4 ms·

I really hope this leads to some change some day. If router makers can be held accountable for not providing minimum security standards then maybe we'll stop se

I really hope this leads to some change some day. If router makers can be held accountable for not providing minimum security standards then maybe we'll stop seeing so many "me too" BS options and gimmicks and get a smaller stable of trustworthy routers/firmwares. It kind of sucks that my first requirement for buying a router is that I must be able to immediately, and easily, flash a new firmware on to it. It doesn't matter whose makes them, you are going to be receiving absolute shit for an OS, save for maybe a few prestige models of some of the better brands. I liked the TP-Link Archer C7s because they were easy to flash and came with some pretty nice hardware for the price. Their products have been badly vulnerable, and now they're locking out alternative firmware. So even when you find a brand/model you like, that may not last.

threatofrain 11y ago
The thing is that security is a fuzzy boundary, so no amount of case law or statutes can draw an easy-to-understand line between negligent insecurity and acceptable insecurity, and the legal community is ill-equipped to make excellent technological laws. Also, there's no engineering society that censures its members and creates standards or certifications for quality or security, and it doesn't look like engineers are too interested in that. Medical malpractice or unethical behavior are also fuzzy lines, but at least there's a medical association that draws some kind of line, determines standards for membership, and censures its members for malpractice or bad behavior, thereby also improving its public image as a trustworthy institution.
- BogusIKnow 11y ago
  You've nailed it.