News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by neilv on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @11:27AM (#42451910)
I'm currently upgrading my home network, trying various options, and one of the headaches is provenance of the equipment.

By provenance, I mean where it's designed, where it's manufactured, who has brand oversight of it, who controls the firmware, who runs the IoT phoning-home servers, etc.

(I don't have high security requirements for home, but I pay attention to such things out of curiosity.)

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by alias_neo on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @11:38AM (#42452059)
The closest I've been able to get is to buy a Protectli box, replace the AMI with Coreboot that you can compile yourself, and install OPN/PFSense.

It's still Chinese hardware, but it's warrantied by Protectcli and you have control over the bits you can change.

My first move out of the consumer "junk" was Ubiquiti EdgeRouters but their software quality declined a few years back, and my models got no more updates, then my main router died. My overkill i3 6-port Protectcli box has been running great ever since; first with pfSense now OPNSense; I'll only replace it when it dies or I want 10GbE routing.

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by dvdbloc on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @11:53AM (#42452246)
What solution do you use for wireless access points? That’s generally my problem, you can find plenty of solid hardware to run pfSense on but as soon as you look at access points everything seems to be proprietary something or from questionable sources.
Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by alias_neo on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @12:12PM (#42452439)
I currently use a bunch of Unifi APs, not got full-house coverage yet, but I have key areas and run their management software on a Raspberry Pi.

They've mostly been solid, and aren't too expensive. I did replace the one in the hall (on the ceiling) outside my living room recently though, upgrading it from an AP-AC-Pro to an U6-Pro and the range is significantly worse on the same WiFi spec, making the living room TV basically unusable for streaming, despite being flawless on the older AP.

I'm going to try the newer U7 Pros and if that doesn't work out, I'll start looking at alternatives, but I suspect anything acceptable will be more expensive. I run ethernet almost everywhere so WiFi is just for our mobiles/laptops/tablets/IoT, but the TV in the living room currently has no easy way to get cables to so that AP is critical.

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by toast0 on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @02:26PM (#42453937)
Try to get something that runs OpenWRT (or can run it) and isn't like super tight on flash space. Although I'm having some issues with my latest batch of access points; I have a few clients that seem to have more trouble staying associated, and I was hoping to use 802.11r, k and v and DAWN, but I had to turn all of them off because too many subsets of the clients wouldn't work with some of those.

I'm coming to the realization that mixed 2.4 ghz/5ghz access points aren't a great idea. If I wanted consistent 5 ghz coverage, I'd need a lot more access points, but I'd want to turn the 2.4ghz radios off on most of them because 2.4ghz goes too far.

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by VTimofeenko on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @04:05PM (#42455177)
Ruckus is awesome. R710 and similar models are pretty cheap off-lease on ebay.
Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by ssl-3 on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @05:36PM (#42456230)
I use Mikrotik access points at home. They're not the simplest to configure, but they aren't daunting to someone who has been futzing around with networking for awhile. I like that they allow me to implement whatever weird stuff I can dream up, and that I can generally implement that weird stuff all in the GUI.

The hardware is relatively inexpensive and seems to be rather stable, the company is based in Latvia, and the manufacturing (or at least the board-stuffing and injection-molding) seems to primarily be done in Europe. Some of their stuff is pretty flexible about what kinds of PoE is can work with.

All of the Mikrotik stuff I'm aware of runs their Linux-based RouterOS. This means they all get the same user interface -- the same for a "switch," for an "access point," and for a "router."

I like that this blurs the lines between different device classes. For instance, my access points have two Ethernet ports on them, and two radios. I can use them as simple access points, or as routers, or as switches... or all of this at the same time. Whatever I want to do with them is fine: It's just a highly-configurable device with n hardware interfaces available on it.

I could replace the separate switch and OpenWRT router that I have on a shelf in the basement with a singular Mikrotik switch that did both jobs if I wanted to. (I probably would not, and it probably would never make sense to do so, but their software allows me to do as many nonsensical things as I choose. That's a good thing.)

