# America's crackdown on open-source Wi-Fi router firmware – THE TRUTH and how to get involved UPDATED



## dorsetknob (Sep 5, 2015)

Story here
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/05/fcc_software_updates/

And it looks like BAD NEWS

No more DDWRT no more Tomato  no more Open source firmware


----------



## Easo (Sep 5, 2015)

The moment I see titles like" THE TRUTH" I don't even want to read the post.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 5, 2015)

This sounds like a stretch. To me, it sounds like the FCC wants to lock down the *wireless radios themselves* to ensure compliance with FCC laws regarding how radio frequencies can be used and at what frequencies. While I can see this being an excuse to kill open source firmwares (or the OS for routers,) I think it might be a stretch. I see this being a change on the wireless transceivers themselves. So for example, the radio itself would simply prohibit broadcasting frequencies outside the range the FCC has allowed for the device.

So while I can see why person might be concerned, I don't see it as killing open source router software. I do see it as ensuring regulatory compliance of said software though.

Personally, I think it's important that a 2.4Ghz radio, only actually operates at 2.4Ghz. We have to be careful with how we use radio waves as we have to share the medium they travel in (unless talking about something like coaxial cable where radio waves inside are shielded from the outside and vise versa.)


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 5, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> This sounds like a stretch. To me, it sounds like the FCC wants to lock down the *wireless radios themselves* to ensure compliance with FCC laws regarding how radio frequencies can be used and at what frequencies. While I can see this being an excuse to kill open source firmwares (or the OS for routers,) I think it might be a stretch. I see this being a change on the wireless transceivers themselves. So for example, the radio itself would simply prohibit broadcasting frequencies outside the range the FCC has allowed for the device.
> 
> So while I can see why person might be concerned, I don't see it as killing open source router software. I do see it as ensuring regulatory compliance of said software though.
> 
> Personally, I think it's important that a 2.4Ghz radio, only actually operates at 2.4Ghz. We have to be careful with how we use radio waves as we have to share the medium they travel in (unless talking about something like coaxial cable where radio waves inside are shielded from the outside and vise versa.)



The problem arises because in the US, and a few other countries, you are limited to the frequencies you are allowed to use for WiFi.  Even though they are labeled as 2.4GHz, they actually operate at a range of difference frequencies, this is why we have channels. That range in the US is limited to 2.412Ghz to 2.462GHz, or channels 1 - 11.  However, in other countries the range is 2.412GHz to 2.484GHz, adding channels 12, 13, and 14.  A lot of 3rd party, open source, firmwares allow people in the US to select those higher channels, which is technically illegal according to the FCC.

The radios themselves can't be limited, it isn't cost effective to build special units just for the US and a few other countries that limit the frequency range.  So software is the only way to do it.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 5, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> The radios themselves can't be limited, it isn't cost effective to build special units just for the US and a few other countries that limit the frequency range.


You're telling me that those mini-PCI-E wi-fi cards don't have an OPROM or some form of firmware that can't control that at the software level without involving the OS? I think that's a stretch because the device does have that kind of control at the firmware level. I'm just saying that it isn't as unrealistic as you claim it to be.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 5, 2015)

I think it is legitimate for the reason newtekie1 pointed out and I also think there is a simple solution: Tomato and DDWRT need to be submitted to the FCC for compliance approval.  I don't think it costs much, if anything, and I'm sure users will be willing to donate money to get it FCC approved.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 5, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think it is legitimate for the reason newtekie1 pointed out and I also think there is a simple solution: Tomato and DDWRT need to be submitted to the FCC for compliance approval.  I don't think it costs much, if anything, and I'm sure users will be willing to donate money to get it FCC approved.


Being open source, I'm skeptical that you could enforce what the FCC wants without doing it at a lower level. If someone has the source, they can simply re-enable it, recompile, and load it up but, at least if it's something on the wi-fi device itself that would require JTAG to program, you deter a lot of people from doing it.


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 5, 2015)

They already restrict antenna power based on region they detect (or you select). And I've seen Tomato RAF overriding my selection when I picked another country. Don't get it why FCC needs to "test" them. Another bullshit money grabbing...


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 5, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> You're telling me that those mini-PCI-E wi-fi cards don't have an OPROM or some form of firmware that can't control that at the software level without involving the OS? I think that's a stretch because the device does have that kind of control at the firmware level. I'm just saying that it isn't as unrealistic as you claim it to be.



Yes, that is what I'm telling you.  The channel is controlled by the driver the OS is using, there isn't a meaningful firmware on these chips.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Sep 5, 2015)

I remember when my dad was into CB radios and his friend got a visit from the FCC cause he was running a HUGE high range AMP and started stepping on local TV and radio stations.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 5, 2015)

Yeah, there's a reason the FCC exists and letting open source firmware run in the wild is liable to step on toes.  FCC's job is to make sure all devices stay in their prescribed bandwidths.

The FCC isn't evil--they just need to work out something both parties can agree to that will enforce radio compliance.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Sep 5, 2015)

It's not encouraging they made no attempt to contact DD-WRT devs especially after they singled them out. Feels like they're just going to steamroll this through.


----------



## Jetster (Sep 5, 2015)

The manufactures know that who ever produces modifiable firmware will out sell all the others. Trust me this means nothing. They will leave the back door open 

Personally I thing DD-WRT, Tomato have fallen behind. The new routers work fine and have solid firmware. This all started with Lynksys not being able to handle traffic with p2p.


----------



## Solaris17 (Sep 5, 2015)

Kinda. As far as I understand it though this is only for wireless broadcasting devices. I can run opensense untangle pfsense smoothwall too my hearts content as a router.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 6, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> This sounds like a stretch. To me, it sounds like the FCC wants to lock down the *wireless radios themselves* to ensure compliance with FCC laws regarding how radio frequencies can be used and at what frequencies. While I can see this being an excuse to kill open source firmwares (or the OS for routers,) I think it might be a stretch. I see this being a change on the wireless transceivers themselves. So for example, the radio itself would simply prohibit broadcasting frequencies outside the range the FCC has allowed for the device.
> 
> So while I can see why person might be concerned, I don't see it as killing open source router software. I do see it as ensuring regulatory compliance of said software though.
> 
> Personally, I think it's important that a 2.4Ghz radio, only actually operates at 2.4Ghz. We have to be careful with how we use radio waves as we have to share the medium they travel in (unless talking about something like coaxial cable where radio waves inside are shielded from the outside and vise versa.)




blame co's like amped wireless for this that even released products without fcc certs, etc... one of thier RE's even was sold w.o fcc/UL cert.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Sep 6, 2015)

Jetster said:


> The manufactures know that who ever produces modifiable firmware will out sell all the others. Trust me this means nothing. They will leave the back door open
> 
> Personally I thing DD-WRT, Tomato have fallen behind. The new routers work fine and have solid firmware. This all started with Lynksys not being able to handle traffic with p2p.



