent approach.

At the same time, there is one small challenge that even with all the checks in place there could be some radio interference if the country is incorrectly specified. The allocated channels for wi-fi actually have some variation between regions, so some routers require you to specify they region before you start, to ensure it only gives you access to the correct set of channels. I am not sure how computers deal with this, if they don't know where they are located?

 

[azazel1024]

fuzzyfuzzyfungus[/url]":2f9szgyo]I have to wonder why the FCC decided to treat routers/APs as a special case; when wifi NICs have been handling most of the regulatory-playing nice in software for years without much comment.

Ages ago, in the dark times, there used to be a lot of 'zOMG, we have only closed source windows drivers and you need to suck it up and use NDISwrapper because the FCC!'; but these days CFG80211 connects to a little database of regulatory info to tell the drivers what they are and aren't supposed to do; and nobody seems to have any major problems. Still some NICs with proprietary firmware; and probably a few kiddies doing dubiously licit things with modified drivers; but the world is full of ghastly RF noise sources.

Given that most of these routers are running (usually defective) Linux builds anyway, why is the arrangement used in Linux clients not good enough?

Are APs worse because they sit there radiating 24/7, or are client devices just next on the chopping block?

I think the thing that bothers me the most is this would be easy to lock down with separate ROM for the radios. You can't set a frequency or power level that the FCC isn't cool with if it is locked down in the radio ROM.

Several routers have this, though not all (some the firmware can be edited).

 

[xeoph]

I have an older cisco access point (it's really a linksys that says cisco on it). If it weren't for DDWRT or OPENWRT I would have a more vulnerable access point with less functionality.

This is one of those weights and balances things where to block open firmware is actually less safe, IMO, than to block it because people are doing something they shouldn't with their AP.

The amount of people upgrading their firmware with DDWRT has to be few but still has to be much greater than the amount of people maliciously using router firmware updates. We need techs making tech policy.

 

[Jeff S]

Will amateur radio (aka ham radio) operators still be able to modify the radio config in OpenWRT to operate in the nearby ham bands at higher power with directional antennas?

Licensed hams are authorized to operate in frequencies 2.39GHz to 2.45GHz and 5.85GHz to 5.925GHz.

Some of them have used this authority to setup broadband ham IP networks using cheap commodity WiFi routers and custom firmware. Would be a shame if they are locked out of doing this now.

 

[issor]

fuzzyfuzzyfungus[/url]":yxdjnzg9]I have to wonder why the FCC decided to treat routers/APs as a special case; when wifi NICs have been handling most of the regulatory-playing nice in software for years without much comment.

Ages ago, in the dark times, there used to be a lot of 'zOMG, we have only closed source windows drivers and you need to suck it up and use NDISwrapper because the FCC!'; but these days CFG80211 connects to a little database of regulatory info to tell the drivers what they are and aren't supposed to do; and nobody seems to have any major problems. Still some NICs with proprietary firmware; and probably a few kiddies doing dubiously licit things with modified drivers; but the world is full of ghastly RF noise sources.

Given that most of these routers are running (usually defective) Linux builds anyway, why is the arrangement used in Linux clients not good enough?

Are APs worse because they sit there radiating 24/7, or are client devices just next on the chopping block?

It's probably because DD-WRT put a nice GUI on it and everyone pushes the button because it's there. The TX power and non-US bands are also tempting to most. I'm glad Linksys is helping out as this seems to have backfired on the WRT crowd.

There's also the element of control. They can regulate the software on the routers via the manufacturer. They can't easily regulate what software you run with your NIC, but they could eventually regulate and require NIC hardware to be locked down like the WRT is doing. It may be at this time that the FCC finds it an undue burden to require *everyone* to redesign their hardware, but this is a warning shot that will probably result in it happening naturally over time.

 

[Sasparilla]

Here's a nice page detailing the installation of OpenWRT on the WRT1900ACS:

https://davidsimpson.me/2015/11/14/inst ... rt1900acs/

Nice to see Linksys doing this, I'll look at them more closely as a result. (looks like the S update to the WRT1900AC doubled the RAM and increased CPU speed by ~50% or so and dropped the fan) Was looking for something to replace my aging (and non updated firmware in forever) Netgear with something that could handle open source firmware.

 

[Matty]

I wonder if this will have unintended consequences in the long term.

Like a bunch of vulnerable routers that have been abandoned by the manufacturer and cannot be upgraded.

Zombies spewing crap on the internet instead of the airwaves.

Actually maybe this is planned. I'm sure the manufacturers love such inherent obsolescence.

Is OpenWRT already GPLv3 free?

 

[fryhole]

Linksys’s 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.

LOL -- it would entirely prevent open source software from loading ? Goog luck with that. It just presents a challenge to anyone that owns the hardware and wants open source deployments. It won't prevent anything.

 

[ldillon]

Does this really fix the issue? Amateur radio operators are FCC licensed to use frequencies adjacent to the standard WiFi frequencies and at higher power levels. It appears that this "fix" will block that legal use.

