Flashing a WRT54G router (with v7.00.1 firmware) with a linux firmware?

#1 (**permalink**) 09-24-2007, 01:32 PM

I have a WRT54G router with v7.00.1 firmware (serial number starting
CDFE1...) and I would like to flash it with one of the Linux firmware
distros (for better QoS, user restriction management, etc) but I read
on the Tomato site (http://www.polarcloud.com/
tomatofaq#how_do_i_find_my_linksys_wrt54) that my router doesn't seem
to be supported and similar on the Bitsum (http://www.bitsum.com/
openwiking/owbase/ow.asp?WRT54G5%5FCFE) site.

My question is: Is there a relatively full featured Linux firmware
"upgrade" that will work on my model of WRT54G router? Any help or
suggestions would really be appreciated!

Cheers

-Gaiko

#2 (**permalink**) 09-24-2007, 03:24 PM

#3 (**permalink**) 09-24-2007, 03:43 PM

<gaikokujinkyofusho@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190637128.472928.313880@w3g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
> I have a WRT54G router with v7.00.1 firmware (serial number starting
> CDFE1...) and I would like to flash it with one of the Linux firmware
> distros (for better QoS, user restriction management, etc) but I read
> on the Tomato site (http://www.polarcloud.com/
> tomatofaq#how_do_i_find_my_linksys_wrt54) that my router doesn't seem
> to be supported and similar on the Bitsum (http://www.bitsum.com/
> openwiking/owbase/ow.asp?WRT54G5%5FCFE) site.
>
> My question is: Is there a relatively full featured Linux firmware
> "upgrade" that will work on my model of WRT54G router? Any help or
> suggestions would really be appreciated!
>
> Cheers
>
> -Gaiko

Unfortunately you bought the wrong router. Linksys used to make
WRT's that could be flashed with a different OS. When they decided
to make cheaper models with smaller amounts of ram that was their
downfall. Now Linksys makes two different models of WRT one is
called the WRT54G which you have and is not (as I know) upgradeable
and a WRT54GL, the L being the Linux model. Since the L model
has more ram and it costs a few bucks more that is the one flashers
tend to buy. It is the only one I sell to customers since I know the
limitations of the regular model. I don't know if ever the regular model
will be "upgradeable" since hackers can do wonders sometimes. I
sold all my wireless routers several months ago since I am waiting for
the 802.11n stuff to be ratified, more power longer distance.

later,
charles.....

#4 (**permalink**) 09-24-2007, 03:45 PM

Can someone give me a quick rundown why a router benefits from being
flashed by Linux?

I mean, a router should do wifi and routing, I cannot see what else it
could do?

I am sure that I am missing something, but I do not know what it is.

i

#5 (**permalink**) 09-24-2007, 03:57 PM

On 2007-09-24, Ignoramus3778 <ignoramus3778@NOSPAM.3778.invalid> wrote:

> Can someone give me a quick rundown why a router benefits from being
> flashed by Linux?

I assume you mean flashed with one of the open-firmware
versions of Linux?

http://openwrt.org/

1) You get to pick what features you want and don't want.

2) The open-firmware projects have a lot of advanced features
that stock firmware doesn't (QoS, VPN support, bridging
modes, better DHCP/DNS integration, etc.)

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I'm having a MID-WEEK
at CRISIS!
visi.com

#6 (**permalink**) 09-24-2007, 04:13 PM

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:57:02 -0000, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
> On 2007-09-24, Ignoramus3778 <ignoramus3778@NOSPAM.3778.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Can someone give me a quick rundown why a router benefits from being
>> flashed by Linux?
>
> I assume you mean flashed with one of the open-firmware
> versions of Linux?
>
> http://openwrt.org/
>
> 1) You get to pick what features you want and don't want.
>
> 2) The open-firmware projects have a lot of advanced features
> that stock firmware doesn't (QoS, VPN support, bridging
> modes, better DHCP/DNS integration, etc.)
>

Very nice. I just surplused my old WRT54G router (right now on
eBay). This was done due to upgrade of my home Linux network to
Gigabit Ethernet.

I will keep an eye when there is news on my D-Link DIR-655 802.11n
gigabit router.

I use a basement linux server to provide firewall services to my home
network (to private computers witj 10.0.0.* addresses). I have a
feeling that it is a lot easier to do all that stuff (like VPN) using
a regular Linux box, though I may be mistaken.