Last time I looked into it tomato was dead in the water with new device and feature support, but DD-WRT is back on top IF you happen to purchase the same router as a dev like Kong. The further away you get from those devices the more bugs you tend to run into.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 6, 2015)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Last time I looked into it tomato was dead in the water with new device and feature support, but DD-WRT is back on top IF you happen to purchase the same router as a dev like Kong. The further away you get from those devices the more bugs you tend to run into.



The original Tomato maybe, but Shibby and Toastman versions of Tomato are alive and well.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 6, 2015)

While this post is typical Register hyperbole
the FCC needs to keep there fucking hands out of this because no matter there intent they will make to royally screw everybody


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Sep 7, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> The original Tomato maybe, but Shibby and Toastman versions of Tomato are alive and well.


Looking into it now - looks like that's very recent (May.) Interesting Toastman says he picked up the R7000. That's the same one Kong has. Good one for firmware support it seems. Glad I picked it one up.


----------



## Makaveli (Sep 8, 2015)

The R7000 is great

i just picked one up running the Xvortex Asus Merlin firmware on it.


----------



## Cybrnook2002 (Sep 8, 2015)

What's happening now, and I have had a discussion with RMerlin about this in the XVortex thread  (as that's what I am running on my R7000),is companies like broadcom will start  (and are already starting) to encrypt the bootloader. So, no access to bootloader, no access to nvram, no access to opensource firmware. This is getting very similar to rooting android devices (and why you just can't on some hardware vendors ,wink wink Samsung)

Here's the thread where I started talking about it if you care to read:

3/4 of the way down the page is where it starts

Asuswrt-Merlin on Netgear R7000 - Start of Encryption


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 8, 2015)

I guess more people will cling to older hardware and such and not upgrade to 802.11ac wave 2 and companies will go bankrupt at not making as much as they used to due to NOBODY buying new routers! WAY TO KILL THE ECNOMY FUCKTARDS!


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 8, 2015)

I cannot see how it kills the WRT. It will just use an pre-cooked binary driver given from the manufacturer, as most devices do actually.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 8, 2015)

when it comes to shit like RSA signing and such that will change...


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 8, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> when it comes to shit like RSA signing and such that will change...



As long there is china and india and their market, where more channels are really vital... FCC can go screw themselves, they can't fight the demand.

The whole thing is a click bait IMHO. It is overrated.

The thing comes that I will take some dual port NUC(Or whatever ARM based solution... they become more and more powerful.) and turn it into a simple slackware machine...( still don't get why DDWRT is so popular as any linux does everything since dino age). In terms of power consumption the Bay Trail NUC eats even less than my current router while running 1080p kitten video due to proper p states.


----------



## Cybrnook2002 (Sep 8, 2015)

Ferrum Master said:


> The thing comes that I will take some dual port NUC(Or whatever ARM based solution... they become more and more powerful.) and turn it into a simple slackware machine...( still don't get why DDWRT is so popular as any linux does everything since dino age). In terms of power consumption the Bay Trail NUC eats even less than my current router while running 1080p kitten video due to proper p states.


And you are already talking about something completely different than what the topic here is about. Building your own router at home using pfsense or something is not the same as buying an off the shelf, store bought router (and then the firmware THAT runs on). That is the purpose of what this is all about.

This could be an evolution of the wireless industry. I just hope that when they start locking these down, manufactures start embedding some of the features users seek alternatives firmware for. (Like robust VPN solutions, and hefty QOS )


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 8, 2015)

Cybrnook2002 said:


> That is the purpose of what this is all about.



The name firmware is kind of screwed and it is a relic from dino age... meant for one time flashable devices. It ain't so simple as a cuckoo voiced doorbell for routers. It is a proper upgradeable OS with kernel and their driver modules. And the title contains - America's crackdown - are you serious? This just pure populism translated from a user perspective. The idea is to control untested transmitter hardware features that the FCC have not approved nor certified for the each specific device. Very noble from engineering perspective. FCC has no authority on the subject of secured bootloaders and telling how to build each device. So the idea itself is fishy.

The control is still in the hands of the manufacturer it was and will be... you don't want the upper channels? Adjust the cap in the saw filter section, and bang no more than allowed. So the all rubbish about possible software control dies instantly, you can toggle the software set amount of channels like a monkey but no signal will come in or out. You want that? You will get it. So why it is not done like that already? Because America is NOT the only country in the world obviously. And this software limitation is just a minor issue... is it locked or not. Anything made by man can be broken. Like boot loader lock for phone, it will get sued and then allowed, except for the one Cupertino located company...

And I fully agree that there are too many cheap haywire radio transmitting devices that working out of specs produces such offset radio distortion, that it causes malfunctioning to other close located devices too. Then an angry wife spanks their husband for not being reached on cell phone and cheating her. It is a good matter for a debate, and it started well, the problems will be clear and thus the compromise. FCC just does their job!

One does not care what he actually takes from the shelf, he even does not know the wifi channels exist or what DDWRT or Tomato is.

One does not care about open source as he actually don't give a damn about it as long it works. And this is valid for Billions of people.

If one does not do that, he starts to seek and question for the product he actually wants will find it no matter what usually custom serious solutions. Taking mikrotik for example or any other maker. Or builds himself or asks a specialist... using the huge arsenal of devices that are available now... no one killed GPL?


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 8, 2015)

ill just say this
anybody that reads The Register,and believes it
is a fucking moron


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 8, 2015)

this is being reported on way more sites than them tho


----------



## Cybrnook2002 (Sep 8, 2015)

And I agree with you, and yes while the title of this thread is click bait, there are some concerns in this that are out in the wild RIGHT NOW. Whether we like it or not, manf's (broadcom) are already starting to tighten the strings on the boot-loader's and the security checks that firmware's are able to check via an encrypted boot-loader using a closed source executable. Once the boot-loader gets locked out, then we are in trouble. (Not sure if you read my link above in my first post, you should (was over a month ago, so not related to this thread))

And yes, that is the idea. That the majority of your business base cares less on what is happening behind the scenes of their wireless routers, as long as they work. We are but a small few (I assume) that like to go a little deeper and play around. However, we are not a "business model" and will be an afterthought when strategies get agreed on in board rooms. So, like you said, it will be down to the manf's to sort out how they want to secure their systems. But as said in the article of the OP, software methods (while popular now) are not a viable solution to the FCC's concerns.  Thus introduce encryption. It's not going to be pragmatic for manf's to design radios for different country regions, it's cheaper for one radio for them all, and restricted afterwards.

