8 ms·

FCC Reaches Settlement with TP-Link in Wi-Fi Router Investigation

134 points by pentago 10y ago

shmerl 10y ago
Better to stick with those who don't need anyone to require them that. At least Linksys with Marwell chips has really open WiFi drivers (WRT1900ACS).
- lmns 10y ago
  The last time I looked it required a proprietary binary blob. AFAIK the only free drivers which work well are ath5k and ath9k.
  - shmerl 10y ago
    For firmware. The driver itself is open. I don't think even Qualcomm have open firmware for 802.11ac chips. That's an unfortunate trend. While drivers are getting more open, firmware blobs are becoming more prevalent, in GPUs, WiFi and etc.
    - wtallis 10y ago
      The really unfortunate thing is that they're putting the wrong things into the proprietary firmware. I'd be fine with signed proprietary firmware that only enforces FCC limits and regulations. That would make it harder if I wanted to sell my used equipment overseas, but wouldn't otherwise restrict my freedoms. I'm not fine with the bottom half of the network stack being offloaded to the proprietary firmware where we can't adjust or even directly see things like how many packets it's buffering and how it handles aggregation and retransmissions.
Sanddancer 10y ago
FCC announcement: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0801/DOC-340564A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016... Direct Link to the ruling: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0801/DA-16-850A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016...
ars 10y ago
According to the /. comments "Requires" is wrong. They "support" them doing that (i.e. that there are not legislative obstacles to it).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
codys 10y ago
Title is inaccurate, TP-Link only committed to investigate supporting third party firmware (including open source). From the FCC announcement (similar language is in the ruling): > committing to investigate security solutions for certain 5 GHz band routers that would permit the use of third-party firmware
- sctb 10y ago
  We updated the link from the Slashdot post (https://build.slashdot.org/story/16/08/01/1855206/fcc-requires-tp-link-to-support-open-source-router-firmware https://build.slashdot.org/story/16/08/01/1855206/fcc-requir...) to the official announcement.
doctorshady 10y ago
bws111's post from the Slashdot thread: Nowhere in that document does it say the FCC REQUIRES TP-Link to allow open source. What it says is: “While manufacturers of Wi-Fi routers must ensure reasonable safeguards to protect radio parameters, users are otherwise free to customize their routers and we support TP-Link’s commitment to work with the open-source community and Wi-Fi chipset manufacturers to enable third-party firmware on TP-Link routers.” They SUPPORT a company working with open-source, not REQUIRE, Later on it says: TP-Link has also agreed to take steps to support innovation in third-party router firmware by committing to investigate security solutions for certain 5 GHz band routers that would permit the use of third-party firmware while meeting the Commission’s security requirements and maintaining the integrity of critical radio parameters. So the requirement is that any open-source stuff must meet the security requiements and maintain correct operation, not that they MUST allow open source,
koolba 10y ago
Would it be possible to do any real harm (to humans, pets, etc) by increasing this power setting or would this only cause interference with other electronics? Also, which models is this for?
- callesgg 10y ago
  Harm to biological entity's no way. "causing interference" In theory, yes the possibility exists. In practice not likely. Other wifi ap's neer by might be drowned more than they would otherwise. You could call that interference.
  - raarts 10y ago
    > In practice not likely. Depends. It apparently is real enough. Higher 5GHz WiFi band channels can interfere with airport radar. That's why the standard mandates a router to switch to another channel if it detects radar signals.[1] But of course using an illegal channel is simply illegal... [1] http://wifi-insider.com/wlan/dfs.htm http://wifi-insider.com/wlan/dfs.htm
    - pdabbadabba 10y ago
      I cannot imagine why you're being down-voted. This isn't hypothetical; the FCC imposed these security restrictions after reports of actual interference to airport weather RADARs. https://www.fcc.gov/general/u-nii-and-tdwr-interference-enforcement https://www.fcc.gov/general/u-nii-and-tdwr-interference-enfo...
      - wtallis 10y ago
