Actually is the only FCC certified hardware and not even software, says Sebastian Gottschall, one of the principal developers of DD-WRT operating system. In addition, open-source drivers are often a better choice.
The context of the Radio Regulations, see:
The US regulator FCC has a new policy in work that the software upgrading of equipment containing radio systems, to prohibit. The ban would several open source projects blow out the light, in which operating systems are developed for devices from other manufacturers. Examples are CyanogenMod (for smartphones), Linux (for PCs, laptops and many peripherals), DD-WRT and Open-WRT (for routers).
But the ban is likely to presumably affect the entire industry, because the FCC calls DRM-typical measures against conversions by third-party software. Manufacturers would need so that their devices will receive the FCC approval for the US market, review their development processes and, where appropriate, enhance protective measures against software conversions.
Surprisingly, goes the FCC in its current and put forward for discussion draft so far as expressly to consult the manufacturer for the certification as they prevent conversion of wireless routers with DD-WRT operating system. Sebastian Gottschall, initiator and lead developer of the DD-WRT project, is in the heise networks interview in detail the problem. In his opinion, the thrust of the FCC goes in the wrong direction. Surely even DD-WRT router would be certifiable. But that would show the charges and therefore the costs increase dramatically.
Open Source drivers often better
Mr Gottschall, a saying goes, any PR is good PR. Thus, you could pleased that the FCC just DD-WRT lists as examples of projects that must be fought now. The name DD-WRT is likely to be a little better known than before. How do you deal with this dubious honor
Gottschall: (laughs) Right now, not yet. We accept just with hardware vendors to contact, with whom we work and who are surprised by the development. We are now not react rashly, but superior to all stakeholders how we want to proceed
H networks. If your team adjusts the DD-WRT software for a new router model, are for each WLAN chipset in principle own drivers required – driver, on the radio can be characteristics of the hardware change, apparently are the stumbling stone for the FCC. ? By whom these drivers
Gottschall submitted: The drivers are provided by the respective manufacturers of chipsets. If the manufacturer open source driver offering, for example, QCA or Marvell, we use this as possible. The open-source drivers are often better designed and maintained than the closed-source drivers because on open code, many developers have an eye and provide feedback for bug fixes and improvements
H networks.: What consequences, if manufacturers certified ready-driver, would thus provide binary format would
Gottschall: The binary drivers are built against other kernel versions and kernel configs and therefore with our system versions do . not run
heise networks: What speaks against it to submit its own final driver of the FCC for approval
Gottschall: must follow the FCC Rules device to be tested together with the firmware. Therefore, the FCC would have each supported device test with each firmware release and certify. Given the amount of support equipment and the costs for testing and certification would be a considerable expense
Funk guidelines easy to follow
H networks. DD-WRT is likely even at no interest who breaches radio regulations. As developers make sure that router with DD-WRT comply with radio regulations
Gottschall:? We use the same built-in driver Mechnismen who use the equipment manufacturers in their firmwares. The procedure depends on the manufacturer, but in the end simply. Considering, for example, the country code, as it has provided in its proprietary format of the respective device manufacturer
H networks. If manufacturers would secure their WLAN hardware by DRM measures against manipulation, DD could WRT put it
Gottschall:? In principle, yes, in cooperation with the relevant manufacturer should definitely be possible. It is then necessary, however, to certify the device with DD-WRT again
Actually to FCC Hardware certification
H networks. What is the bottom line the proposed FCC rules for DD-WRT
Gottschall: Actually, should the FCC certified hardware. The FCC expands the regulation now but on software. In our opinion, the Authority thus trying to solve a problem at the wrong place. It is accepted that the obstacles for third-firmwares are so high that they threaten open source projects. Should the directive enter into force, the number of our supported devices will fall sharply, since we are angwiesen on the cooperation of equipment manufacturers. Given today numerous vulnerabilities in commercial router software promises that prospect overall not good. Alternative, tested in parallel by the community router software is likely to be in short supply
H networks. What could mean a total for the development of free software and hardware of the plan of the FCC
Gottschall: Although it is conceivable to feed a DRM for tamper protection of the radio driver in the system, but it seems not even this, to give ideas. In general goes in our view the thrust of the FCC in the wrong direction. As long as the wireless settings of the driver can be changed from the firmware out, and thus further violations of radio regulations are possible, specifying the FCC is practically incapable of being performed.
The chipset vendors provide Linux-based SDK to the devices maker and use these lots of open source software, which is usually under the GPL. To check under the proposed directive an end user, the firmware as usual self, build and improve can, should a manufacturer to offer all GPL source code closed source binaries, and so on make build tools available, including encryption methods and keys. A user would then again be able to exchange a driver with hard coded radio settings against another, perhaps better. But in the final analysis would have the device manufacturer either against the FCC Rules or against the GPL and similar licenses violated. (dz)
No comments:
Post a Comment