I know the USA is not the world. But the reach they have is far and wide, look at the RIAA and file sharing. While these are US laws, they are now globally enforced. I would expect no different from the FCC. In the end, the FCC is not trying to be mean, they are just trying to utilize a system that works for most. That's fine for me, cause I cant use any European channels here in the US anyways, my clients don't see it. But unfortunately the way this gets enforced may have repercussions on the open source community. That's why I am sad.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 8, 2015)

Cybrnook2002 said:


> That's why I am sad.



There are always such things... And Broadcom had always been idiotic. Even on Raspberry Pi it took a year of begging to give them the source for videocore... No changes in years for that company.

Well the debate has started and that's not bad... a sign of democracy still. Encryption... btw modern qualcomm Snapdragon phones already encrypt driver and PNP service activities in order not to tamper them on android (Like CPU voltage scaling ramp and profile for example). So it ain't something new... just nobody shouts about that. The thing is not entirely shut, with some proper reason it can also do good. As it actually protects the device from burning down if some virus executes via root access if there is one. SELINUX shows them the door.

FCC just does what they are paid off... strange ain't it?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 8, 2015)

Can someone put this "issue" into layman's terms?


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 8, 2015)

The issue is that the frequencies, when amplified enough interfere with weather radar that measures wind shears. Aerohive networks put it nicely there:
http://boundless.aerohive.com/technology/why-we-lost-the-weather-radar-channels.html

Simple fix is to have DFS. But many ignore that. All they  need to do is use DFS and not need to worry so much, however people are like "mah frequencies" and then they want to take away a lot from many instead of a little from a few.

Also most modern routers have dedicated CPUs for the radios that can be easily locked down intead of the whole thing


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 8, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Can someone put this "issue" into layman's terms?



FCC intends to make updating firmware imposable on wireless devices
Hackers find vulnerability in wireless gear   that you cannot update to close / remove vulnerability
your Screwed your pwned   ect


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 8, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> FCC intends to make updating firmware imposable on wireless devices
> Hackers find vulnerability in wireless gear   that you cannot update to close / remove vulnerability
> your Screwed your pwned   ect


The MFG. will be able to update the firmware I assume?


----------



## Cybrnook2002 (Sep 8, 2015)

Yep, as they will have access to the signing keys


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 8, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The MFG. will be able to update the firmware I assume?



Probably yes and with the same Frequency that they currently do

So that means seldom or never   and yes your still Screwed unless you buy the latest newest device ( complete with undisclosed vulnerability as yet to be exploited  )
And so the Circle goes around and around


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 8, 2015)

Cybrnook2002 said:


> Yep, as they will have access to the signing keys


Meh. Then I don't see what the big deal is. 99.9999999% of people don't even know WTF Firmware is. That and ISP's regularly update personal routers they issue remotely. They have too, to maintain network security and avoid lawsuits from customers. This seems like another homebrew controversy that effects a minority of a minority.


----------



## Cybrnook2002 (Sep 8, 2015)

Please tell me you are not on a hardware enthusiasts forum and ALSO have your ISP update the firmware on your ISP provided rental router. 

Sigh, I guess your right. We are a minority of a minority....


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 8, 2015)

Cybrnook2002 said:


> Please tell me you are not on a hardware enthusiasts forum and ALSO have your ISP update the firmware on your ISP provided rental router.
> 
> Sigh, I guess your right. We are a minority of a minority....


Sure do and don't care. What should I do DL some Linux firmware and install it on my router just to find out my ISP now wants me to pay full price for it because I might be 1 in a million of a remote hack by some ruskie and I bricked my box? The most they will get is my Company of Hero 2 saves anyway. Maybe this is a big deal but, cant see how I or any normal user should care.

Not trying to be a dick. I just cannot fathom how this will cause much of an issue.


----------



## Cybrnook2002 (Sep 8, 2015)

Didn't mean it in a mean way (if it came out that way). Just reassures me how small the subset that would be concerned is...


Well, my concern is not over ad-hoc security patches. What I like about open source is what I listed above. My 2 x mains are Robust VPN and a hefty QOS service.

Open firmware always has many bells and whistles that network nerds drool for. You just can get that with a stock experience. (AsusWRT is close, but VPN is lacking, where RMerlin fixes it)

Sure the car will still get you from point A to point B (meaning they will work either way), but custom firmware minimizes my footprint of devices I need to be able to do what I want (on a consumer router) vs multiple devices, or custom built devices.

(Plus I find it super fun)


----------



## Kursah (Sep 8, 2015)

I'll stick with my Ubiquity ERL and AP setup then. Real router/firewall OS FTW! 

I'm sure anyone running Vyatta, VyOS, PFSense, Sophos or Untangle with an AP could really care less about this. And a majority of folks sitting on WRT routers are sitting at a stop-gap/stepping stone to a real firewalling/routing solution anyways. Maybe it's time to step up. 

I agree with MailMan that this is really a small issue overall. I'm not at all surprised they want to stop allowing mods to occur on certified routing/wifi equipment...that is nothing new. But the more I used Tomato, MerlinWRT and DDWRT, the more it felt like a band-aid. Not only that, as he said, and is proven day after day, most users have no idea what firmware is, how to update it or are scared of their routers in the first place.

Hopefully this action will spur up more users to become familiar with running their own routers with an OS and hardware dedicated to really do the job right...granted some of it isn't simple. I have a couple of spare routers running DDWRT, and while it does add some nice functionality (where it can and when supported), it has never really been anything truly amazing. If you want better routing capabilities and to get away from this shit, get an EdgeRouter ERL or X or build your own mini-PC and slap a firewall OS on it. I couldn't be happier with my ERL, sure the GUI isn't as friendly as your local neighborhood home-grade router, between what it can do in GUI and in CLI is nothing short of amazing for a $99 router. Sure it has no wifi...use your old wifi router as an AP or buy a damn AP and be done with it. Move on, and worry not about this low-grade consumer crap in the first place.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 8, 2015)

Cybrnook2002 said:


> Didn't mean it in a mean way (if it came out that way). Just reassures me how small the subset that would be concerned is...