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by mikece on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @02:05PM (#42453691)
How much of a difference does it make to use Coreboot rather than AMI? (I'm running OPNsense on a Protectli box currently...)
Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by alias_neo on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @02:33PM (#42454036)
It really depends. Coreboot is open source and you can review the code, it's also much lighter (though fewer things can be tweaked), vs AMI which we don't know/can't check what it contains.

For me, wanting as much open source in the stack as possible, it gives me peace of mind, but it really depends on the individual.

All I can really suggest, is to take a look at the Coreboot site[0] and see if it sounds like something you'd want.

[0]https://www.coreboot.org/

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by Infernal on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @03:24PM (#42454681)
FWIW I thought my EdgeRouter X died a few years back, power light would blink but wouldn't boot up - turned out to be a dying wall wart. Swapped it out for one I had lying around that happened to match voltage/current/connector and that was maybe 3 years ago.
Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by radicality on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @08:44PM (#42457493)
+1, I have basically the same setup. Protectli FW6 with Coreboot and opnsense. Been working solid for a few years now.
Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by klowner on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @11:48AM (#42452199)
I'm extremely fond of Mikrotik gear, they're capable of pretty much anything and really reasonably priced. They're out of Latvia.

The only thing is they're definitely not designed for regular consumers, you at least need familiarity with Linux networking.

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by AnarchismIsCool on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @12:49PM (#42452909)
I have some of their stuff and really like it. It's not fully plug and play, but it's some of the best kit on the market for tech people.
Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by TiredOfLife on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @01:20PM (#42453235)
> The only thing is they're definitely not designed for regular consumers, you at least need familiarity with Linux networking.

Mikrotik has had quickset (a single page configuration for home use) for 8+ years, Android Home app for 3+ years

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by greycol on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @02:52PM (#42454302)
It's a hard problem because when you start asking questions about what an unqualified home user needs it's easy to say just one more thing.

port forwarding? ofcourse how else can the kid have a minecraft server with friends

dynamic dns? then the friends don't need to search "what's my ip" every time

parental controls? to schedule how much time they can play minecraft...

I like Mikrotik but for anyone trying to go beyond the barebones default firewall/router/ap on the quickset page you need to be prepared to learn. i.e. To make a DHCP reservation, you go through the menus until you click IP, then you realise you don't click on DHCP client to set up a DHCP client you go into DHCP server and try to give a device a reservation which requires the step of making it static first then seperately setting it's IP.

The complaint basically boils down to: they have all the options there and available and the least common task is just as easy to do as the 2nd most common (after initial basic setup), and if a task touches multiple parts of the config you need to touch each of those parts. Great for someone who knows what they're doing but for a home user it would be great to have more quickset pages for the 2nd to 10th most common tasks (as intagible as that list is).

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by baq on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @02:20PM (#42453849)
The one time I tried to use the quickset page was to set up an AP and it did. I was rather surprised that it didn’t configure an IP address to access the admin page afterwards…
Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by tails4e on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @03:25PM (#42454706)
Their software It's incredibly powerful, but also quite opaque to someone not into hardcore networking. I setup a small private WISP using their gear and configuring it was pretty rough for a non networking nerd. It's not running Linux, but a custom OS. The quickset is handy, but as soon as you want to do something slightly different, you're up to your neck in low level config. Still great HW and if you know how it can do everything you need. Ubiquity gear has a friedlier interface.
Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by ssl-3 on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @04:02PM (#42455139)
Mikrotik gear absolutely runs Linux. It just uses a custom userland.

Ubiquity gear is structured the same way: It, too, absolutely runs Linux, and it uses a custom userland.

One of these userlands is friendlier than the other, but they're both still Linux.

It's a tale as old as the hills, or at least as old as the OG Linksys WRT54G -- which was my own first foray into owning dedicated routing hardware ~20 years ago. (Previous to that, I used Linux with the userland of my choosing on my desktop PC.)

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by tbrb on Thursday December 19, 2024 @04:49AM (#42459981)
The biggest life changer to me back when I worked with Mikrotik gear was learning that the '?' character was an immediate "Show me all of the commands I can get to from the current prompt", and then appending '?' to existing commands would show all of the sub commands available etc.