The one feature that I would definitely like is enable better NATting,
specifically by exporting ssh port and connecting it to my laptop.

But I can live even without it, by using port redirection (redirecting
port back to the laptop) through the basement server.

Very interesting. I appreciate the info.

i

#7 (**permalink**) 09-25-2007, 04:43 PM

Ignoramus3778 wrote:
> Can someone give me a quick rundown why a router benefits from being
> flashed by Linux?
>
> I mean, a router should do wifi and routing, I cannot see what else it
> could do?

One of mine does:

take pictures at intervals as I travel via gphoto2
act as a GPS server for my handheld
download digital cameras
automagically link up with my home routers and dump pics and route into
to home server
Oh, and yeah, act as a route.

Another one does:

act as a firewall, nat, and such (pretty normal there, except that it
also acts as a bridge to the above router, and automagically connects
once the van is in range)

Yet another one:

runs a secure connection to a public demo
isolates my test lan from the corporate lan
acts as DHCP server

In other words, it's a regular linux box with all the capabilities,
limited only by size of flash (4 - 8 MB) and RAM (8 - 32 MB).

--Yan

#8 (**permalink**) 09-25-2007, 04:55 PM

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:43:11 -0700, CptDondo <yan@NsOeSiPnAeMr.com> wrote:
> act as a GPS server for my handheld

How does it act as a GPS server? Does it have a built in GPS receiver?

My own feeling about all this is that a regular Linux box can do those
routing things with more convenience.

I have a network at home with NATs, private subnets, etc, all
controlled by a regular Linux computer acting as a firewall.

i

#9 (**permalink**) 09-25-2007, 04:55 PM

CptDondo wrote:
> Ignoramus3778 wrote:
>> Can someone give me a quick rundown why a router benefits from being
>> flashed by Linux?
>>
>> I mean, a router should do wifi and routing, I cannot see what else it
>> could do?
>
> One of mine does:
>
> take pictures at intervals as I travel via gphoto2
> act as a GPS server for my handheld
> download digital cameras
> automagically link up with my home routers and dump pics and route into
> to home server
> Oh, and yeah, act as a route.
>
> Another one does:
>
> act as a firewall, nat, and such (pretty normal there, except that it
> also acts as a bridge to the above router, and automagically connects
> once the van is in range)
>
> Yet another one:
>
> runs a secure connection to a public demo
> isolates my test lan from the corporate lan
> acts as DHCP server
>
> In other words, it's a regular linux box with all the capabilities,
> limited only by size of flash (4 - 8 MB) and RAM (8 - 32 MB).
>

Also VPN, wifi signal strength and segmentation to name other uses.

#10 (**permalink**) 09-25-2007, 05:06 PM

Ignoramus30458 wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:43:11 -0700, CptDondo <yan@NsOeSiPnAeMr.com> wrote:
>> act as a GPS server for my handheld
>
> How does it act as a GPS server? Does it have a built in GPS receiver?
>

I'm interested in the function as well.

> My own feeling about all this is that a regular Linux box can do those
> routing things with more convenience.

The convenience factor for me was *not* tying up another pc and spending
the time for a linux install/config.

The DD-WRT flash and config took all of about 15 minutes total.

>
> I have a network at home with NATs, private subnets, etc, all
> controlled by a regular Linux computer acting as a firewall.
>

Still a very good way of doing it.

#11 (**permalink**) 09-25-2007, 05:10 PM

Ignoramus30458 wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:43:11 -0700, CptDondo <yan@NsOeSiPnAeMr.com> wrote:
>> act as a GPS server for my handheld
>
> How does it act as a GPS server? Does it have a built in GPS receiver?

It's got a $30 USB GPS puck.

> My own feeling about all this is that a regular Linux box can do those
> routing things with more convenience.

It *is* a regular linux box. There is no way a "regular" computer would
work in a van; the energy use alone would kill the batteries.

>
> I have a network at home with NATs, private subnets, etc, all
> controlled by a regular Linux computer acting as a firewall.

A MIPS-based router only uses about 120 ma @ 12vdc IIRC, has no fans and
no moving parts. With the OS on flash, you don't have to worry about
power conditioning. You can set it up and forget it. One of mine is in
an attic, in heat and cold.

Your regular computer probably uses about 75 watts, has fans and a hard
drive that can fail, and needs to be in a conditioned environment with a
UPS. And your regular computer still needs a switch to operate, or must
have additional hardware to act as a switch on its own.

