how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
 Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1
 ·Comcast
| reply to Reign
Re: Sveasoft's vs WiFi-Box Every time I ask this question, I'm either ignored or am told they have similar but different features. Unfortunately while both have a change log (which IMHO isn't very readable), neither of them fully list what their features are which makes it difficult if not impossible to compare the two. Sound count me in on wanting to wanting to know as well. | | |
|
| It's pretty simple: Sveasoft's firmware is targeted more for the WISP (Wireless Internet Service Provider) and Public Access Point crowd; those that want to use the relatively inexpensive WRT54G from Linksys to provide free or fee-based internet access. The tool-set included with their firmware reflects that; bandwidth/class-of-service management, support for various types of authentication, and robust and highly configurable firewall capabilities.
Wifi-Box's firmware seems targeted at the personal/home-office crowd, providing a reasonable and easy-to-access feature set for those that want basic security features and support for secure connectivity to (and from) corporate offices via VPN.
Sveasoft's firmware is based on the LinkSys GPL source code distribution and distributed freely under the GNU General Public License; you can download the source code, make changes to it, recompile it yourself and install your own version on your WRT54G if you'd like. If you decide to share your version with another, you are obligated to provide your source code.
Wifi-Box's firmware is also derived from the GPL'ed Open Source distribution made available by LinkSys, but he has apparently (and illegally) ignored the terms of the GPL and is not distributing his source code. This is worrisome, because there's no way a user of his firmware can determine whether he's included any vulnerable (or malicious) code, intentionally or not, without extensive monitoring of the traffic on both sides of the router. It also eliminates the possibility of cooperative development and peer review, which can greatly speed up the development time for new features and enhance the trustworthiness of the code by putting many eyes on it.
Sveasoft's firmware contains more experimental code than Wifi-Box's from what I've been able to determine, but the feature set is much richer. The downside is added complexity in its configuration, with somewhat increased opportunity for making errors that could compromise the security of your LAN. As I said, it's targeted at individuals that do wireless networking for a living.
Wifi-Box's firmware is easier to configure, with fewer opportunities to enable features that could cause problems for the home user. He seems to provide good support for it here. I'd prefer that he post his source for peer review, though, as any potential issues with his modifications to the LinkSys source would be quickly identified and fixed by the development community.
If you're interested in getting the most out of your WRT54G, Sveasoft's firmware provides a level of functionality unheard of for a sub-$100US access point. Multiple individuals are involved in its development and testing, led by James Ewing. He's been very responsive in providing requested features that make sense for Sveasoft's targeted market. The configuration is not for the faint of heart, though.
Wifi-Box's firmware has only one developer and point of support, with no access to the source. Its ease of configuration may be attractive for the novice user, however.
There, does that help?  | |
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by PorkRind:
There, does that help?
Don't take this the wrong way because I'm not trying to be insulting, but it really doesn't. The whole post basically boils down to WiFi-Box makes his own set and Sveasoft forums (group of people) make their own set with some tidbits about home vs WISP thrown in. It doesn't state the features that each provide (for example WiFi uses telnetd, while Sveasoft uses openssh).
The one thing I didn't think too much about until you brought it up was that WiFi-Box is ignoring the GNU GPL which is very bad from both a legal and ethical standpoint. It makes it worse that he has stated that he borrowed code (static DHCP) from people posting in the Sveasoft forums and included them in his firmware (I would think they would be annoyed at that). | |
| said by Morac:
said by PorkRind:
There, does that help?
The one thing I didn't think too much about until you brought it up was that WiFi-Box is ignoring the GNU GPL which is very bad from both a legal and ethical standpoint. It makes it worse that he has stated that he borrowed code (static DHCP) from people posting in the Sveasoft forums and included them in his firmware (I would think they would be annoyed at that).
Well if its open source like you say and it should be shared, then it shouldn't matter if he does use some of the sveasoft code as long as the person gets credit for their work.
Personally I feel that most of the stuff sveasoft is adding most people will not use in my opinion. WDS from what little I understand, shares your internet connection with a wide area, which to me seems very risky.
One thing I like is that Wifi organizes the new options on the menus instead of putting them all on one page like the sveasoft firmware does.
I'm more disappointed in Linksys for putting out a router firmware lacking features compared to other lesser known brands. So much so that we have to resort to using hacked firmware to get features (which probably is a security risk in itself). | |
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by tc17:
Well if its open source like you say and it should be shared, then it shouldn't matter if he does use some of the sveasoft code as long as the person gets credit for their work.
Unfortunately that's not how GPL works. Since LinkSys uses GPLed code (linux) for their router they have to, by law, release the source code for any derived code (meaning that it wasn't 100% developed by them). Similarly if someone takes LinkSys's source code and modifies it they have to release the source code if they release the binary. That's how the GPL works. It's not just open source, it's GPL open source. So if WiFi-Box releases the binary but does not make the source code available his is violating the GNU GPL and thereby violating the copyright license.
said by tc17:
Personally I feel that most of the stuff sveasoft is adding most people will not use in my opinion. WDS from what little I understand, shares your internet connection with a wide area, which to me seems very risky.
I've read they've added QOS ability to the router which is useful if you use VOIP. They also came up with the static DHCP implementation and remote logging which is useful to home users. A list of features is here though some of it is a bit cryptic and I don't think it's complete.
I agree though that most of the hacked firmwares put LinkSys's one to shame. Linksys should fire their firmware writing team and hire these guys. | |
1 edit | reply to Morac
Don't take this the wrong way because I'm not trying to be insulting, but it really doesn't. The whole post basically boils down to WiFi-Box makes his own set and Sveasoft forums (group of people) make their own set with some tidbits about home vs WISP thrown in. It doesn't state the features that each provide (for example WiFi uses telnetd, while Sveasoft uses openssh).
OK, then let me restate my point in a less wishy-washy way:
"Wifi-Box's firmware is in violation of the GNU General Public License, under which the original LinkSys source was distributed. It may contain malicious and/or vulnerable code. Until he releases the source to the public, there is no way to verify this without an intensive effort that will, for the individuals undertaking it, provide virtually no reward. Use this firmware only if you implicitly trust Wifi-Box's intentions and coding skill, and expect him to remain available to support it."
"Sveasoft's firmware contains all of the functionality present in Wifi-Box's firmware, along with a number of significant security enhancements, albeit in a somewhat less user-friendly form. However, Sveasoft has completely complied with the GNU General Public License, and the complete source code is publicly available for review, modification, and redistribution. Because of the number of people with access to the source, it has a much lower likelihood of containing undetected malicious and/or vulnerable code. In the event that Sveasoft should disappear, the source will remain for future enhancements and bug fixes."
In my opinion, all the comparison points needed are right there in the two paragraphs above. Until Wifi-Box complies with the terms of the GPL and posts his source, I would not recommend it over the Sveasoft firmware, regardless of the intended use. The Sveasoft firmware's only downside is some additional complexity in configuration when the hardware is used for more advanced/specialized purposes.
Wifi-Box's refusal to provide his source is a mystery. Given that he's legally required to do so and has been aware of that fact for some time, I am concerned with regard to his long-term intentions. I certainly hope he will do the right thing, as many are happily using his firmware distribution and he has been providing very good support for it here. | |
|
