3 ms·

Don't know about the Linux distros, but one problem with the FreeBSD versions (pfSense, OPNsense) is the mostly nonexistent WiFi support because there's no driv

Don't know about the Linux distros, but one problem with the FreeBSD versions (pfSense, OPNsense) is the mostly nonexistent WiFi support because there's no driver support for PCIe cards. You end up needing to hook up a COTS Wifi AP, which has all the same problems that a COTS router would've had. But other than that, yeah I don't see any reason to use a COTS router when I can just make one. My current router is my old desktop PC that became redundant when I built a new one, sitting as a bare motherboard on a test bench to take up very little space, running OPNsense.

johnklos 4y ago
How does a common wireless AP have the same issues as a common consumer NAT router? Do APs have to worry about NAT state tables? Are they exposed to the Internet? Do they have to be configured to NAT/forward special edge case devices, like Nintendo / Sony games consoles? Complaining about the lack of wifi drivers is pretty silly if you don't understand the advantages of a simple bridging wireless AP.
- Arnavion 4y ago
  >Are they exposed to the Internet? They're exposed to WiFi. They have terrible security in baked-in firmware that can't be updated without connecting them to vendor clouds, if at all. FragAttack was just last year. >Complaining about the lack of wifi drivers is pretty silly if you don't understand the advantages of a simple bridging wireless AP. Ah yes, because one can think of three things that APs are not affected by, therefore APs are bullet-proof.
  - johnklos 4y ago
    Cloud-based APs? Seriously? Nobody who actually takes security seriously would use cloud-based APs. Even using cloud services to download firmware updates would be shady as heck. You just made my point for me. If you have to download binary blobs to your hardware, like wifi interfaces, you can have issues. Would you rather have vendor-dependent devices inside your firewall / NAT router, or just connected to the same network as your firewall / NAT router? Nobody said APs are bulletproof, silly. Only people who don't know better would suggest or even imply that having separate APs is somehow worse. You want to keep the less secure stuff over which you have less control out of the important systems.

johnklos 4y ago

How does a common wireless AP have the same issues as a common consumer NAT router? Do APs have to worry about NAT state tables? Are they exposed to the Internet? Do they have to be configured to NAT/forward special edge case devices, like Nintendo / Sony games consoles? Complaining about the lack of wifi drivers is pretty silly if you don't understand the advantages of a simple bridging wireless AP.

Arnavion 4y ago
>Are they exposed to the Internet? They're exposed to WiFi. They have terrible security in baked-in firmware that can't be updated without connecting them to vendor clouds, if at all. FragAttack was just last year. >Complaining about the lack of wifi drivers is pretty silly if you don't understand the advantages of a simple bridging wireless AP. Ah yes, because one can think of three things that APs are not affected by, therefore APs are bullet-proof.
- johnklos 4y ago
  Cloud-based APs? Seriously? Nobody who actually takes security seriously would use cloud-based APs. Even using cloud services to download firmware updates would be shady as heck. You just made my point for me. If you have to download binary blobs to your hardware, like wifi interfaces, you can have issues. Would you rather have vendor-dependent devices inside your firewall / NAT router, or just connected to the same network as your firewall / NAT router? Nobody said APs are bulletproof, silly. Only people who don't know better would suggest or even imply that having separate APs is somehow worse. You want to keep the less secure stuff over which you have less control out of the important systems.