FCC considering a proposal to lock down devices with a “modular wireless radio”

https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Save_WiFi/Individual_Comments

by thejosh • 11 years ago

211 134 11 years ago

jdiez173• 11 years ago

The link doesn't load (connection timed out), so I'm only going by the headline - do they also want to "lock down" software defined radios, like the HackRF?

thejosh• 11 years ago

Reddit hug of death right now. Direct link is https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-184...

jdiez173• 11 years ago

For a device to be certified as an SDR, in addition to demonstrating that the device complies with the applicable technical requirements, the applicant must also demonstrate that the device contains security features to prevent the loading of software that would allow the radio to operate in violation of the Commission's rules.

So... yeah. Well, that sucks.

minthd2• 11 years ago

Cached link:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0C9h0wa...

duhast• 11 years ago

Will this affect Google Ara project?

deelowe• 11 years ago

No. Google will pay for the requisite licenses.

ck22• 11 years ago

Yeah, whatever industry lobbyists are hitting them with tons of money need to just find their conscience - or prison, whatever works.

I guess I am going to be a criminal the day they tell me I cannot run openwrt.

Spooky23• 11 years ago

My guess is they are getting lots of complaints from folks running into dopes doing stupid things with SDR that interfere with others.

Looking at the noxious behavior of drone owners sets a few examples of the type of thing I'm referring to.

ck22• 11 years ago

The quadcopter problem is easy to solve, jail time for repeat offenders.

But they are now making laws to ensure the bulk of the population commits a few felonies each day, changing your phone software from stock, changing your router software from stock = prison? How exactly does that harm/help society?

semi-extrinsic• 11 years ago

I doubt it. Actually getting an SDR with transmit capabilities up and running takes a lot more time, effort and intelligence than launching a drone does.

Zigurd• 11 years ago

Yet somehow those many complainers are silent in the rule-making comments.

revelation• 11 years ago

Where the hell are all these SDRs with transmit capabilities and sufficient output power to annoy others?

Because I would love not having to pay the 2000 bucks for an Ettus unit if they are apparently this widespread.

guard-of-terra2• 11 years ago

Why would it affect your PC? Should not they just lock down wi-fi module if they want?

I fail to see much difference between installing alternative OS on your PC and installing third-party software.

mcbridematt• 11 years ago

Most radio modules would have an embedded firmware that in addition to the radio handling, should enforce regulatory constraints (i.e preventing the use of 5GHz DFS channels if radar use is detected).

Building these firmware images is something you are (usually) only equipped to do under NDAs from the silicon manufacturer (or only done by request from the manufacturer).

My understanding (and what I have gathered from previous threads on the subject) is the FCC is going after the embedded radio firmwares, and mistakenly (or due to extreme lack of knowledge) named OpenWRT,DD-WRT as offenders.

Otherwise, the effect of this would be to outlaw PCIe and USB WiFi, Bluetooth etc. cards/adaptors unless sold inside a computer with a locked bootloader.

jdiez173• 11 years ago

It would only take a motherboard with a PCIe slot and an unlocked bootloader to circumvent that strategy. You would use it to flash the firmware in whatever device you want to unlock and then use it on the computer with the locked bootloader.

the_ancient3• 11 years ago

Otherwise, the effect of this would be to outlaw PCIe and USB WiFi, Bluetooth etc. cards/adaptors unless sold inside a computer with a locked bootloader.

Lenovo already does this for laptops, you have to use a Whitelist Wifi card, they claim it is to comply with existing regulations from the FCC, which this will expand.

ignisf3• 11 years ago

Laptops for example have an FCC label (take a look at the bottom of yours) as they have radio equipment on them in the form of a Bluetooth adapter/Wi-Fi adapter/3g modem.

tzs• 11 years ago

If you look up that FCC ID, however, it will usually turn out to not be the ID of the laptop. It will be the ID of the wifi adaptor, and it was the wifi adaptor maker that got the certification, not the laptop maker.

It is that wifi adaptor maker that is responsible for ensuring that the radio stays in compliance.

The laptop maker generally will only need to deal with the rules from part 15B, unintentional radiators. The laptop maker won't have to lock down the laptop OS.

ignisf3• 11 years ago

Mirror: https://archive.is/tGCkU

pvdebbe• 11 years ago

hmm...

