4 ms·
Yep, that's exactly the problem. We even have a few posters in this discussion talking about how they hate these new requirements because it means they can't ru
by Sanddancer 11y ago
Yep, that's exactly the problem. We even have a few posters in this discussion talking about how they hate these new requirements because it means they can't run their routers illegally anymore. A lot of the fuss seems to be that the draft documentation of things that hardware vendors should consider and put in their certification request is, "what happens if an end user installs a third-party firmware like dd-wrt." They're seeming to take that as prohibiting all third-party firmwares, instead of prohibiting third-party firmwares on devices that require binary blobs. A router maker who has a baseband that can't be modified wouldn't be affected by this at all.
- PhasmaFelis 11y agoI've already covered a lot of this in my response to Silhouette, so I won't repeat it here, but: > We even have a few posters in this discussion talking about how they hate these new requirements because it means they can't run their routers illegally anymore. Are you under the impression that the sole purpose of custom router firmware is to access restricted channels? Custom firmwares contain many very useful, legitimate tools, and also happen to enable region-shifting for users who want to keep their old router when they move, which unfortunately lets malicious or ignorant users access locally unauthorized channels. As for the rest, the U-NII Device Security document I posted above is pretty clear about prohibiting all unsigned firmware, explicitly including DD-WRT.