ASUS firmware will change the verification method

Twirlywoos · 5 May 2016 at 22:26

Hello Everybody,

As you may know, FCC requires all manufactures to prevent users from changing RF parameters. Not only manufactures' firmware but 3rd party firmware need to follow this instruction.

Some manufactures' strategy is blocking all 3rd party firmware, and ASUS's idea is still following GNU, opening the source code, and welcome 3rd party firmware.

ASUS are co-working with developers such as Merlin and DDWRT to make sure 3rd party firmwares power are the same as ASUS firmware and obey the regulations.

The firmware verification method will be modified in next formal firmware release. This firmware will not accept older firmware and router's with this new firmware cannot downgrade to older version. So it will not accept 3rd party firmware for a short time.

Please don't be afraid, when we finish the new method to protect the RF parameter, we will release firmware verification method to developers and you can still using the web GUI to change to 3rd party firmware.

ASUS-Tek

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

Steampunk · 5 May 2016 at 22:46

And the reason why this is **** it because instead of being able to correctly set the country code in the UK, we'll be stuck with a "EU" region that only gives us the lowest common denominator of the Swiss, which means no access to the channels we can legally use in the UK.

Asus should do it properly and provide correctly localised routers, or at least a locked down version for the US and one that can be set to the correct locale for the rest of the world.

Caged · 5 May 2016 at 22:53

Why can't they just have a radio firmware accessed via one URL, that has to be Asus firmware, and then a router firmware that can be whatever?

Steampunk · 5 May 2016 at 23:17

Caged said:
Why can't they just have a radio firmware accessed via one URL, that has to be Asus firmware, and then a router firmware that can be whatever?

FCC rules (which don't apply to us) say that they can't, because people would just load the firmware for whatever region gave the most/powerful radio channels.

Asus don't want to bother with the expense of maintaining multiple hardware/firmwares, so we're getting screwed because we'll be stuck with a few channels because "EU" region can't have more channels than the most restrictive country ie Switzerland.

Asus just don't localise their routers correctly any more.

Caged · 5 May 2016 at 23:37

Oh so Asus are too lazy to even have a firmware perform differently based on a serial number string read out of the underlying hardware that could correspond to the region the device was sold into?

Sounds like them to be honest.

Twirlywoos · 5 May 2016 at 23:52

Steampunk said:
And the reason why this is **** it because instead of being able to correctly set the country code in the UK, we'll be stuck with a "EU" region that only gives us the lowest common denominator of the Swiss, which means no access to the channels we can legally use in the UK.

Asus should do it properly and provide correctly localised routers, or at least a locked down version for the US and one that can be set to the correct locale for the rest of the world.

One of my routers is open and I've got all the channels and increased the power limit and CPU clock frequency. However none of my wireless clients were able to take advantage of an unsaturated 2.4ghz channel 14 so for me the exercise was a bit pointless.

I did however use the highest channel available on the 5ghz band and my wireless clients were able to connect to it but the strangest thing happened several months later when a car pulled up opposite my house and 2 guys popped out holding a really long aerial (about several metres in length) with a laptop were doing stuff for around 15 minutes.

I thought it was OFCOM so I turned my router off and haven't used it since lol

DragonQ · 6 May 2016 at 08:59

Steampunk said:
FCC rules (which don't apply to us) say that they can't, because people would just load the firmware for whatever region gave the most/powerful radio channels.

Asus don't want to bother with the expense of maintaining multiple hardware/firmwares, so we're getting screwed because we'll be stuck with a few channels because "EU" region can't have more channels than the most restrictive country ie Switzerland.

Asus just don't localise their routers correctly any more.

I was wondering why my TP-Link VR900 only allowed the selection of 5 GHz channels 36, 40, 44, and 48, when the UK allows channels 36-64. Very annoying!

Steampunk · 6 May 2016 at 09:45

DragonQ said:
I was wondering why my TP-Link VR900 only allowed the selection of 5 GHz channels 36, 40, 44, and 48, when the UK allows channels 36-64. Very annoying!

It make sense in some countries (I think one of the Scandinavian countries doesn't use a couple of channels because it interferes with the frequencies they use for storm radar), but it makes no sense to lump us all into one EU region when we all have different rules in every European country.

Without proper localisation, we're not allowed to use the frequencies we are legally allowed to access. It all comes down to Asus no longer allowing correct localisation thanks to following the FCC rules that don't even apply to us here.