 

[redleader]

fishbait[/url]":3t5zzqhz]

Belisarius[/url]":3t5zzqhz]

minorDistraction[/url]":3t5zzqhz]The fallout of this will be that most routers sold in Europe won't be able to run FOSS either. Thank you, Uncle Sam.

No, thank you morons who couldn't follow simple regulations that are in place for good reasons. This, as always, is why we can't have nice things.

were said "morons" aware of these "simple regulations"?

Google turns up a ton of people asking how to bypass the FCC limits built into OpenWRT so yes, I would say so.

 

[foofoo22]

How do I get the black theme back in Ars. This is painful to read...

 

[fishbait]

redleader[/url]":31bmbbqw]

fishbait[/url]":31bmbbqw]

Belisarius[/url]":31bmbbqw]

minorDistraction[/url]":31bmbbqw]The fallout of this will be that most routers sold in Europe won't be able to run FOSS either. Thank you, Uncle Sam.

No, thank you morons who couldn't follow simple regulations that are in place for good reasons. This, as always, is why we can't have nice things.

were said "morons" aware of these "simple regulations"?

Google turns up a ton of people asking how to bypass the FCC limits built into OpenWRT so yes, I would say so.

ah that might be different then it depends on a couple things

first the date it could be their asking due to the media attention and a sense of rebellion

second the phrasing i could definitely see a scenario where innocently asking how to bypass a restriction could be construed as asking to bypass fcc regs without knowing their an fcc regulation restriction

i only say it depend on thsoe 2 to weed out any false positives and any bias in a web search relating to the topic

 

[Deleted member 1]

necrosis[/url]":1hk075oh]Hahahah! This article and you picture the Linksys WRT1900?

Linksys REFUSED to give out the code necessary to PROPERLY make a OpenWRT for this router. Advertised the hell out of you being able to load a 3rd party firmware and after months of lies they finally started doing returns outside the return window.

The Linksys WRT1900 was a total clusterfuck.

The clusterfuck eventually was unclusterfucked but it literally took 18 months to get OpenWRT on the router ( well a final release build and not a community built build).

 

[PhantomPhoton]

Sorry to use the "enforce the existing laws" line, but that's exactly what they should be doing. If someone is interfering, the FCC should find them and punish them with fines or jail time. The word would get out quickly once some examples are made. It's not as if people loading custom firmware are completely ignorant when it comes to tech, they should know better to begin with, but with some examples of enforcement they would think twice before actively violating the law.

 

[punchsuckr]

Asus is also going the way of working with third party fw creators and making sure they adhere to the regulations instead of blocking them outright.

http://www.snbforums.com/threads/asus-f ... hod.32357/

 

[necrosis]

TheDarkerPhantom[/url]":6yxw9dcw]

necrosis[/url]":6yxw9dcw]Hahahah! This article and you picture the Linksys WRT1900?

Linksys REFUSED to give out the code necessary to PROPERLY make a OpenWRT for this router. Advertised the hell out of you being able to load a 3rd party firmware and after months of lies they finally started doing returns outside the return window.

The Linksys WRT1900 was a total clusterfuck.

The clusterfuck eventually was unclusterfucked but it literally took 18 months to get OpenWRT on the router ( well a final release build and not a community built build).

Yeah. After 4 months i got them to refund me. Bought an ASUS and I run Merlin builds on it.

 

[RocketFeathers]

Excellent.

Small problem, I am familiar with DD-WRT and not OpenWRT.

Like many other readers, I have an old Linksys WRT54GL a/b/g no n router sitting in a box in case the main router (Asus RT-N16 or something like that) takes a dump.

Would experimenting with installing OpenWRT on the old Linksys be a good way to try it out? The support stops at some older version because of not enough memory.

Wish Linksys would add two or three more LAN ports on their routers so I could get rid of a switch.

 

[Kazper]

redleader[/url]":z7adc2z8]

fishbait[/url]":z7adc2z8]

Belisarius[/url]":z7adc2z8]

minorDistraction[/url]":z7adc2z8]The fallout of this will be that most routers sold in Europe won't be able to run FOSS either. Thank you, Uncle Sam.

No, thank you morons who couldn't follow simple regulations that are in place for good reasons. This, as always, is why we can't have nice things.

were said "morons" aware of these "simple regulations"?

Google turns up a ton of people asking how to bypass the FCC limits built into OpenWRT so yes, I would say so.

And are those question all asked by US Residents, or is it possible that the rest of the World dont want to be forced to follow FCC rules?

 

[fishbait]

Kazper[/url]":j6g93i72]

redleader[/url]":j6g93i72]

fishbait[/url]":j6g93i72]

Belisarius[/url]":j6g93i72]

minorDistraction[/url]":j6g93i72]The fallout of this will be that most routers sold in Europe won't be able to run FOSS either. Thank you, Uncle Sam.

No, thank you morons who couldn't follow simple regulations that are in place for good reasons. This, as always, is why we can't have nice things.

were said "morons" aware of these "simple regulations"?

Google turns up a ton of people asking how to bypass the FCC limits built into OpenWRT so yes, I would say so.