The people who this effects are people who are network specialists who enjoy dicking around with web traffic in and out of a corporation or household. Uber security buffs and Linux neck beards. I'm not judging either. That means someone, somewhere has been abusing the system and the FCC now need/wants to step in and add some bureaucracy.....because that's about all that will happen. I am willing to bet NOTHING will really change in the end.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 8, 2015)

All enterprise grade hardware/software master race


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 8, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> All enterprise grade hardware/software master race


Just keep my internet running ya cat-5 cable monkey.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 8, 2015)

yes yes


----------



## Makaveli (Sep 10, 2015)

Cybrnook2002 said:


> What's happening now, and I have had a discussion with RMerlin about this in the XVortex thread  (as that's what I am running on my R7000),is companies like broadcom will start  (and are already starting) to encrypt the bootloader. So, no access to bootloader, no access to nvram, no access to opensource firmware. This is getting very similar to rooting android devices (and why you just can't on some hardware vendors ,wink wink Samsung)
> 
> Here's the thread where I started talking about it if you care to read:
> 
> ...



Lets hope a workaround is found if this comes to pass.

Merlin's firmware's are outstanding as aslong as you take asus proprietary stuff out of it like AI cloud etc we should be allowed to load them on routers that support open source firmware.

On a side note Cybrnook what kind of cpu temps are you seeing on your R7000?


----------



## Cybrnook2002 (Sep 10, 2015)

Makaveli said:


> Lets hope a workaround is found if this comes to pass.
> 
> Merlin's firmware's are outstanding as aslong as you take asus proprietary stuff out of it like AI cloud etc we should be allowed to load them on routers that support open source firmware.
> 
> On a side note Cybrnook what kind of cpu temps are you seeing on your R7000?


Typical temps, never been an issue. Nice and sturdy


----------



## Makaveli (Sep 10, 2015)

Cybrnook2002 said:


> Typical temps, never been an issue. Nice and sturdy



Nice

These are my current temps.

Its the end of the summer beginning of fall in Canada so ambient temps will be going down as winter comes.

Based on what I've read these are normal temps for the broadcom chips.






I've seen some people replace the thermal paste while others have added laptop coolers to reduce temps.

The Enthusiast in me wants to try something similar

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Produc...3&cm_re=laptop_coolers-_-34-992-853-_-Product


hmm...


----------



## JunkBear (Sep 16, 2015)

Is it why DD-WRT website is not working anymore? Tried for a week to open it but seems to not find it anymore on the net.


----------



## Jetster (Sep 16, 2015)

They are still up. Just slow


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 16, 2015)

They have site stabilty problems... whining in forums too... the FTP also goes down...

Actually played a bit with my router few days ago.... well... turned back to stock... my experience is always the same... wifi performace suffers a lot versus stock OS... btw I have EA6300V1


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 17, 2015)

tomato???


----------



## Makaveli (Sep 17, 2015)

This link works fine for me.

https://www.dd-wrt.com/site/


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 17, 2015)

remixedcat said:


> tomato???


Tomatos code base is a disaster I would't touch it with a 10 foot pole
DD-WRT might not be completely bullet proof on every single platform but at least its not buried under 10 years of old broken commits and ancient driver and kernel patches


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 14, 2015)

*UPDATE*

New Story Development here
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/14/iab_defends_users_rights_to_mod_wifi_kit/

For those who don't like the reg style of story telling
here is a .................


The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has gently suggested to the United States' Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that locking WiFi kit to manufacturers' firmware forever might not be a good idea.
The IAB's submission to the FCC, made last week, is in response to the FCC suggesting a crack-down on open-source firmware like OpenWrt.
The FCC's mooted ban-hammer is designed to keep devices like WiFi routers operating in their designated spectrum, with the regulator fearful that inept modders could grab something like emergency spectrum in their eternal search for a channel that isn't contested by every other access point within reach.
The IAB, which last year decided to make user privacy and security the focus of its efforts, is particularly concerned that a ban on non-vendor firmware will leave stranded users with orphan devices that no longer get manufacturer support.
Its October 7 letter to the FCC – which landed a day before the FCC's extended submission deadline – says non-vendor firmware is needed "because a manufacturer ceasing operation would otherwise leave all hardware orphaned from update, which itself poses significant potential security risks."
Researchers and tinkerers should also be able to work without fear of breaking FCC rules merely by re-flashing radio kit, the IAB says. "Many radio frequency devices originally intended for one set of use cases have been adapted by the experimental and open source communities for new uses."
Stifling innovation isn't in anybody's interest, the letter argues.
If the Feds truly anticipate widespread chaos from the continued existence of open-source-moddable wireless kit, the IAB suggests the FCC put in place a mechanism ("as simple as possible") by which such features can be authorized.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Oct 14, 2015)

99.5% of router users plug the thing in and never touch it again.. this isn't an issue you're gonna get much support for


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 14, 2015)

ShiBDiB said:


> 99.5% of router users plug the thing in and never touch it again.. this isn't an issue you're gonna get much support for



Irelevent comment Sir
You could say 99.5% of people do not overclock their GPU or CPU 
so giving Advice to the 0.5%  who do is a waste of Time and Re-scorces

People reading the story May feel different and thus may look in to changing the OEM firmware to a Different type of firmware such as DDWRT or Tomato


----------



## IamEzio (Oct 14, 2015)

My TP link 1043ND was stable and didn't have problems , but in the last year it started to be more and more unstable with my 100Mbit connection , gargoyle changed it completely from unstable brick to a perfectly working router and WIFI didn't become shit as usual with open source firmware vs stock . so yes , we need those to save our routers from shit code.


----------



## 95Viper (Nov 19, 2015)

FCC has revised it stance on this...

Story at MPC:  FCC Clarifies Stance on Third-Party Router Firmware



> "One of our key goals is to protect against harmful interference by calling on manufacturers to secure their devices against third party software modifications that would take a device out of its RF compliance. Yet, as the record shows, there is concern that our proposed rules could have the unintended consequence of causing manufacturers to 'lock down' their devices and prevent all software modifications, including those impacting security vulnerabilities and other changes on which users rely," the FCC said in a blog post.



FCC Blog post: 
Clearing the Air on Wi-Fi Software Updates

by:  Julius Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering & Technology 
November 12, 2015 - 12:09 PM

FCC proposal (updated 11/12/2015):  SOFTWARE SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR U-NII DEVICES


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 19, 2015)

Just like to say   that my making people aware of this by( RE) posting the News may have helped influence this decision  in some  ( VERY ) small way
( that's me being Smug )


----------



## remixedcat (Nov 19, 2015)

I knew of this on ars and SnBB for a while...