From that point I found the CLI to be relatively discoverable as a way to configure the devices.

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by tails4e on Thursday December 19, 2024 @05:25AM (#42460162)
Makes sense. I guess the UI experience, including the terminal was so alien I assumed routerOS was an actual low level OS but, in retrospect, I was an idiot and of course it is Linux under the hood!
Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by ssl-3 on Thursday December 19, 2024 @12:19PM (#42463584)
"Alien" works, and is shorter than descriptions like "asininely feature-complete reimplementation" are.

I like RouterOS well enough, though.

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by 9x39 on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @03:33PM (#42454800)
I love Mikrotik too and the price point, but it's for people who know network engineering or need a particularly rare type of gear (like a small inexpensive 10G SFP switch).

I tell people to jump into Ubiquiti's (ui.com) ecosystem which is much more accessible for power users who occasionally wrestle with concepts like wireless, VLANs, subnets, and traffic rules.

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by m463 on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @05:27PM (#42456160)
I bought one and ran their firmware but it phoned home. kept on sending packets to some weird ip address at boot.

So I installed openwrt. They're actually pretty well supported by openwrt (except for the newer 10g switches)

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by k_roy on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @11:24PM (#42458415)
> kept on sending packets to some weird ip address at boot.

You mean an RFC1918 for etherboot? I have a "few" of these devices and this simply doesn't make any sense in any context.

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by m463 on Thursday December 19, 2024 @10:30PM (#42468028)
No it was not any kind of private ip (10.x/172.x/192.x/169.x etc). I swear it was eastern europe, probably mikrotik

I've since wiped the firmware/license keys so no idea.

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by Aloha on Thursday December 19, 2024 @01:37PM (#42464422)
I just wish they had a decent controller based wifi system - if they do, its been really hard to identify from their website.
Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by nobody9999 on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @11:46AM (#42452176)
>I'm currently upgrading my home network, trying various options, and one of the headaches is provenance of the equipment.

If you're concerned about provenance (or even if you're not), I suggest using a general purpose device and rolling your own ala pfSense[0]/OPNSense[1], etc, or just use one of the BSDs or Linux and use native tools or one of the many router/firewall distros[2]

[0] https://www.pfsense.org/

[1] https://opnsense.org/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_router_and_firewall_di...

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by neilv on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @12:07PM (#42452381)
One of the things I learned while building such a server-based box is that eBay is awash in counterfeit high-end Intel NICs.

Regarding pfSense and OPNsense, I recently built and used a nice OPNsense box, including IPS, but decided to go back to OpenWrt for home use, because OpenWrt actually worked a bit better for the things I needed.

I might use pfSense (or maybe OPNsense) router for a startup office of more than several people, though (until we can cost-justify a dedicated IT infra&support specialist). With OpenWrt on the WiFi APs.

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by nobody9999 on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @12:33PM (#42452694)
>One of the things I learned while building such a server-based box is that eBay is awash in counterfeit high-end Intel NICs.

Assuming you mean NUCs[0] and not NICs, I'm sure you're correct. That said, there are many other fanless miniPCs which are both less expensive and, as such, much less likely to be counterfeited.

>Regarding pfSense and OPNsense, I recently built and used a nice OPNsense box, including IPS, but decided to go back to OpenWrt for home use, because OpenWrt actually worked a bit better for the things I needed.

A fair point. The device I use as a router/firewall came pre-installed with OPNSense, which I immediately wiped and replaced with a vanilla Linux install and customised it to my own taste.

I mentioned OPN/pfSense not because I use them, but because they offer a fairly complete solution without having strong networking knowledge. Rolling your own is, IMNSHO, definitely superior to those, as well as to OpenWRT.

As for WiFi, I restrict my APs to just bridging to my wired network and have implemented strong egress filtering to control outbound access.

>I might use pfSense (or maybe OPNsense) router for a startup office of more than several people, though (until we can cost-justify a dedicated IT infra&support specialist). With OpenWrt on the WiFi APs.

