wifi command set secrecy - why?

This is another world to me, I don't even know what XTP is (but my tcp/ip implementation works OK :).

Wifi is not the best choice for rogue IP level behaviour, there is optical broadband and whatnot. I don't think it is this, may be something related I can't think of.

Well it definitely looks that they put more effort into keeping a lid on it than they would have to otherwise. Now they have to implement a tcp/ip stack, let you order what connections to make, maintain them and provide an interface for you to use these connections in a viable manner. It is much easier to just hand you the IP layer and let you do the connections, at least someone would have been tempted to try to reach a market segment with such a simplified product - but there is none, clearly there is some policy impediment we do not understand....

====================================================== Dimiter Popoff, TGI

seems to remember sometime ago FCC started to complain about routers being able to run unsigned opensource firmware, because it enabled people to change frequencies, powerlevels, etc. and not comply with the certification

I predicted something similar last millennium, and patented a way to make it much more difficult to achieve.

But Linux doesn't use those drivers, that's my point.

All drivers in the Linux kernel must be added in source form. Binaries are not accepted.

...

Wherever the binaries for the wifi chipsets are added they are not open source, that much is obvious. Without these binaries linux can run - without wifi. Had there been any useful sources I would have seen them long ago.

looks like there is a few that doesn't require a binaryblob

This looks promising, I had not chased these ghosts for a while. Thanks.

Not true. I run Linux without any binary only wifi driver.

Then you didn't look deep enough...

The obvious answer, of course, is because they don't HAVE to disclose that information in order to keep/gain market share. Chances are, a huge portion of their sales go to a few customers. They can engage directly with those customers (and, likely, have done so BEFORE even committing to a design -- likely with input from those customers!) in "special relationships" where they exchange technical details AND BUSINESS PLANS with each other (you're not likely going to give much cred to a customer without knowing/believing that he will be a BIG buyer! "Prove it!")

If they're first on the market (or, "novel" in some other way), then they can keep slightly ahead of competitors, for a short while, by closely guarding all of the details of their tech. This can often be enough to make a big difference as you can get "design-ins" and lock customers into your product before the competitor has another offering.

You'd not want a competitor to create a "drop in" replacement after you've created the market!

Often, they are expecting to only deal with "big" customers. Keeping things under NDAs (the parties to which THEY control) means they can focus on the needs of those customers, instead of the "small potatoes". It may even be the case that some of those customers contribute software to support the product thereafter (likely on the condition that it not be released to others IN SOURCE FORM -- thereby giving the original creator an advantage as they can modify/enhance the code while others are still trying to create it from scratch). Or, that some hooks into the device are made known to those customers but not other customers.

Because they impose an NDA, they can decide *who* they're willing to engage with an NDA and who's "too small".

The design may change -- often. They can then decide how those changes are seen. E.g., if they offer a software middleware layer, then they can bury the changes in the middleware without ever "burdening" their (large, precious!) customers with exposed changes.

Fewer eyes to critique the documents (to which they'd have to respond).

Market research -- they KNOW how many (and who!) folks are actually interested in their product offering and *how* interested they actually are ("bingo card" vs. ready-to-have-a-corporate-lawyer-sign-off-on-NDA). And, the potential sales volumes for each customer.

Market commitment -- they can withdraw the product if it doesn't suit their expectations and only have limited/known obligations.

There were gazillions of 2A03s sold. But, try to find a supporting toolchain from that era!

I have several "numbered" documents "Do Not Copy", "Do Not Destroy", etc. accumulated over the years. And, all sorts of engineering samples that don't even have real part numbers (cuz the parts weren't formally announced at the time the silicon was made available to me). As far as the rest of the world is concerned, these devices never existed (cuz they never made it to formal release)

I've also documents that define undefined aspects of COTS devices that the vendors opted not to specify in their datasheets (thinking there was no interest in those details) -- but, would be willing to disclose to very large customers.

Try to find information on the bitstream format for FPGA initialization.

Or, the "secure boot" modes on modern processors.

Or...

Clearly, there are people with access to this information. Just "selectively" chosen!

Your options are to find something that knows how to talk to <whatever>

and then find a way of talking to THAT. Or, reverse engineer a driver to a "visible" implementation. Or, consider some other communications medium (BT? ZigBee? etc.) that is more accessible.

So there are wifi drivers under Linux for only certain chips? If I buy a laptop intending to run Linux I need to know whether the wifi chip is supported or not, yes?

The drivers are not part of the the kernel.

So what. I run Linux with a binary only Nvidia graphics driver. The reverse-engineered attempt called Nouveau does not cut it.

Gerhard

Generally no, it is just that some (as it appears, I have yet to dig through that again) have "binaries" (closed source) parts. The list Lasse posted a link to suggests there are wifi modules with completely open source firmware interfaces (but I have yet to dig there, I still find it hard to believe there are driver sources and zero documentation online on what was needed to write these drivers).

Then how does the kernel communicate with the user?

Then the answer is YES because I would otherwise be taking a risk of buying a laptop with no Linux drivers... well, no open source drivers. Do any graphics chips not provide a binary blob for Linux? Are they typically bug free? I guess that's a stupid question.

Le 25/11/2021 à 19:40, Dimiter_Popoff a écrit :

Having total control of devices radiating RF would be a nightmare There will be lots of jammers and out of band usage.