        Note however that it appears that virtually all of those instances of interference were tracked down to Ubiquity point to point link devices. TP-Link's ordinary consumer access points and routers may have been out of compliance with the letter of the law, but they weren't causing actual harm to airport operations, let alone enough harm to justify banning OpenWRT.
_RPM 10y ago
One time I was up for like 36 hours, and I had just gotten a new router from Linksys. I started reading the privacy policy and got really freaked out that they were tracking every website I visited through some kind of HTTP/S proxy. I wouldn't doubt it because in their policy they paint some pretty broad strokes with their words. Their "Smart WiFi" router phones home constantly and the web interface manager doesn't allow you to run it without third party cookies enabled and JavaScript enabled. I'm going to have to burn that open source router onto it because it said it was capable.
- bsamuels 10y ago
  I tried blocking the only third party cookie on our admin portal and the rest of the site seemed to work fine. What are you using to block the third party cookie? Also what part of the privacy policy gives you the impression of there being a proxy/something tracking the websites you visit?
  - _RPM 10y ago
    When you login to the smart wifi, open your network panel, and it will phone home on a loop. I don't recall specifics, It just made me very paranoid. Go ahead and read it for yourself. Who knows how often they phone home? I know I don't. And think about what kind of targeted advertising they could implement if they knew every website you've ever visited. Is it possible? I can't see how thinking about doing this wouldn't have been a thought in meetings with how to monetize.
    - bsamuels 10y ago
      There's basically 4 different kinds of traffic you'll see coming out of the browser when you're viewing the admin portal. JNAP Calls - These are used to get or set configuration settings on your router. They'll always be aimed at 192.168.1.1 (or wherever your gateway is) If you're managing your router through a cloud interface, the POSTS will be directed towards linksyssmartwifi.com Internet Connectivity Heartbeats - These are used to figure out if you have an active internet connection. They'll be aimed at connect.linksys.com Speedtest Requests - These requests are used to provide support for the speed test functionality. They're typically aimed at linksys.ookla.com or linksysconnect.speedtest.net and are only used to download the flash object that performs the speed test GUI/html Requests - These are GET requests used to build the html page, aimed 192.168.1.1 However if you set up a cloud account and use the remote admin interface to change your router's settings, youll see lots of WAN-side traffic to the Linksys cloud.
qwertyuiop924 10y ago
Woo! Cheap Wi-Fi routers with the possibility of open source firmware!
ausjke 10y ago
So the bottom line of this settlement is: 1. You can still load openwrt etc to TP-Link routers. 2. TP-Link needs to do something(e.g. set hard-limit on TX power in some binary blob or something) to make sure nobody can increase Wifi output power above the "safe" threshold. Now as someone said in the thread, UBNT might have the real high-power WIFI devices(e.g. point-to-point outdoor) that can cause real interference to airplanes etc, it seems UBNT is not impacted at all, which is odd.
- wtallis 10y ago
  I think the tricky part has always been dynamic frequency selection, where the 5GHz WiFi radio is supposed to listen for a radar chirp and switch channels if it hears one. It's my impression that the hardware typically already supports some form of maximum transmit power configuration that the Linux drivers can further restrict but not loosen on the basis of the software's regulatory domain setting.
  - ausjke 10y ago
    I have seen high-power WIFI card with amplifiers that can do really powerful TX output and the linux drivers are free to tune that output to its physical upper limit.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      But this isn't about the case, you can always chain your router to an external amplifier (your SNR might be a bit flaky but that's another issue) you can always hard mod your router to do whatever you want. This is a simple case of the routers adhering to the specs out of the box and that the spec could not be modified via software, and I really haven't seen that many TP Link routers that can actually broadcast outside of the "safe" spec, most of them can be unlocked to use the forbidden channels on 2.4 but their power limits are pretty low.
      - ausjke 10y ago
        correct, even without amplifiers I have used high-power wifi-cards, however I have not tried any high TX output on any TP-Link products, which is odd why TP-Link becomes the target.
ashitlerferad 10y ago
https://omnia.turris.cz/ https://omnia.turris.cz/