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 19, 2015)

@dorsetknob
thankyou for your smugliness it has made me take note of this issue.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 19, 2015)

It comes down to the manufacturers and how they implement FCC's requirements.  What they should do (and should have been doing all along) is putting in radios that can't leave the bounds of the target country's radio requirements.  If they do what they're supposed to, it shouldn't effect open firmware at all.

The FCC can't force manufacturers to not take the easy way out (block third party firmware).  What consumers buy will indicate to manufacturers whether open firmware capable routers are worth the extended supply chain.


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 19, 2015)

manufacturers Supply the world market and as such its usually the Same hardware in equipment world wide
Software is used to restrict/enhance Different markets. If one country tries to restrict a global product then due to costs it is effectively removing itself from the market supply chain and restricting consumer choice
Each country already has laws regulating what power and channel you can use ( Software Controlled)
ENFORCE THE CURRENT LAWS  not introduce more or use new rules to restrict Equipment


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 19, 2015)

DECT 6.0 exists exclusively in the USA because FCC allotted different frequencies (above 1.9 GHz instead of just below 1.9 GHz) to the technology than the rest of the world.  I'm pretty sure their radios are incapable of changing frequencies.

I think the WiFi Alliance needs to trademark a moniker (like "Wide Band") for WiFi radios that go outside of what the FCC allows that can't be sold in the USA--just like the DECT phones.

FCC is enforcing the current laws; that's what this is all about.  The US market is big enough to warrant manufacturing separate radios for sale in the USA.


----------



## Cybrnook2002 (Nov 19, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It comes down to the manufacturers and how they implement FCC's requirements.  What they should do (and should have been doing all along) is putting in radios that can't leave the bounds of the target country's radio requirements.  If they do what they're supposed to, it shouldn't effect open firmware at all.


Slight correction, it would actually be the chip-set manf's that enforce how this is done (Broadcom, Qualcomm Atheros etc...). It will be how they implement the FCC rules, and the tools they provide to their partners to then adjust the platform. As really no wifi router manf really makes the internals, they just put the lip stick on it.


(I believe)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 19, 2015)

I was talking about the radios which are often made by 3Com, Cisco, Lucent, Motorola, and Broadcom.  If the radio is designed to forbid going outside of the regulated frequencies, no amount of software is going to change that.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 14, 2016)

Cross Thread UpDate
with thanks to @jboydgolfer
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...-ac66u-fcc-locked-firmware-resolution.223393/


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jun 14, 2016)

man that Damn update really messed my week up  
it took about 15 or more flashes until i finally got it , damn FCC.

the main issue for the AC66u with me was that i lost the entire settings list for QOS, 5Ghz was dropping constantly, and the ui in general was buggy.
wish i had seen this thread earlier


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 14, 2016)

Like I posted in the other thread, do we know for sure the problems @jboydgolfer experienced were due to an FCC lockout or just the standard problems you get when flashing from the ASUS webGUI?

Even though it says you can flash from the GUI on the Merlin site, I've had to use the Fimrware Restoration method every single time I've done it.  Even we back in April of 2015 when I bought my personal AC66U, I had to use the firmware restoration method to flash Merlin, the stock GUI would not accept it.  And I'm pretty sure I had to do the same thing back in 2014 when I bought the RT-N66U that I used before I bought the AC66U.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jun 14, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> Like I posted in the other thread, do we know for sure the problems @jboydgolfer experienced were due to an FCC lockout or just the standard problems you get when flashing from the ASUS webGUI?
> 
> Even though it says you can flash from the GUI on the Merlin site, I've had to use the Fimrware Restoration method every single time I've done it.  Even we back in April of 2015 when I bought my personal AC66U, I had to use the firmware restoration method to flash Merlin, the stock GUI would not accept it.  And I'm pretty sure I had to do the same thing back in 2014 when I bought the RT-N66U that I used before I bought the AC66U.



I was just trying to b helpful.i changed the wrding.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 14, 2016)

Statistics 101, correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Coincidence alone is never proof.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jun 14, 2016)

Ill just delete the thread.


----------



## Kursah (Jun 14, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> Like I posted in the other thread, do we know for sure the problems @jboydgolfer experienced were due to an FCC lockout or just the standard problems you get when flashing from the ASUS webGUI?
> 
> Even though it says you can flash from the GUI on the Merlin site, I've had to use the Fimrware Restoration method every single time I've done it.  Even we back in April of 2015 when I bought my personal AC66U, I had to use the firmware restoration method to flash Merlin, the stock GUI would not accept it.  And I'm pretty sure I had to do the same thing back in 2014 when I bought the RT-N66U that I used before I bought the AC66U.



It's a compatability issue according to Merlin, thanks in part to Asus implementing a new firmware verification method in recent official releases (that I have never flashed to thankfully): http://www.snbforums.com/threads/im...le-with-asus-3-0-0-4-380_3000-or-newer.32962/

More information on the new firmware verification method Asus introduced: http://www.snbforums.com/threads/asus-firmware-will-change-the-verification-method.32357/

I've never once had to use the Firmware Restoration method on my AC66R to go from AsusWRT to AsusWRT or to any version of Merlin in the time I've used/deployed it. In-fact none of the AC66x or N66x series I flashed to Merlin ever had the issue that @jboydgolfer experienced. That is until now with the newer firmware check. Part of why I recommend Merlin so strongly for AsusWRT-based routers is because of how simple and painless the process was for a more capable and stable network device. Maybe I was lucky in the past two years and definitely most recently not upgrading to the newest official AsusWRT releases. But they definitely add a few steps to upgrading to Merlin from AsusWRT...I am tempted to flash to official just to go through the process myself... if I get a spare AC or N66 to test I sure will...my current one is acting as an AP and I'm not about to piss off the wife this week by disabling her wifi lol!

@jboydgolfer Don't delete your thread, keep the instructions as it is was useful IMHO.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 14, 2016)

Kursah said:


> @jboydgolfer Don't delete your thread, keep the instructions as it is was useful IMHO.


Agree ^^^^^^^


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 14, 2016)

Kursah said:


> 've never once had to use the Firmware Restoration method on my AC66R to go from AsusWRT to AsusWRT or to any version of Merlin in the time I've used/deployed it. In-fact none of the AC66x or N66x series I flashed to Merlin ever had the issue that @jboydgolfer experienced. That is until now with the newer firmware check. Part of why I recommend Merlin so strongly for AsusWRT-based routers is because of how simple and painless the process was for a more capable and stable network device. Maybe I was lucky in the past two years and definitely most recently not upgrading to the newest official AsusWRT releases. But they definitely add a few steps to upgrading to Merlin from AsusWRT...I am tempted to flash to official just to go through the process myself... if I get a spare AC or N66 to test I sure will...my current one is acting as an AP and I'm not about to piss off the wife this week by disabling her wifi lol!