451 Unavailable This content is not available in your country.

SCHiM2• 11 years ago

I'm not too worried, like all prohibited substances and devices (except maybe weapons of mass destruction) there will always be ways to get what you want if you want.

Especially since from the headlines it appears that they're considering a software based approach.

nsajko• 11 years ago

Umm, no. Such laws legitimize prohibition (by definition) and represent and form public opinion and can thus be harmful even if they are loosely enforced.

SCHiM2• 11 years ago

Umm, no

Exactly what are you disagreeing with? Going by your comment you seem to think that I said that a ban would have no effect at all. I did no such thing, and I would suggest that you read more carefully next time.

So, umm, no I can't actually get access to a XTC in my country where it is prohibited?

Of course I can. Even if/while such laws effect more than only a ban on the substance in question.

nitrogen4• 11 years ago

This is a forum with a strong focus on startups -- startups will not want to have to use contraband radio equipment to develop their next IoT module.

Sanddancer11• 11 years ago

And they won't. Access points will just go back to the slightly more expensive method of using a wifi chipset with an asic and/or preinstalled non-upgradable baseband, and life will go on. The ath9k family, which is what's recommended for things like libreboot-based systems show that these exist. If they're spinning their own circuitry, they're going to have to get fcc approval anyways, and will have to make sure that their access point isn't terribly designed and spewing RF all over the spectrum because they don't understand what happens when you overdrive transistors.

gopowerranger8• 11 years ago

People aren't paying attention to what this is for. It's to prevent people from modifying RF devices, transmitters, from operating at power levels and frequencies, or other technical things, from interfering with other devices and outside the bounds of their intention. It's to protect devices from interference that was prevalent in the days when radio was first invented, and for decades afterwards.

This is a good thing.

kuschku5• 11 years ago

And at the same time it locks down devices where radio and processor are connected – you won’t be able to modify the software on some Android devices at all anymore.

This is NOT acceptable.

Punishing people for sending on illegal frequencies: Okay.

Restricting what people can do with devices they paid for: NOT OKAY.

JoBrad• 11 years ago

Why is restricting a device from interfering with emergency bands or bands used for medical devices unacceptable?

warfangle• 11 years ago

What if what they want to do with the device they paid for is modify it to send on licensed frequencies?

Do any android devices use open source firmware for their cellular radios? I was under the impression that all cellular radios worked only with closed source firmware + closed source radio driver, in which case _you already_ can't modify some of the software on any android device?

gopowerranger8• 11 years ago

It does NOT restrict you from modifying the software. Read section 24.

"The Commission proposed that certain changes in layout, included components, operating software, or variations in overall electrical or mechanical constructions that do not substantially change the overall function of the device do not require a new FCC ID."

"The Commission proposed to continue to permit Class I permissive changes for those changes that do not degrade the device parameters normally reported in an equipment authorization application (including a decrease in the fundamental emissions that does not increase spurious emissions; an improved spurious emission performance; minor variations in the enclosure or components; and software changes that do not affect RF parameters)."

the_ancient3• 11 years ago

Back here in the real world we understand that the most cost effective manner for device manufactuers to comply with this moronic regluation is to lock down the entire device.

Phone, Routers, Tablets and even some Laptops will be shipped with out the ability to change the operating system, or firmware. As that will be the cheapest way to comply with the regulation and since less than 1% of the customers ever bother changing there will be no backlash

This will be a nightmare for Computer security, and innovation.

I hope you love botnets becuase the FCC is creating the next wave of them with this moronic regulation.

Silhouette11• 11 years ago

Back here in the real world we understand that the most cost effective manner for device manufactuers to comply with this moronic regluation is to lock down the entire device.

What real world do you live in? Because in the real world I live in, the kind of component and firmware we're really talking about here are probably bought in as a ready-made part by whoever makes that phone, laptop, router, etc. They might not have any access to reprogram it at all.

What these kinds of regulations are effectively saying that if they do have that ability then for the device to remain properly certified for use as required by the regulatory authority there must be safeguards to prevent certain types of potentially harmful change or you "void the warranty" from a regulatory point of view. In that case, you revert to the default position you were in anyway, which is that you have to get the device and its software properly approved before you can lawfully use it.

gopowerranger8• 11 years ago

There is nothing in that FCC paper that says you won't be able to change the operating system and that is specifically mentioned in section 24.