I no longer buy or recommend Asus routers because of this. It's a pity because their hardware is usually good, but it's crippled by not accessing all the frequencies we are supposed to have in the UK. They are now faulty by design.

joeyjojo · 6 May 2016 at 09:58

DragonQ said:
I was wondering why my TP-Link VR900 only allowed the selection of 5 GHz channels 36, 40, 44, and 48, when the UK allows channels 36-64. Very annoying!

Nah that's just TPLink being lazy.

The UK channels are more numerous than that. My BT HH can do 36-64 as well as 100-128. Not that it helps - the low channels you've listed are the only ones without limitations, plus lower frequencies are more penetrative (through walls etc.). You aren't missing anything.

DragonQ · 6 May 2016 at 14:13

joeyjojo said:
Nah that's just TPLink being lazy.

The UK channels are more numerous than that. My BT HH can do 36-64 as well as 100-128. Not that it helps - the low channels you've listed are the only ones without limitations, plus lower frequencies are more penetrative (through walls etc.). You aren't missing anything.

36-48 are going to be more congested in the future though as 5 GHz grows, due to lazy localisation. I would expect premium routers/APs to be better than this.

Having said that, I have seen my 5 GHz WiFi appear on channel 112 once. Not sure why though since it's not manually selectable.

joeyjojo · 6 May 2016 at 17:18

DragonQ said:
36-48 are going to be more congested in the future though as 5 GHz grows, due to lazy localisation. I would expect premium routers/APs to be better than this.

Having said that, I have seen my 5 GHz WiFi appear on channel 112 once. Not sure why though since it's not manually selectable.

"Lazy localisation"? No, those are the only channels allowed that don't suffer from DFS (radar safety) or TPC (power limiting).

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

The others (52-64, 104-140, or 149-165) have those issues, plus as I wrote above the higher frequencies have a harder time going through obstacles. At least in my experience, even with the neighbours, 36-48 work the best.

thebennyboy · 6 May 2016 at 18:12

I won't be updating to this new firmware. Sorry Asus, won't be buying your stuff again with this lazy attitude.

Caged · 6 May 2016 at 18:56

joeyjojo said:
"Lazy localisation"? No, those are the only channels allowed that don't suffer from DFS (radar safety) or TPC (power limiting).

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

The others (52-64, 104-140, or 149-165) have those issues, plus as I wrote above the higher frequencies have a harder time going through obstacles. At least in my experience, even with the neighbours, 36-48 work the best.

You say higher frequencies but this isn't like the shift from 2.4 to 5GHz in terms of signal attenuation, it's a few hundred MHz difference and still within the 5GHz band. The DFS frequencies are very valuable in crowded or high-density deployments, and using them is the only way to get higher throughput figures.

Twirlywoos · 14 May 2016 at 01:40

Linksys have followed too

http://www.snbforums.com/threads/linksys-will-lock-down-firmware-on-most-routers-but-not-wrts.32522/

I asked Linksys for its approach to handling the new FCC requirements, as a follow-up to this thread on TP-LINK's approach. Here is Linksys' official response:

"Linksys will conform to the FCC and European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI ) rules that go into effect on June 2, 2016, that require our routers and software to be secured to prevent changing the power output or unauthorized channel selection of the router on the 5Ghz band. This impacts ALL our dual and tri-band routers including legacy, Max-Stream and WRT routers.

All Linksys legacy and Max-Stream routers will have the full host firmware locked down to adhere to the FCC and ETSI requirements. However, our current WRT router lineup (WRT1900ACS and WRT1200AC) does not need to be completely locked down. We have the ability to only lock down the radio portion of the router, thus preserving the open source support value proposition held by WRT routers.

The hardware design of the WRT platform allows us to isolate the RF parameter data and secure it outside of the host firmware separately.

We are pleased with the recent updates to the FCC rules so that we can continue to serve the open source community with the ability to utilize the thousands of customization packages like OpenVPN clients, TOR, HotSpots, etc. on WRT routers."

APM · 14 May 2016 at 19:29

Surely the custom firmware guys will just build in ways to bypass the new restrictions in new custom firmware?

Steampunk · 14 May 2016 at 22:39

APM said:
Surely the custom firmware guys will just build in ways to bypass the new restrictions in new custom firmware?

If they do, then the manufacturers will lock down all devices to prevent non-standard firmware in order to comply with these FCC rules, as the regulations say they have to prevent such things.