IDK, like I said, I've had issues flashing Merlin from the stock BIOS before so I always just use the restoration method since then.

Also, on the wife front, I totally understand.  The wife and I are moving, and one of the first questions asked was "how long before we have wifi at the new house?" 



Kursah said:


> @jboydgolfer Don't delete your thread, keep the instructions as it is was useful IMHO.



I agree.  It doesn't hurt to have the information in as many places as possible.


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 14, 2016)

Kursah said:


> It's a compatability issue according to Merlin, thanks in part to Asus implementing a new firmware verification method in recent official releases (that I have never flashed to thankfully): http://www.snbforums.com/threads/im...le-with-asus-3-0-0-4-380_3000-or-newer.32962/
> 
> More information on the new firmware verification method Asus introduced: http://www.snbforums.com/threads/asus-firmware-will-change-the-verification-method.32357/
> 
> ...


I've got an ASUS at the house which gave me tons of issues, and I've fallen back to just letting it run the wireless at that end. I may upgrade it to Merlin. Need to check which model it is. Is there a back-list of older flash versions if I need to go backwards?


----------



## Kursah (Jun 14, 2016)

Ahhzz said:


> I've got an ASUS at the house which gave me tons of issues, and I've fallen back to just letting it run the wireless at that end. I may upgrade it to Merlin. Need to check which model it is. Is there a back-list of older flash versions if I need to go backwards?



Verify your router model, if it runs AsusWRT, odds are there's a version of Merlin out for it.

Depending on how old the currently installed firmware is, you might be able to just straight flash it over (the bulk of my experience with AsusWRT routers)...otherwise check this link: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/asus-rt-ac66w-rt-ac66u-locked-firmware-resolution.223393/


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jun 14, 2016)

This means that stock firmware from now on (near future) will contain a backdoor that allows the govt to snoop every packet. Sure, they already have everything you do from the telcos, but now they can access your devices from the router and steal data off them directly. I'd expect a key logger to be dropped in, too. USA USA USA

No doubt they'll be attacking SSL to gain access to your secured stuff, too.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jun 14, 2016)

these are some of the places i got the information regarding the FCC issue.
@newtekie1  is correct in stating that i have no proof that Asus has implemented that change, but I did see that other large manufacturers Have inplimented it, so i assumed Asus had, i shouldnt have made that assumption, i can admit to that, but im also No pro @ this stuff, and i cant Personally find Proof that they haven't either, But IMO, innocent until proven guilty. i just read posts from people who know more than me, stating they believed it Was true. but thats only hearsay. either way, the guide was a nice gesture, and although NEW pointed out others exsisted b4, I didnt find them, and i posted mine with the thinking that others may also not find the sources NEW pointed out.

https://www.federalregister.gov/art...-and-electronic-labeling-for-wireless-devices

http://hackaday.com/2016/02/26/fcc-locks-down-router-firmware/   <<dont know how reputable this site is


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 14, 2016)

Pity the Poor Bast***ds that have a Modem Router supplied by the Telco's
Another Inserted and uncontrollable Back Door
Soon your only be able to get 3 letter Acronym Agency approved KIT


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 14, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> Pity the Poor Bast***ds that have a Modem Router supplied by the Telco's
> Another Inserted and uncontrollable Back Door
> Soon your only be able to get 3 letter Acronym Agency approved KIT



I know it is a different subject, but the shit the ISPs pull with their provided hardware pisses me off so bad.

When Comcast started doing that bullshit with the public WiFi hotspot built into every provided router/"gateway" I was annoyed.  Even though they claimed you could opt out, I found out on some equipment you can't.  But I had a standard modem, no router/gateway, so I wasn't affected anyway.  Then I upgraded to the X1 _*TV*_ system and when they came to install it they said they also had to replace my modem because it was outdated, I had no choice.  And sure enough, it was one of those public hotspot things with now way to opt-out.  I bought my own modem the next day.  Ironically, or hypocritically, I do use the public hotspots all the freaking time though when I'm out and about...

Then there is AT$T with their absolutely garbage equipment.  At least Comcast's provided stuff is halfway decent quality.  AT$T's stuff is bottom of the barrel, fails all the time, and has the worst software.  There are areas around me that they sell "uverse" that is still actually standard DSL because they don't want to lay new cables.  In those areas there is literally only one gateway you can use, the Motorola NVG510.  It is garbage.  It lacks basic features like being able to pick your IP scheme.  You are stuck with 192.168.x.x.  And it has a very nasty DNS bug that causes constant redirects to a page that doesn't work if you try to browse when the DSL connection is down.  Even after the DSL connection comes back, it will constantly redirect to this broken page.  So if your internet is down, and you open your web browser, your home page will be stuck in this redirect loop.  Even after the internet comes back, your home page will still be stuck in the redirect loop.  It is a known problem, and AT$T hasn't bothered to fix it, in fact they made the issue worse by blocking a 3rd party method that fixed the problem.  You used to be able to telnet into the gateway and issue a few commands to fix the problem.  AT$T put out a new firmware for the gateway.  That new firmware doesn't fix the redirect problem, instead it disabled telnet so you couldn't use the work around anymore.  WTF?!?

Sorry about the rant, this stuff just really pisses me off!


----------



## Peter1986C (Jun 14, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> Statistics 101, correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Coincidence alone is never proof.



Correlation is not "coincidence". I think you are the one here who needs to redo his semester for Statistics and for Methodology.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 14, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> Sorry about the rant, this stuff just really pisses me off!


Perfectly Justifiable and Acceptable
Any ISP (World Wide ) that will not allow you to Provision your Own Supplied modem/router is Not to be fully Trusted.
With your own Supplied modem/router you Have a Far Better Chance of Securing it Security Wise.
You DO NOT NEED the ISP to have ACCESS to quote " upgrade Firmware ".
Auto Access for Your ISP for "Firmware Upgrades" Is in My Opinion just a Publicly Acknowledged Back Door.
Often if this ISP Access for "Firmware Upgrades" is Disabled this puts you in Breach of Contract.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 16, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> Perfectly Justifiable and Acceptable
> Any ISP (World Wide ) that will not allow you to Provision your Own Supplied modem/router is Not to be fully Trusted.
> With your own Supplied modem/router you Have a Far Better Chance of Securing it Security Wise.
> You DO NOT NEED the ISP to have ACCESS to quote " upgrade Firmware ".
> ...