CountSessine4• 11 years ago

Out of interest, can you name any botnets that have exploited mcu's with locked firmware, like mobile basebands?

CountSessine4• 11 years ago

Out of interest, can you name any botnets that have exploited mcu's with locked firmware, like mobile basebands?

PhasmaFelis7• 11 years ago

That's not right. Look at this: https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=1UiSJRK869Rsy...

One of the requirements for hardware vendors is "Describe in detail how the device is protected from 'flashing' and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT."

They are explicitly trying to illegalize custom router firmware, even though all the things that need to be prevented could be handled by separate hardware lockouts that wouldn't affect the legitimate uses of DD-WRT.

Sanddancer11• 11 years ago

That page states that it's a set of general guidelines, not hard, definite rules. All of the examples, like flashing dd-wrt, are essentially asking, have you thought about x, y, and z? Tell how so. It's almost certainly perfectly acceptable to state, "we use a discrete chip for our wifi system without any way to upgrade the firmware, so if a user does flash their system, the wifi chip cannot be made to drive outside of legal parameters." A hardware lockout is definitely one way to comply with the guidelines.

nickysielicki• 11 years ago

People aren't paying attention to what this is for. It's to prevent people from using encryption to obfuscate and share their illegal data, and other criminal things, and from interacting with other criminals outside the bounds of the manufacturers intention. It's to protect devices from crime that was prevalent in the days when the internet was first invented, and for decades afterwards.

This is a good thing.

Chirael• 11 years ago

Sounds like another battle in the "coming war on general purpose computing" http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html

task_queue• 11 years ago

Stallman was right.

thinkpenguin4• 11 years ago

Yep. I think it's much worse than stallman's ever envisioned it though. He is under the impression we can fix it. The reality is likely otherwise which is why we need to drum up massive support for this. The rules in some part have already taken effect which means not only will we all need to send comments in on this but there will need to be further campaigns to undo rules already in effect.

tedunangst2• 11 years ago

Only if the manufacturer insists on connecting the radio directly to the "general purpose" part of the computer, instead of using a more fixed/limited radio. If the radio is isolated, there's no need to lock down the rest of the device. But developing a fixed function radio will probably add a penny to the cost of each unit. So whether you can run openwrt will come down to whether linksys cares more about their pennies or your freedom.

yuhong• 11 years ago

I think one problem with this idea is that different countries can have different spectrum ranges or rules.

guelo• 11 years ago

FCC should be working to massively expand the unlicensed ranges instead of clamping it down more. The amount of innovation and economic activty in the unlicensed bands is massive. They should be working on taking back the TV HD and SD frequencies and leave the tinkerers alone.

Houshalter• 11 years ago

They are. There is a big thing in my town about the FCC trying to buy the local PBS station from the university. They already made everyone switch to digital a few years back which saved a lot of bandwidth (and made most channels unwatchable without a giant antennae.)

mikeyouse• 11 years ago

They are doing that, but the tinkerers are interfering with more important frequencies like RADAR used by weather providers and ATC... Locking down the frequencies so they can't possibly interfere isn't at all at odds with opening up new ranges for better service. I know a few people over at Mimosa (GBPS wireless backhaul providers) so I've seen a lot of progress in advocacy for new spectrum.

http://mimosa.co/news/36/75/Mimosa-Advocates-Expansion-of-23...

rayiner• 11 years ago

Expanding the unlicensed bands isn't incompatible with clamping down on how devices can operate on those bands. A key insight we've gained since part 15 was promulgated is that the technologies for sharing and using spectrum without central allocation work a lot better when devices can assume everyone on the band will follow certain rules.

The model for the future that maximizes capacity of the spectrum isn't just more unlicensed spectrum, but imposing basic rules on unlicensed spectrum like we do on roads. One thing people forget is that road rules aren't just about safety, they're about keeping traffic moving smoothly. Exactly the same principles apply to cognitive radios.

thinkpenguin4• 11 years ago

From the down link:

Take Action Now!

The FCC is asking for comments on this proposal. The most important thing you can do is comment on the FCC's proposal and tell them you want to be able to control your computing devices. Will you do this?

Comment deadline extended to October 9.

Instructions:

1. Go to the Federal Register and press "Submit a formal comment" (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-184...)