That's not a bad idea at all. Although you might also consider one or more of the other distros/packages in the Wikipedia link[1] I included in my previous comment. Good luck!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Unit_of_Computing

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_router_and_firewall_di...

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by dfc on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @02:43PM (#42454180)
No, they meant counterfeit NICs. It has been a problem for a long time now for anyone trying to find a deal on Intel NICs:

https://www.servethehome.com/identifying-risky-counterfeit-i...

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by neilv on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @12:56PM (#42452994)
I mean Ethernet NICs. For example, various PCIe quad-port models.

(I used industrial NUC PCs as part of factory stations for a startup a few years ago, and they were nice. I looked into NUCs for home routers/firewalls, but I didn't like their NIC options.)

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by rsync on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @02:18PM (#42453822)
An aside: I, also, was frustrated by the lack of multi-NIC options on NUC sized computers and was pleased to find this vendor: gmktec.com.

Many of their NUC-sized computers have dual physical LAN ports.

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by nobody9999 on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @01:35PM (#42453396)
>I mean Ethernet NICs. For example, various PCIe quad-port models.

My misunderstanding. Apologies.

I use something similar to this[0] device, which has 4X2.5Gb ethernet ports and no WiFi (which was my preference) interface.

As such, no additional NICs were required, even with a dual ISP configuration.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09J4H9ZXY?ie=UTF8&th=1

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by SoftTalker on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @02:10PM (#42453734)
Yeah don't buy this stuff on eBay or Amazon. Buy from a reputable vendor.
Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by gessha on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @02:58PM (#42454369)
Such as? Also, is this new gear or second hand gear?

(I’m looking at my stack right now and looking to upgrade)

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by SoftTalker on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @03:59PM (#42455117)
CDW, B&H Photo, anyplace that doesn't comingle inventory and doesn't allow random sellers on their platform.
Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by rpcope1 on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @02:34PM (#42454055)
This is what makes me concerned about ever needing to upgrade from my PC Engines APU2. It's about as open as a piece of hardware can get, including using coreboot, but now that they've wound down, there's not a lot of good options that occupy the same niche.
Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by transpute on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @02:47PM (#42454229)
PC Engines was a Swiss company with Taiwan manufacturing.

Since APU2 schematics are open, rebooting PC Engines as a US company could be initiated by US leadership requesting AMD to restart production of the AMD GX-412TC SoC, until AMD can ship a Ryzen Embedded alternative with comparable power efficiency. The lack of a replacement SoC forced the end of APU2 and PC Engines.

National policy tools are not limited to banning negative examples, they can also encourage scaling of positive existence proofs.

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by throwaway48476 on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @04:05PM (#42455174)
Openwrt now has official hardware.
Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by 1vuio0pswjnm7 on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @06:31PM (#42456690)
"By provenance, I mean where it's designed, where it's manufactured, who has brand oversight of it, who controls the firmware, who runs the IoT phoning-home servers, etc."

Arguably the most important area of "provenance" is who controls the software ("firmware"). (Perhaps the hardware owner should control the software, e.g., compile and install OpenWRT.) The report on which this submission appears to be based mentions "command injection" as the vulnerability being exploited.

https://www.cyfirma.com/research/comprehensive-analysis-of-c...

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2024/10/31/chi...

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by AlienRobot on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @08:34PM (#42457438)
I got a solar panel that I can control with an app on a smartphone.

I still don't understand why because it's not fully installed.

I thought this was just a DC generator plugged into a DC-to-AC converter (an "inverter") and nature did its thing to autobalance the flow of electricity. I'm excited to find out what the app does and why these panels need a WiFi password.

Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by 2lazy2pwdmgr on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @09:53PM (#42457937)
Put a (Deciso or other) opnsense router in front of everything and use that to control exactly what can talk to what and what can talk to the outside world.
Re:US Weighs Banning TP-Link Routers by xtiansimon on Thursday December 19, 2024 @08:30AM (#42461206)
I guess you’re also evaluating/replacing your ISP’s modem and router. I just changed my plan with my optical internet provider, and didn’t occur there was an option.