It's also what prevents us from deciding our own DOCSIS speeds.



Peter1986C said:


> Correlation is not "coincidence".



No, not necessarily.  But it can be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Relevant section is "General Pattern"


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 16, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> It's also what prevents us from deciding our own DOCSIS speeds.


That Speed is set by your isp nothing to change there unless you want less than they provide
Sorry but it was a bad choice to use as a rebuttal 
You want more or higher speed than what the ISP Provide  Negotiate and  PAY MOAR


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 16, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> That Speed is set by your isp nothing to change there unless you want less than they provide
> Sorry but it was a bad choice to use as a rebuttal
> You want more or higher speed than what the ISP Provide  Negotiate and  PAY MOAR



It's actually set in firmware.  How do I know?  Because a common way to cheat your ISP is to load your own router firmware on old Surfboard cable modems.  Part of the firmware is a plain text config file with your speed tier.


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 16, 2016)

Kursah said:


> Verify your router model, if it runs AsusWRT, odds are there's a version of Merlin out for it.
> 
> Depending on how old the currently installed firmware is, you might be able to just straight flash it over (the bulk of my experience with AsusWRT routers)...otherwise check this link: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/asus-rt-ac66w-rt-ac66u-locked-firmware-resolution.223393/


https://www.asus.com/us/Networking/RTN66U/

Dark Knight. May try it this weekend, and see what breaks


----------



## Kursah (Jun 16, 2016)

Ahhzz said:


> https://www.asus.com/us/Networking/RTN66U/
> 
> Dark Knight. May try it this weekend, and see what breaks



You'll do just fine and have better firmware and capabilities to boot.


----------



## AsRock (Jun 16, 2016)

TheGuruStud said:


> This means that stock firmware from now on (near future) will contain a backdoor that allows the govt to snoop every packet. Sure, they already have everything you do from the telcos, but now they can access your devices from the router and steal data off them directly. I'd expect a key logger to be dropped in, too. USA USA USA
> 
> No doubt they'll be attacking SSL to gain access to your secured stuff, too.



Whats worse is other people using the backdoor and to think you are responsible for whats on your PC when some one could be stealing stuff from you.  Users fault for not having a secure network.

Makes me wounder if Apple are going do a firmware update for there Airport 5th gen then again Apple router prolly has a backdoor already o well .


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 16, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> No, not necessarily. But it can be.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
> 
> Relevant section is "General Pattern"


----------



## Kursah (Jun 17, 2016)

Edit: The post this refers to has since been deleted. 

A little more respect to fellow users is recommended...if you want to act like you're on reddit then maybe go there. Attacking other members is not necessary to prove a point nor does it make you seem like your point is any more valid. Reported.


----------



## Peter1986C (Jun 17, 2016)

I cooled off a bit now and heed the warning. Sorry for the mess-up. Sincerely.

I however stand by the opinion RTB does not know what he is talking about and that he was bringing up false (or otherwise irrelevant) arguments. 
I know correlation does not imply causation; I have never stated otherwise (in contrast to his and Newtekie's Straw-man argument). In case of a reliable and scientifically sound study, correlation is not "coincidence". All the calculations are there to falsify the existence of the correlation. If the latter happens successfully (i.e. there is no systemic pattern found in the data), there is a possible "coincidence". Else there is some form of a correlation, which is important for the larger picture of the field in which the study is conducted. Not some "happy little accident" that needs ignoring.

Newtekie: your meme is ignoring the fact that there is not even a correlation in that situation since the research population is only 1. Scientists would never make a conclusion based of such silliness. Plus, it is completely besides the point RTB and I were originally arguing (correlation being "coincidence"). 

And I am somehow "bad" because of perceived personal attacks and a "bad' word or two that everyone and their dog uses. Yes, it was not right and not necessary. And I once more apologise for that. But it does not make anything I said invalid.
Why am I always falling for it and do I even keep trying to fight the purposeful spread of misinformation.


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 17, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


>




Holy feck this made me spit out some rum... you owe me more rum now!!


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 18, 2016)

Peter1986C said:


> I cooled off a bit now and heed the warning. Sorry for the mess-up. Sincerely.
> 
> I however stand by the opinion RTB does not know what he is talking about and that he was bringing up false (or otherwise irrelevant) arguments.
> I know correlation does not imply causation; I have never stated otherwise (in contrast to his and Newtekie's Straw-man argument). In case of a reliable and scientifically sound study, correlation is not "coincidence". All the calculations are there to falsify the existence of the correlation. If the latter happens successfully (i.e. there is no systemic pattern found in the data), there is a possible "coincidence". Else there is some form of a correlation, which is important for the larger picture of the field in which the study is conducted. Not some "happy little accident" that needs ignoring.
> ...



Peter, appreciate the apology, but maybe if it weren't immediately followed by another attack on RTB it might be a little more accepted. 

Maybe it were best if both of you agreed to the age-old wisdom: Agree to Disagree, and let it go. My ignore list is probably a bit too long, and I'm not recommending you go that route, but stopping while everyone is still able to provide input without rancor, is probably best...


----------



## jsfitz54 (Jun 18, 2016)

remixedcat said:


> Holy feck this made me spit out some rum... you owe me more rum now!!



That's the short version which leaves out important experimental facts.
It goes like this:

A scientist wanted to see how far frogs could jump on various amounts of legs.
He puts a frog down on a starting line and yells "jump" while slamming his hand down behind the frog.
He measures the distance the frog jumps and is pleased that the experiment is going well.
He then proceeds to remove one leg at a time and repeats the above procedure and measures the distance the frog jumps on 3-2-1 leg(s).
When the final leg is removed, and he yells "jump" and slams his hand down, the frog doesn't move.
He repeatedly yells, "jump",again to the same result.
He concludes that the frog having not moved, has gone deaf due to loosing all its legs.


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 18, 2016)

AsRock said:


> Whats worse is other people using the backdoor and to think you are responsible for whats on your PC when some one could be stealing stuff from you.  Users fault for not having a secure network.
> 
> Makes me wounder if Apple are going do a firmware update for there Airport 5th gen then again Apple router prolly has a backdoor already o well .


Apple "routers" are a complete joke. They don't even have normal management! They have a convoluted discombobulated "app" that barely works and no browser or SSH config like normal routers/APs do!


