How could it possibly be detrimental for Broadcom to have free software drivers?
This article is a poignant example that it is detrimental for them to continue to keep their drivers proprietary.
Every wifi chipset has working drivers; therefore there is little to no value in Broadcom's driver as "IP".
Contrast that to the value of having a free driver that can receive security patches from anyone at any time.
I expect a network card to not 'interpret' my traffic in a similar way.
The way the drivers + backing architecture are built contains tons of IP and things that they would very much not want their competitors seeing.
Our team built our reputation and relationship on keeping that data separate and confidential despite working with just about every vendor out there.
How do you figure? The detectability of infringement is a key factor in deciding whether to file a patent.
Regardless, copyright infringement might also be an issue.
It isn't that it would be realistically detrimental, it just has no value to the individual attempting to change the established course of the ship
In other countries (most of Asia), where there is no discivery, it's almost impossible to prove hardware or software patent violations so your case is kicked out of court immediately, even if your patent claims are valid and their product reads into your claims. That's why most patent suits end up in the US or Europe (or in the even faster ITC import injunction).
Reading assembly with no comments is a different skill than reading C or C++, especially since it's not always clear what's an instruction and what's data, but it's still reading code, and there are tools to help you trace through it. And most of the drivers aren't writing code like it's a 64k demo (where the code is the data, and the data is the code, and they both modify each other)
Most wifi adapters fail at least one of these requirements under windows or linux.
Manufacturers currently have no choice but to ship devices running vulnerable application software that communicates with remote devices using vulnerable protocols. This is facilitated by vulnerable operating systems running many vulnerable device drivers communicate with devices that themselves have embedded processors running yet more vulnerable software.
All manufacturers can do is keep patching the morass of code that their offering depends on, but most device manufactures can't even manage that, or if they can they are unable do it fast enough and unwilling to do it for long enough.
Reverse engineering silicon to figure out if you used a specific type of patented algorithm is super hard.
Looking at open source code is waaaay easier.
Competitors could review the code and "copy" how great features work without actually copying the code.
Because they are used as a front/vector for US intelligence agencies. Opening this firmware would not allow for the distribution of these implants.
How many of your non-professionally-technical friends could tell you the manufacturer of their WiFi chip? Is it on the box? Could they even tell you who Broadcom is?
"Intel NIC" only recently became a very minor selling point in enthusiast desktop motherboards. I'm not holding out hope this is going to follow a more informed curve.
The gatekeepers (manufacturers) are the only ones informed enough to make the decision en mass. And they're not going to do so without a market reason. So barring something like "Broadcom stops providing security updates" or "New law holds device manufacturers liable for security bugs" they're going to save the few cents on BoM and continue using them.
An open ideology is one where everyone wins, even those who aren't on your team. The closed one is mostly to protect ones own team. I don't consider any of the reasons to be good reasons, personally. Commercially necessary, perhaps, as a conforming act as part of the "super-state", also perhaps.. but nevertheless, the best conclusion is that this situation is rotten enough to motivate someone to fix it.
Me personally .. I'd love to have the sources for every sub-processor/component in my system. It would be of immense value - commercially and otherwise - to me as an end-user. I hope I don't sit alone in this market...
The driver is not deeply protected IP. They will hand out full copies to any device manufacturer that uses they're chipset, so that they can integrate it with their systems. The secret sauce, the bit that they won't share with anyone even if it's necessary for debugging, is the on-chip firmware. That's the stuff they take seriously. The driver itself is just a lawyer thing.
The driver is indeed "protected" for IP-lawyer reasons; they'll have it out under license to every Tom, Dick, and Jane looking to build a device with their chipset. The firmware, on the other hand, is very closely held, because that's where the chip's functionality lives. A WiFi chipset implements a fantastically complicated protocol, and no one wants to bake that into hardware that can't be updated as bugs are found; so they build relatively simple hardware, and slap a microcontroller right on the die that runs all the complicated logic.
This means that the microcode is as sensitive as The hardware specs on earlier generations of hardware; a competitor with a copy of that source can make a (perhaps better and improved) knockoff if they're not too worried about legal implications like, say, several dozen Chinese knockoff shops.
echo $original_comment | sed 's/driver/firmware/g'Similarly, cheaper chips often don't support optional performance-enhancing features at layers 2 and 3 (link and MAC) that boost performance without any hardware investment.
The easiest example being b/g channel 13. You're permitted to use it for WiFi in most of the world, but not North America. Keeping the firmware proprietary and "secure" is likely an important part of their FCC/IC certifications.
2. These weren't drivers. Did you read the article?
3. The larger share of the blame belongs to Apple. Why does Apple trust devices like this that are essentially independent computers? Why should anything this chip does be able to take over the phone and install software on it, in privileged mode, that replicates itself?
4. Why can't you see things rationally?
1. https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/comments/GetPublishedDocument.html?...