[Mesh] Fwd: Re: [internet-freedom] openWRT vs. FCC - forced firmware lockdown?

Fri Sep 4 21:55:27 PDT 2015

Sadly the FCC site is down until Sept 8.  I haven't seen any new language
for the rule change.

The FCC is cutting costs:
http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-enforcement-bureau-field-resources-poised-to-shrink
They must make do with less which includes using blunt objects to preclude
enforcement.  They are passing the cost on to the manufacturers and
ultimately on to us.

And the carriers really want spectrum:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFoQFjADahUKEwiXp7Kfpt7HAhVBoogKHWycDBM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fcell-carriers-battle-for-wi-fi-airwaves-1440543853&usg=AFQjCNEen3o9NSByAFiv9QQ1_jSa9kX7Ew&sig2=CXVvbidNxCcs-MgI5Nvb3w

The cynic in me says the carriers have considerable clout with the FCC and
want to ensure that the bands are as clear as possible for cell traffic.

Cheers - Martin

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Mitar <mitar at tnode.com> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Some more activity on this topic.
>
> The deadline for comments was extended until October 9.
>
> BTW, have you seen this article more or less in favor of FCC rule:
>
>
> https://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20150831/07164532118/no-fcc-is-not-intentionally-trying-to-kill-third-party-wi-fi-router-firmware.shtml
>
> Also, there is a mailing list for people interested in this topic:
>
> http://lists.prplfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fcc
>
>
> Mitar
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> From: Andrew McConachie <amcconachie at berkeley.edu>
> Subject: Re: [internet-freedom] openWRT vs. FCC - forced firmware lockdown?
>
> Hey Internet Freedomers,
>
> I wanted to provide an update on this as things have changed.
>
> The original language from the FCC that we discussed is no longer in the
> proposed rule change. The specific reference to DD-WRT has been removed,
> and it now looks like the below language is what governs this.
>
> "(i) For devices including modular transmitters which are software
> defined radios and use software to control the radio or other parameters
> subject to the Commission's rules, the description must include details
> of the equipment's capabilities for software modification and
> upgradeability, including all frequency bands, power levels, modulation
> types, or other modes of operation for which the device is designed to
> operate, whether or not the device will be initially marketed with all
> modes enabled. The description must state which parties will be
> authorized to make software changes (e.g., the grantee, wireless service
> providers, other authorized parties) and the software controls that are
> provided to prevent unauthorized parties from enabling different modes
> of operation. Manufacturers must describe the methods used in the device
> to secure the software in their application for equipment authorization
> and must include a high level operational description or flow diagram of
> the software that controls the radio frequency operating parameters. The
> applicant must provide an attestation that only permissible modes of
> operation may be selected by a user."[0]
>
> In my opinion the FCC has rightly limited their concern of software
> update to anything which relates to software controlled radios. The
> requirement for device manufacturers will be limited to showing that a
> software update cannot reprogram a software controlled radio to cause
> interference. In practice, this will most likely mean that binary
> drivers will be required to run OS's like OpenWRT, and manufacturers
> like Marvel/Avago will continue to obfuscate their hardware APIs. This
> is a compromise I think we're going to have to live with.
>
> Below is the comment I made to the FCC(tracking number 1jz-8kvr-4z96).
>
> "
> Please do not do anything to interfere with the development of OpenWRT,
> DD-WRT or similar alternative firmware. It is important that consumers
> maintain the right to change the OS of any devices they own.
>
> For the purposes of preventing spectrum interference it is necessary
> that software controlled radios not be easily reprogrammable. However,
> this requirement should in no way interfere with the legitimate right of
> consumers to change the general purpose OS's of their legally purchased
> devices.
>     Sincerely,
>     Andrew McConachie
> "
>
> Comments close on Sep 8, only 7 more days to go. Speak now or forever
> hold your bits.
>
> Also, if anyone knows someone at the LibrePlanet SaveWiFi wiki their
> page has the wrong comment deadline.[1] Their page says October 9, but
> the FCC deadline is September 8.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> [0]
>
> https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-18402/equipment-authorization-and-electronic-labeling-for-wireless-devices
> [1] https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Save_WiFi/Individual_Comments
>
> On 7/25/15 10:41 PM, Andrew McConachie wrote:
> > There is no real way to do this short of getting Linux to relicense.
> > Even then, home router manufacturers can always use a BSD Unix. Most
> > home routers are nothing but a 4-5 year old UNIX with a buggy
> > proprietary web interface anyways. I give money to the FSF and have been
> > a member for over 10 years, but sadly there was never a way to fix this
> > with the GPLv3.
> >
> > Two doubts I have:
> > 1) Chipmakers like Avago/Marvel are doing more and more in their
> > proprietary binary drivers. Given this, they might just lock them down
> > such that frequencies cannot be changed regardless of the OS ontop. Some
> > chips already do this. Or they'll produce chips which cannot physically
> > change their frequencies.
> >
> > 2) Home router manufacturers are notoriously terribly at locking down
> > their devices. They sell cheap devices with terribly low margins. They
> > don't want to spend any developer time or extra HW on this requirement.
> >
> > On the other hand the FCC states that home router manufacturers must
> > answer this question:
> > "What prevents third parties from loading non-US versions of the
> > software/firmware on the device?
> > Describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the
> > installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT."[1]
> >
> > This really does suck. Because it looks like if Netgear were to ship a
> > device that could be flashed with DD-Wrt/OpenWrt the FCC might penalize
> > them.
> >
> > --Andrew
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=1UiSJRK869RsyQddPi5hpw%3D%3D&desc=594280%20D02%20U-NII%20Device%20Security%20v01r02&tracking_number=39498
> >
> > On 7/25/15 8:04 PM, Jethro Beekman wrote:
> >> Too late now, but you should have developed GPL3-licensed software and
> forced it
> >> upon AP manufacturers/pressured widely used software on AP's (e.g.
> Linux,
> >> BusyBox) to relicense GPL3.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jethro Beekman
> >> Graduate student researcher
> >> 719 Soda Hall
> >> Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences
> >> University of California at Berkeley
> >> jbeekman at eecs.berkeley.edu
> >>
> >>
> >> On 25-07-15 17:44, Mitar wrote:
> >>> Hi!
> >>>
> >>> Have you seen this, from Battlemesh V8 agenda
> >>> (http://battlemesh.org/BattleMeshV8/Agenda). Doesn't look good.
> >>>
> >>> The new FCC rules are in effect in the United States from June 2nd 2015
> >>> [1] for WiFi devices such as Access Points. They require to have the
> >>> firmware locked down so End-Users can't operate with non-compliant
> >>> parameters (channels/frequencies, transmit power, DFS, ...). In
> >>> response, WiFi access point vendors start to lock down firmwares to
> >>> prevent custom firmwares (such as OpenWRT) to be installed, using code
> >>> signing, etc. Since the same type of devices are often sold world wide,
> >>> this change does not only affect routers in the US, but also Europe,
> and
> >>> this will also effect wireless communities.
> >>> We would like to discuss:
> >>> * What are your experiences with recently certified WiFi Hardware
> >>> * How can we still keep OpenWRT on these devices
> >>> * What can we suggest to Hardware vendors so that they keep their
> >>> firmware open for community projects while still compliant with the
> FCC?
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?id=39498&switch=P
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mitar
> >>>
> >>
>
>
> --
> http://mitar.tnode.com/
> https://twitter.com/mitar_m
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mesh mailing list
> mesh at lists.sudoroom.org
> https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/mesh
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://sudoroom.org/lists/private/mesh/attachments/20150904/65138a58/attachment.html>