2. Start your comment by respectfully asking the FCC to not implement rules that take away the ability of users to install the software of their choosing on their computing devices. Additional points of emphasis you should consider adding:

- Wireless networking research depends on the ability of researchers to investigate and modify their devices.

- Americans need the ability to fix security holes in their devices when the manufacturer chooses to not do so.

- Users have in the past fixed serious bugs in their wifi drivers, which would be banned under the NPRM.

- Billions of dollars of commerce, such as secure wifi vendors, retail hotspot vendors, depends on the ability of users and companies to install the software of their choosing.

3. Enter your name and address. This is a public comment and your personal information provided will be publicly available.

Once you've submitted your comment, make sure to encourage others to submit comments opposing these restrictions on computing devices. Use the #SaveWifi hashtag on Twitter or your favorite microblogging services.

Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...

Sanddancer11• 11 years ago

The rules do nothing of the sort. The guidelines state that the hardware manufacturer must make certain that reasonable efforts have been made to keep the device from trampling over radar systems, etc. The guidelines state that one route to do so is to have the firmware locked down in its entirety, but there are other ways to do so. Atheros chips, for example, do not expose the functionality that would require the chips to be locked down. Wireless researchers will almost certainly have the licensing in place to do investigation and modification. Device makers choosing not to update their devices should honestly be handled through tort; a few lawsuits against companies making defective routers will get makers to shape up. Buggy devices can and should be handled similarly. Finally, with your point regarding secure wifi vendors and the like, those would be the manufacturers and would by definition have access to all of those settings.

This campaign reminds a lot of the bad old days of Microsoft and spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. This is not an evil policy that has nefarious purposes, it's about making sure people don't intentionally use their devices that will cause damage to the neighbors on the bandwidth spectrum. Also, keep in mind that the unlicensed regions were not created for communications, but rather so that medical and industrial heating devices have some range of frequencies to operate magnetrons, etc, without disrupting sensitive communications. Wifi uses them mostly because they do go unused the majority of the time.

the_ancient3• 11 years ago

>Wireless researchers will almost certainly have the licensing in place to do investigation and modification.

Most/Alot of research, especially security research is one with out the manufacturers permission,I highly doubt they will have licensing in place to do investigation.

>Device makers choosing not to update their devices should honestly be handled through tort; a few lawsuits against companies making defective routers will get makers to shape up.

You may want to consult a lawyer on that, since most of the manufacturers EULA explicitly indemnify them from this type of liability. If this was possible Microsoft should be bankrupt by now. My 2.5 year old Samsung phone has need seen an update for over a year, many security problems have been found both Samsung and my carrier say "Buy a new phone" yet somehow I think me attempting to sue them for not updating the device will be less than successful. Instead the best option I have is a Custom non-OEM ROM that is still being updated.

>reasonable efforts have

Most of the people posting in support of this measure, including yourself seem to have a vastly different defination of "reasonable" that people like myself for who are open source / open hardware advocate. I bet you believe secure boot, UEFI and other measures are "reasonable" as well.

> This is not an evil policy that has nefarious purposes, it's about making sure people don't intentionally use their devices that will cause damage to the neighbors on the bandwidth spectrum

The Road to hell is paved with good intentions, it may not be the FCC's goal to lock in hardware and to prevent users from replacing OEM operating systems, we can call it an "unintended consequence" if you wish. At the end of the day however it is a distinction with out a difference. If this rule is adopted, innovation, consumer freedom, and consumer security will suffer.

bsder3• 11 years ago

Also, keep in mind that the unlicensed regions were not created for communications, but rather so that medical and industrial heating devices have some range of frequencies to operate magnetrons, etc, without disrupting sensitive communications.

The unlicensed regions were created because they absorbed RF very highly due to water and oxygen. The fact that we transmit in them in spite of the fact that from an RF perspective they totally suck is a tribute to the the fact that engineering ingenuity is far easier than navigating government regulation.

Lord_Nightmare2• 11 years ago

"Comment deadline extended to October 9." No. Comment deadline extended to SEPTEMBER 9. No idea where October came from. (If someone can show otherwise, please let me know.)

Lord_Nightmare2• 11 years ago

... And, I'm wrong. It really was extended to October 9.

FCC considering a proposal to lock down devices with a “modular wireless radio”

Related Stories