134 points by pentago 10y ago

Better to stick with those who don't need anyone to require them that. At least Linksys with Marwell chips has really open WiFi drivers (WRT1900ACS).

lmns 10y ago
The last time I looked it required a proprietary binary blob. AFAIK the only free drivers which work well are ath5k and ath9k.
- shmerl 10y ago
  For firmware. The driver itself is open. I don't think even Qualcomm have open firmware for 802.11ac chips. That's an unfortunate trend. While drivers are getting more open, firmware blobs are becoming more prevalent, in GPUs, WiFi and etc.
  - wtallis 10y ago
    The really unfortunate thing is that they're putting the wrong things into the proprietary firmware. I'd be fine with signed proprietary firmware that only enforces FCC limits and regulations. That would make it harder if I wanted to sell my used equipment overseas, but wouldn't otherwise restrict my freedoms. I'm not fine with the bottom half of the network stack being offloaded to the proprietary firmware where we can't adjust or even directly see things like how many packets it's buffering and how it handles aggregation and retransmissions.

Sanddancer 10y ago

FCC announcement: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0801/DOC-340564A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016... Direct Link to the ruling: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0801/DA-16-850A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016...

ars 10y ago

According to the /. comments "Requires" is wrong. They "support" them doing that (i.e. that there are not legislative obstacles to it).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

codys 10y ago

Title is inaccurate, TP-Link only committed to investigate supporting third party firmware (including open source). From the FCC announcement (similar language is in the ruling): > committing to investigate security solutions for certain 5 GHz band routers that would permit the use of third-party firmware

sctb 10y ago
We updated the link from the Slashdot post (https://build.slashdot.org/story/16/08/01/1855206/fcc-requires-tp-link-to-support-open-source-router-firmware https://build.slashdot.org/story/16/08/01/1855206/fcc-requir...) to the official announcement.

doctorshady 10y ago

bws111's post from the Slashdot thread: Nowhere in that document does it say the FCC REQUIRES TP-Link to allow open source. What it says is: “While manufacturers of Wi-Fi routers must ensure reasonable safeguards to protect radio parameters, users are otherwise free to customize their routers and we support TP-Link’s commitment to work with the open-source community and Wi-Fi chipset manufacturers to enable third-party firmware on TP-Link routers.” They SUPPORT a company working with open-source, not REQUIRE, Later on it says: TP-Link has also agreed to take steps to support innovation in third-party router firmware by committing to investigate security solutions for certain 5 GHz band routers that would permit the use of third-party firmware while meeting the Commission’s security requirements and maintaining the integrity of critical radio parameters. So the requirement is that any open-source stuff must meet the security requiements and maintain correct operation, not that they MUST allow open source,

koolba 10y ago

Would it be possible to do any real harm (to humans, pets, etc) by increasing this power setting or would this only cause interference with other electronics? Also, which models is this for?

callesgg 10y ago
Harm to biological entity's no way. "causing interference" In theory, yes the possibility exists. In practice not likely. Other wifi ap's neer by might be drowned more than they would otherwise. You could call that interference.
- raarts 10y ago
  > In practice not likely. Depends. It apparently is real enough. Higher 5GHz WiFi band channels can interfere with airport radar. That's why the standard mandates a router to switch to another channel if it detects radar signals.[1] But of course using an illegal channel is simply illegal... [1] http://wifi-insider.com/wlan/dfs.htm http://wifi-insider.com/wlan/dfs.htm
  - pdabbadabba 10y ago
    I cannot imagine why you're being down-voted. This isn't hypothetical; the FCC imposed these security restrictions after reports of actual interference to airport weather RADARs. https://www.fcc.gov/general/u-nii-and-tdwr-interference-enforcement https://www.fcc.gov/general/u-nii-and-tdwr-interference-enfo...
    - wtallis 10y ago
      Note however that it appears that virtually all of those instances of interference were tracked down to Ubiquity point to point link devices. TP-Link's ordinary consumer access points and routers may have been out of compliance with the letter of the law, but they weren't causing actual harm to airport operations, let alone enough harm to justify banning OpenWRT.

