Linksys Will Lock Down Firmware on most routers, but not WRTs

[RMerlin]

which side will Netgear, Asus, and many other brands, join?

Asus' position was publicly announced two weeks ago:

http://www.snbforums.com/threads/asus-firmware-will-change-the-verification-method.32357/

No official announcements yet from Netgear or DLink (the two other popular manufacturers when it comes to custom firmwares).

 

[RMerlin]

This fcc rule change is not going to magically force these companies to support their routers for a longer time, and the average customer going to a store, will likely not be advised on this, and may not expect to encounter these issues until they do, and they end up with an artificially obsolete product.

This is where the FTC needs to step in. They did so with Asus, and they are starting to poke at Microsoft, Apple and Google now concerning their security update programs relative to smartphones.

 

[sfx2000]

This is where the FTC needs to step in. They did so with Asus, and they are starting to poke at Microsoft, Apple and Google now concerning their security update programs relative to smartphones.

I fail to see how the FCC Rule and Order regarding this topic have anything to do with Apple/Google/Microsoft comment in this context.

I see those three actually pushing pretty hard against Government Intrusions (US and Others) - I appreciate their efforts.

 

[RMerlin]

I fail to see how the FCC Rule and Order regarding this topic have anything to do with Apple/Google/Microsoft comment in this context.

I see those three actually pushing pretty hard against Government Intrusions (US and Others) - I appreciate their efforts.

I said FTC, not FCC.

 

[sfx2000]

I said FTC, not FCC.

check...

 

[sfx2000]

I said FTC, not FCC.

And FCC and FTC in the US are two very different orgs - and they rarely talk to each other...

I didn't bring up FTC, you did... and FTC has nothing to do with this particular situation.

Might be different in the Great North...

 

[Mordred]

Understand your frustration - but some in the third party dev community brought this on...

No the FCC just helps the US spy community to add a few more backdoors in their products, and unlike Apple most companies comply

 

[RMerlin]

And FCC and FTC in the US are two very different orgs - and they rarely talk to each other...

I didn't bring up FTC, you did... and FTC has nothing to do with this particular situation.

You're missing the context of my reply. Re-read the post I was replying to, you will see why I brought the FTC in. It was in response to a user's concern that the new FCC rules could lead some lazy manufacturers to end up with vulnerable unsupported products within a short period of time. I said that this is where the FTC could step in, to prevent that.

 

[stevech]

No the FCC just helps the US spy community to add a few more backdoors in their products, and unlike Apple most companies comply

That's rubbish.

 

[sfx2000]

You're missing the context of my reply. Re-read the post I was replying to, you will see why I brought the FTC in. It was in response to a user's concern that the new FCC rules could lead some lazy manufacturers to end up with vulnerable unsupported products within a short period of time. I said that this is where the FTC could step in, to prevent that.

They could, but typically they won't get involved unless someone makes a complaint - and then the FCC would be pulled in as a consult to verify...

 

[RMerlin]

They could, but typically they won't get involved unless someone makes a complaint - and then the FCC would be pulled in as a consult to verify...

At least it's already started. First with Asus, and now they are also looking into mobile platform security as I was mentioning.

 

[matt6789]

It is horrible that more router makers are following this stupidity, and locking the firmware down.
The majority of routers sold, stop receiving updates within a year, what happens if someone spends $150 on a new router, then 6 months later, a remotely exploitable vulnerability is found, but the router maker is no longer releasing updates?

If people cannot replace the firmware when official updates stop, then they risk having their devices become a security risk, and effectively not usable, long before the actual hardware becomes obsolete.

For regular consumers, as lack of updates and vulnerabilities are concerned:
Wouldn't this also make the leasing of modem/router combos from the provider a little more attractive? Think the ISPs had any influence here?

I'm not saying the ISPs would do a better job of updates, but they will use it as an angle....'Why spend $$$ for a unit that could have vulnerabilities when for $ we maintain security and replace if you ever a problem'. Last year, ATT support told me they were moving from the buy model to the lease model to better maintain the equipment. Read....And undoubtedly increase revenue.

 

[InToGraphics]

Wouldn't it be better if the FCC and ETSI enforce their rules on the manufacturers of the parts that are responsible for power output and channel selection?
(Instead of enforcing their rules on the modem+router manufacturers.)

 

[RMerlin]

Wouldn't it be better if the FCC and ETSI enforce their rules on the manufacturers of the parts that are responsible for power output and channel selection?
(Instead of enforcing their rules on the modem+router manufacturers.)

It needs to be programmable by the OEMs, otherwise they wouldn't be able to configure the SoC based on the region where the router is sold/used.

 

[InToGraphics]

It needs to be programmable by the OEMs, otherwise they wouldn't be able to configure the SoC based on the region where the router is sold/used.

The parts concerned wouldn't have to be programmable if they would be produced for specific regions.

And programming and configuring by the OEM for a certain region is also not very effective. I can by from non-US and non-EU sites. People do that all the time.

 

[RMerlin]

The parts concerned wouldn't have to be programmable if they would be produced for specific regions.

And programming and configuring by the OEM for a certain region is also not very effective. I can by from non-US and non-EU sites. People do that all the time.

There's no 100% bulletproof solution. As you mentionned, anyone could get his device from another country. The idea is to make it difficult enough to prevent casual bypass. Same with any form of DRM/copy protection really.

 

[InToGraphics]

Yes agree.
But the point I'm making is that if the concerned parts are for specific regions (for example US, EU, and rest of the world) there wouldn't be any reason for locking up and therefore excluding open source firmware.
Casual bypass would still be prevented.