3 ms·

Surely it's possible to maintain control over that while still publishing the source code? Seems like security by obscurity.

ratatoskrt 1y ago
I don't know, I don't think there are many open-source third-party firmware implementations for these kinds of chipsets out there, so it seems pretty well obscured.
barrotes 1y ago
Exactly my thoughts. To avoid out-of-regulation tweaking coudn't they just allow signed code to run? How can I be sure that this closed for, i.e. surveillance reasons? One can publish the source code and still prevent misuse afaik.
- wkat4242 1y ago
  Many modern chips do in fact use signed firmware yes. Technically they could publish the source in that case but I think some patents would prevent them from doing this. Radio stuff is riddled with patents. Also most likely the "why would we" reason. There is no benefit for the manufacturer.
  - HPsquared 1y ago
    Why would patents prevent open source? As in, they're afraid of patent trolls trawling their code for "infringements"? If it's concerning their own patents, no need to hide the source code. A patent is literally "letters patent" or public description of an invention. Trade secrets on the other hand I could understand.
    - wkat4242 1y ago
      It's often a condition of licensing those patents. NDA's, they're huge in the radio and embedded world. It only became a bit more open when the Arduino and Raspberry projects came along. And even there it wasn't fully open, especially with the Raspberry because Broadcom is one of the worst offenders. I'm surprised how much they were able to open source as-is. I think part of that is that the SoCs powering the raspberry are kinda 'old news', definitely not the bleeding edge kind of embedded tech. The first raspberry basically happened because Broadcom had a whole bunch of old chips they weren't able to sell. Only when it took off they started making some actually for the purpose.
Aurornis 1y ago
The hardware itself is flexible and relies on software for things like calibration, setting frequencies, and setting power. > Seems like security by obscurity. There are legal standards to meet around protecting the system from users modifying things like output power. They don’t literally say that the source code must be private, of course, but keeping it closed source makes it much easier to demonstrate that you were not making it easy for people to exceed the regulatory limits. If you document the registers for setting output power (for example) then you’re giving the end user a roadmap for changing output power.

ratatoskrt 1y ago

I don't know, I don't think there are many open-source third-party firmware implementations for these kinds of chipsets out there, so it seems pretty well obscured.

barrotes 1y ago

Exactly my thoughts. To avoid out-of-regulation tweaking coudn't they just allow signed code to run? How can I be sure that this closed for, i.e. surveillance reasons? One can publish the source code and still prevent misuse afaik.

wkat4242 1y ago
Many modern chips do in fact use signed firmware yes. Technically they could publish the source in that case but I think some patents would prevent them from doing this. Radio stuff is riddled with patents. Also most likely the "why would we" reason. There is no benefit for the manufacturer.
- HPsquared 1y ago
  Why would patents prevent open source? As in, they're afraid of patent trolls trawling their code for "infringements"? If it's concerning their own patents, no need to hide the source code. A patent is literally "letters patent" or public description of an invention. Trade secrets on the other hand I could understand.
  - wkat4242 1y ago
    It's often a condition of licensing those patents. NDA's, they're huge in the radio and embedded world. It only became a bit more open when the Arduino and Raspberry projects came along. And even there it wasn't fully open, especially with the Raspberry because Broadcom is one of the worst offenders. I'm surprised how much they were able to open source as-is. I think part of that is that the SoCs powering the raspberry are kinda 'old news', definitely not the bleeding edge kind of embedded tech. The first raspberry basically happened because Broadcom had a whole bunch of old chips they weren't able to sell. Only when it took off they started making some actually for the purpose.

Aurornis 1y ago

The hardware itself is flexible and relies on software for things like calibration, setting frequencies, and setting power. > Seems like security by obscurity. There are legal standards to meet around protecting the system from users modifying things like output power. They don’t literally say that the source code must be private, of course, but keeping it closed source makes it much easier to demonstrate that you were not making it easy for people to exceed the regulatory limits. If you document the registers for setting output power (for example) then you’re giving the end user a roadmap for changing output power.