And are those question all asked by US Residents, or is it possible that the rest of the World dont want to be forced to follow FCC rules?

hmm i wonder doesnt europe have similar regulations in the 5ghz band in order to work with the existing doppler infrastructure so widely used?

 

[Jacektbc]

Belisarius[/url]":fd98qmu2]

minorDistraction[/url]":fd98qmu2]The fallout of this will be that most routers sold in Europe won't be able to run FOSS either. Thank you, Uncle Sam.

No, thank you morons who couldn't follow simple regulations that are in place for good reasons. This, as always, is why we can't have nice things.

Better yet, why don't you blame the morons in power over us to do their job and go after the unknowing or uncaring person(s) who are affecting the rest of us? The lawyers and idiots in powers are the one who needs a kick in the ass to do their job, not the other way around.

 

[quarros]

TheDarkerPhantom[/url]":1vegajbl]

necrosis[/url]":1vegajbl]Hahahah! This article and you picture the Linksys WRT1900?

Linksys REFUSED to give out the code necessary to PROPERLY make a OpenWRT for this router. Advertised the hell out of you being able to load a 3rd party firmware and after months of lies they finally started doing returns outside the return window.

The Linksys WRT1900 was a total clusterfuck.

The clusterfuck eventually was unclusterfucked but it literally took 18 months to get OpenWRT on the router ( well a final release build and not a community built build).

Wait a minute.... To my knowledge there are still no usable OpenWRT build on the WRT1900 that is free from a closed source binary blob.... (meaning: no source code for the wireless chipset). Is that changed since the last time I looked???

And actually this whole thing is a laugh big time... Since at least publicly! Linksys wanted to provide the source (and at one point they did) but Marvell (the maker of the wireless chipset used in the router) was an ass.... and everything that was previously published got redacted.

 

[MosquitoBait]

Asshole DD-WRT developers screwing things up for everybody else yet again by purposefully enabling violations...

Asshole DD-WRT users screwing things up for everybody else yet again by deliberately setting options they damn well know violate RF interference regulations...

 

[facw]

foofoo22[/url]":2b1qt37q]How do I get the black theme back in Ars. This is painful to read...

The mobile site is black, and not too narrow. It also does a nice clean list style front page, instead of the disorganized mess that's there now.

Edit: The mobile site can also be white, but it still has the option to switch between color schemes.

 

[Voo42]

dafogman[/url]":we53cyt3]This alone puts Linksys at the top of the list for my next router. I had the old WRT54GL and loved it.

I would say *everyone* had one of the old WRT54's. Probably the most popular consumer router ever made (or maybe that's just cognitive bias on my part).

 

[wiskey_romeo_mike]

This could make me go down the custom-wired-router-with-separate-wireless-access-point route. But that's just my geek-y side...

 

[vassago]

+1 to Linksys for their stance on this, even if it is only a single line of routers. I had a WRT54G running DD-WRT and currently have a Linksys e4200 running DD-WRT that I'm generally pretty happy with. If/when this router dies, if there are no options for a router that can run DD-WRT (or a similar firmware), then I guess I'll look into building something... My only real concern would be a quality antenna setup.

 

[Olathe]

dafogman[/url]":342gpwzc]

“They're named WRT… it's almost our responsibility to the open source community,” Linksys router product manager Vince La Duca told Ars.

Wait, wait, wait...you are looking out for your customers? Wow! That's a change from the usual corporate world. This alone puts Linksys at the top of the list for my next router. I had the old WRT54GL and loved it.

On the other hand, the boxes the modern WRT routers come in literally say that they support OpenWRT at the least, so it almost is their legal responsibility to fulfill their explicit promises.

 

[Voo42]

Olathe[/url]":2h1sgcha]

dafogman[/url]":2h1sgcha]

“They're named WRT… it's almost our responsibility to the open source community,” Linksys router product manager Vince La Duca told Ars.

Wait, wait, wait...you are looking out for your customers? Wow! That's a change from the usual corporate world. This alone puts Linksys at the top of the list for my next router. I had the old WRT54GL and loved it.

On the other hand, the boxes the modern WRT routers come in literally say that they support OpenWRT at the least, so it almost is their legal responsibility to fulfill their explicit promises.

And all routers manufactured before that particular cutoff date will continue to work just fine with open wrt. This is only about new routers.

 

[rhekman]

Voo42 wrote:
On the other hand, the boxes the modern WRT routers come in literally say that they support OpenWRT at the least, so it almost is their legal responsibility to fulfill their explicit promises.

Sadly I feel the OpenWRT branding is mostly just marketing. Given the binary blobs and lack of specifications from the Marvell chipset for so long, and the high price of the now more exclusive Linksys WRT line, the product is not nearly as attractive as the old WRT54G* series was in the day.

Nowadays I'd rather run an old x86 PC running bog standard Linux, or something like pfSense or Smoothwall, or even x86 OpenWRT. Add a $30 gigabit switch and either an Intel or Atheros wifi card or a separate Ubiquiti access point and you've got a system capable of better throughput, better wifi range, more customization, and more timely security updates.