4 ms·
The problem with the argument "I can't do anything that I wish with this device" is it's also the same thing as "Other people can't do whatever they wish with m
by eridius 11y ago
The problem with the argument "I can't do anything that I wish with this device" is it's also the same thing as "Other people can't do whatever they wish with my device". I sympathize with the desire to customize your router firmware, and I think it's important that this ability be available in general (e.g. no laws prohibiting it), and I think it's great that there are devices on the market that allow it, I don't think that any particular vendor should be forced to allow it. If they want to use GPLv3 then they do have to allow it, but it's perfectly legal for vendors using GPLv2 software to put restrictions firmware updates, and I have no objection to that. If you want to customize your firmware, you can simply choose not to buy their product (this of course depends on my earlier statement that it's great that there are devices on the market that do support this).
The important point here is that vendors aren't locking down their firmware because they're control freaks that hate when customers install modified firmware, it's also a big security hole. If you can replace your firmware with a modified copy, so can anyone else who manages to gain access to your device. There's other angles too of course, such as vendors who offer unique hardware may want to require their customers to always be using that business's products, as that's how they make money, but when we're talking about generic equipment like routers, the most important reason is security.
- belorn 11y agoI am perfectly fine with an ISP retaining property ownership of a device if it is marketed as such. It should be illegal to use technical means to evade laws that dictate how renting work and what taxes applies for that kind of product.
- miah_ 11y agoThe problem is, that when I bought this device there was nothing to say that it was modified by this ISP. The device looks exactly the same as any other WNDR3800. It wasn't Netgear who limited the hardware in this way, it also wasn't the Ebay seller; though it was their responsibility to disclose it was 'locked' to this ISP. I could buy a _new_ WNDR3800 from Amazon and easily install OpenWRT on it without any issues. I realize the security issues, I'm not worried about them. As somebody who wants to learn about embedded Linux development, and who owns several other OpenWRT compatible devices 'locking' the firmware is not something I am interested in.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago> The problem with the argument "I can't do anything that I wish with this device" is it's also the same thing as "Other people can't do whatever they wish with my device". It isn't. If someone has physical access to your device, you have lost. The end. They could just replace the entire device with one with an identical case but different internals. But if you successfully prevent attackers from gaining physical access to your device then there is no security cost in granting anyone with physical access full control over the firmware. And for devices you know will be placed in unsecured areas where you would still like some security theater (or to inhibit meddling by unsophisticated malcontents), there is nothing wrong with allowing the owner to lock the firmware using the owner's key or password.