_RPM 10y ago

One time I was up for like 36 hours, and I had just gotten a new router from Linksys. I started reading the privacy policy and got really freaked out that they were tracking every website I visited through some kind of HTTP/S proxy. I wouldn't doubt it because in their policy they paint some pretty broad strokes with their words. Their "Smart WiFi" router phones home constantly and the web interface manager doesn't allow you to run it without third party cookies enabled and JavaScript enabled. I'm going to have to burn that open source router onto it because it said it was capable.

bsamuels 10y ago
I tried blocking the only third party cookie on our admin portal and the rest of the site seemed to work fine. What are you using to block the third party cookie? Also what part of the privacy policy gives you the impression of there being a proxy/something tracking the websites you visit?
- _RPM 10y ago
  When you login to the smart wifi, open your network panel, and it will phone home on a loop. I don't recall specifics, It just made me very paranoid. Go ahead and read it for yourself. Who knows how often they phone home? I know I don't. And think about what kind of targeted advertising they could implement if they knew every website you've ever visited. Is it possible? I can't see how thinking about doing this wouldn't have been a thought in meetings with how to monetize.
  - bsamuels 10y ago
    There's basically 4 different kinds of traffic you'll see coming out of the browser when you're viewing the admin portal. JNAP Calls - These are used to get or set configuration settings on your router. They'll always be aimed at 192.168.1.1 (or wherever your gateway is) If you're managing your router through a cloud interface, the POSTS will be directed towards linksyssmartwifi.com Internet Connectivity Heartbeats - These are used to figure out if you have an active internet connection. They'll be aimed at connect.linksys.com Speedtest Requests - These requests are used to provide support for the speed test functionality. They're typically aimed at linksys.ookla.com or linksysconnect.speedtest.net and are only used to download the flash object that performs the speed test GUI/html Requests - These are GET requests used to build the html page, aimed 192.168.1.1 However if you set up a cloud account and use the remote admin interface to change your router's settings, youll see lots of WAN-side traffic to the Linksys cloud.

qwertyuiop924 10y ago

Woo! Cheap Wi-Fi routers with the possibility of open source firmware!

ausjke 10y ago

So the bottom line of this settlement is: 1. You can still load openwrt etc to TP-Link routers. 2. TP-Link needs to do something(e.g. set hard-limit on TX power in some binary blob or something) to make sure nobody can increase Wifi output power above the "safe" threshold. Now as someone said in the thread, UBNT might have the real high-power WIFI devices(e.g. point-to-point outdoor) that can cause real interference to airplanes etc, it seems UBNT is not impacted at all, which is odd.

wtallis 10y ago
I think the tricky part has always been dynamic frequency selection, where the 5GHz WiFi radio is supposed to listen for a radar chirp and switch channels if it hears one. It's my impression that the hardware typically already supports some form of maximum transmit power configuration that the Linux drivers can further restrict but not loosen on the basis of the software's regulatory domain setting.
- ausjke 10y ago
  I have seen high-power WIFI card with amplifiers that can do really powerful TX output and the linux drivers are free to tune that output to its physical upper limit.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    But this isn't about the case, you can always chain your router to an external amplifier (your SNR might be a bit flaky but that's another issue) you can always hard mod your router to do whatever you want. This is a simple case of the routers adhering to the specs out of the box and that the spec could not be modified via software, and I really haven't seen that many TP Link routers that can actually broadcast outside of the "safe" spec, most of them can be unlocked to use the forbidden channels on 2.4 but their power limits are pretty low.
    - ausjke 10y ago
      correct, even without amplifiers I have used high-power wifi-cards, however I have not tried any high TX output on any TP-Link products, which is odd why TP-Link becomes the target.

ashitlerferad 10y ago

https://omnia.turris.cz/ https://omnia.turris.cz/