----------



## AsRock (Jun 19, 2016)

remixedcat said:


> Apple "routers" are a complete joke. They don't even have normal management! They have a convoluted discombobulated "app" that barely works and no browser or SSH config like normal routers/APs do!



and yet i have had 0 problems with mine, it lacks options but it's very far from convoluted discombobulated. In fact it's too frigging simple if any thing.

And no browser connection to it is not really a bad thing as seen most bad crap you get from the next pass though your browser.

And the 5th gen is very well made you can tell nothing looks cheap about it like most others do.


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 19, 2016)

remixedcat said:


> Apple "routers" are a complete joke. They don't even have normal management! They have a convoluted discombobulated "app" that barely works and no browser or SSH config like normal routers/APs do!



Apple products are for noobs you know this!

No point stating the obvious!


----------



## AsRock (Jun 19, 2016)

Makaveli said:


> Apple products are for noobs you know this!
> 
> No point stating the obvious!



Well @remixedcat  has respect for people on here unlike some i see.

Because i own a Apple router i am a noob ?, WTF is that shit.

It cost me a few $ and happens to be the better one of what i been get my hands on, i all so had the RTA15 which i sent back a long time ago as it was not good enough. Just had no reason to replace it, although if the opportunity comes around i will as i always do with routers.

But anyways you have no point unless you are really trying to get your self banned.


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 19, 2016)

Ugh.. That RTA15 was bad.. A quite infamous router..


----------



## OneMoar (Jun 19, 2016)

I had a RTN_66u brick its self strait out of the box updating firmware
I highly doubt there was a FCC conspiracy here likely just ASUS's firmware being crap
not a fan of stock ASUS firmware , known to be buggy


----------



## AsRock (Jun 19, 2016)

remixedcat said:


> Ugh.. That RTA15 was bad.. A quite infamous router..



yup and for $200 at the time i was like hell no lol. Sad to think this Apple Airport 5th gen kicks it's ass lol.

Sure there are better routers out there i just not found the one for me, needs to work right out of the box and have enough options \ features to get me replace this at a good price .


----------



## jsfitz54 (Jun 19, 2016)

OneMoar said:


> I had a RTN_66u brick its self strait out of the box updating firmware
> I highly doubt there was a FCC conspiracy here likely just ASUS's firmware being crap
> not a fan of stock ASUS firmware , known to be buggy



I had an ASUS RT-AC66U brick out of the box as well and had to use the restore flash, but that was 3+ years ago when it was a new product.  I have never had a bad flash since, right up to the most recent firmware.  I've since flashed to the last 2 Merlin builds without issue, going back to the ASUS FW in between the Merlin(s).  I have tried a mixed setup using a Buffalo router and tried using both as primary and repeater.  They don't play well together or I'm making some setup mistake.  ASUS recommends using 2 identical units for repeater.  The Buffalo has been solid with very few resets but the firmware is very basic.  I've never flashed the Buffalo to DDWRT, only used stock FW.

EDIT: see the new MERLIN Beta change log 380.60:  http://asuswrt.lostrealm.ca/changelog


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 19, 2016)

AsRock said:


> yup and for $200 at the time i was like hell no lol. Sad to think this Apple Airport 5th gen kicks it's ass lol.
> 
> Sure there are better routers out there i just not found the one for me, needs to work right out of the box and have enough options \ features to get me replace this at a good price .


Pretty bad when an apple product beats it eh? LOL


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 19, 2016)

Anyways my current pick for a consumer router is the Linksys WRT1900ACS. It's done excellent under both firmware, however DDWRT seemed to unlock the full 5Ghz speeds and it's pretty fast. 

Review comparing stock to WRT here: http://remixedcat.blogspot.com/2016/05/linksys-wrtacs1900-review-stock-vs.html

Now the Netgear R7000 nighthawk is a close 2nd. I currently use it as a backup or RE for some odd situations. It's currently on stock FW right now


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 19, 2016)

AsRock said:


> Well @remixedcat  has respect for people on here unlike some i see.
> 
> Because i own a Apple router i am a noob ?, WTF is that shit.
> 
> ...



Apple products are designed for non technical people that is a fact.

The products are often locked down when its comes to having the ability to tweak them.

I didn't say someone that who knows what they are doing wouldn't use one, get some thicker skin and don't get so easily offended on the internet!

And last I checked I'm allowed to have an opinion banned....

And for the record i'm using a Netgear R7000 running Asus Merlin.


----------



## AsRock (Jun 20, 2016)

Makaveli said:


> Apple products are designed for non technical people that is a fact.
> 
> The products are often locked down when its comes to having the ability to tweak them.
> 
> ...



Yes the Airport is simple to setup and use and it works perfectly with no need of 3rd party firmware.

And no you did not say that, you called anyone using one a noob.

I was not offended, i found it pathetic for such  a comment.

Yes you may have your opinion just be careful if you make the comment directly at some one.

In the end i don't care, and the only reason you got a response is due to me passing time in Elite Dangerous though a system.


----------



## OneMoar (Jun 20, 2016)

you can actually flash Merlin on the R7000
http://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?threads/asuswrt-merlin-on-netgear-r7000.71108/


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 21, 2016)

AsRock said:


> Yes the Airport is simple to setup and use and it works perfectly with no need of 3rd party firmware.
> 
> And no you did not say that, you called anyone using one a noob.
> 
> ...




I said "Apple products are for noobs you know this!"

"you called anyone using one a noob."

Those two statements are not the same.

And my comment was not even directed to you I was responding to someone else.

If it was I would have clearly put your user name in the post!

And you cared enough to respond adding a disclaimer doesn't change that fact.


----------



## bogmali (Jun 21, 2016)

Pipe down kids, no need to get heated around here.


----------



## johnnygeek (Jun 26, 2016)

Unless the ISP get on board and require us to run software that checks our network drivers and firmware...

Other than that nothing can be done to stop people from compiling their own code on current hardware and using it.

as of yet there is no (PC) OS that requires "certified" firmware and drivers although they are close.
but that will never happen on a Linux/GNU platform 
as for Android that is a issue too many apps update with out our ability to control ...but i expect there are a few modified androids os out there and more every day 

Now if a new line of hardware with faster speeds is released THEN it may be locked up... until we crack it 
and when a new PC OS comes out that requires original unmodified firmware on the new hardware... we will crack that too 

Just look at PC games and the futile attempts to stop pirating ...Windodos 10 just requires another work around

The other side of this coin is NSA backdoors placed in firmware... when we flash it to our new faster firmware we win  3


----------

