[Battlemesh] [Office] FCC Firmware lockdown

Paul Gardner-Stephen paul at servalproject.org
Fri Sep 4 08:33:45 UTC 2015


There is that! And indeed this is a point that should be made, that it will
be ineffective, but only provide an unnecessary drag on helpful innovation.

Paul.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Henning Rogge <hrogge at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Paul Gardner-Stephen
> <paul at servalproject.org> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am considering trying to pull together a submission to the FCC about
> this
> > rule if anyone is willing to help out.  We need to start by enumerating
> the
> > problems we see with it.  Here is a starting list:
> >
> > 1. Prevents reflashing equipment for use in other jurisdictions.
> > 2. Prevents innovation and repurposing equipment, such as to respond to
> > humanitarian situations, including for projects such as the Serval
> Project
> > and others who are being funded by USAID or other US government entities
> to
> > accomplish exactly this goal.
> > 3. Prevents update of firmware on equipment to close security
> > vulnerabilities.
> > 4. Increases cost burden for manufacturers, resulting in higher costs to
> > consumers.
> > 5. Will be of questionable effectiveness (but we need to explain why)
>
> Maybe we could just tell them what happened BEFORE routers were sold
> unlocked... it took a few month and then people found security holes
> to break them open.
>
> Henning Rogge
> _______________________________________________
> Battlemesh mailing list
> Battlemesh at ml.ninux.org
> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/battlemesh
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ml.ninux.org/pipermail/battlemesh/attachments/20150904/8cf4d1e1/attachment.htm>


More information about the Battlemesh mailing list