These little units have a built-in 6 port switch with vlan capability.

--Yan

#12 (**permalink**) 09-25-2007, 05:25 PM

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:06:38 -0500, § <tdstr@foadspammer.com> wrote:
> Ignoramus30458 wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:43:11 -0700, CptDondo <yan@NsOeSiPnAeMr.com> wrote:
>>> act as a GPS server for my handheld
>>
>> How does it act as a GPS server? Does it have a built in GPS receiver?
>>
>
> I'm interested in the function as well.
>
>> My own feeling about all this is that a regular Linux box can do those
>> routing things with more convenience.
>
> The convenience factor for me was *not* tying up another pc and spending
> the time for a linux install/config.

> The DD-WRT flash and config took all of about 15 minutes total.
>

Just 15 minutes? That's great. I am very impressed. I am not trying to
demean what you do, at all, I think that it is great.

As for tying another PC, a Linux box can do all kinds of things
besides being a firewall. I do not have a "dedicated firewall linux
box" myself.

My approach is, obviously, much more applicable to a wired situation
than to a wifi situation, where your solution excels.

(I have a wifi subnet at home, and use ssh port redirection to
accomplish some of the things that you are doing)

>>
>> I have a network at home with NATs, private subnets, etc, all
>> controlled by a regular Linux computer acting as a firewall.
>>
>
> Still a very good way of doing it.

Yes. I absolutely love linux in that it gives me the full power to do
whatever I want, without me being restricted to "no more than 64
sockets without a Professional license", etc.

i

#13 (**permalink**) 09-25-2007, 05:26 PM

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:10:18 -0700, CptDondo <yan@NsOeSiPnAeMr.com> wrote:
> Ignoramus30458 wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:43:11 -0700, CptDondo <yan@NsOeSiPnAeMr.com> wrote:
>>> act as a GPS server for my handheld
>>
>> How does it act as a GPS server? Does it have a built in GPS receiver?
>
> It's got a $30 USB GPS puck.

I am very interested in buying one for my laptop. Would you recommend
a particular one that works with Linux?

>> My own feeling about all this is that a regular Linux box can do those
>> routing things with more convenience.
>
> It *is* a regular linux box. There is no way a "regular" computer would
> work in a van; the energy use alone would kill the batteries.

Great point!

>>
>> I have a network at home with NATs, private subnets, etc, all
>> controlled by a regular Linux computer acting as a firewall.
>
> A MIPS-based router only uses about 120 ma @ 12vdc IIRC, has no fans and
> no moving parts. With the OS on flash, you don't have to worry about
> power conditioning. You can set it up and forget it. One of mine is in
> an attic, in heat and cold.
>
> Your regular computer probably uses about 75 watts, has fans and a hard
> drive that can fail, and needs to be in a conditioned environment with a
> UPS. And your regular computer still needs a switch to operate, or must
> have additional hardware to act as a switch on its own.
>
> These little units have a built-in 6 port switch with vlan capability.
>

Yes. You convinced me that this approach has very tangible benefits,
esp. for mobile situation.

i

#14 (**permalink**) 09-25-2007, 05:29 PM

Ignoramus30458 wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:06:38 -0500, § <tdstr@foadspammer.com> wrote:
>> Ignoramus30458 wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:43:11 -0700, CptDondo <yan@NsOeSiPnAeMr.com> wrote:
>>>> act as a GPS server for my handheld
>>> How does it act as a GPS server? Does it have a built in GPS receiver?
>>>
>> I'm interested in the function as well.
>>
>>> My own feeling about all this is that a regular Linux box can do those
>>> routing things with more convenience.
>> The convenience factor for me was *not* tying up another pc and spending
>> the time for a linux install/config.
>
>> The DD-WRT flash and config took all of about 15 minutes total.
>>
>
> Just 15 minutes? That's great. I am very impressed. I am not trying to
> demean what you do, at all, I think that it is great.
>
> As for tying another PC, a Linux box can do all kinds of things
> besides being a firewall. I do not have a "dedicated firewall linux
> box" myself.
>
> My approach is, obviously, much more applicable to a wired situation
> than to a wifi situation, where your solution excels.
>
> (I have a wifi subnet at home, and use ssh port redirection to
> accomplish some of the things that you are doing)

That's a busy box!

>
>>> I have a network at home with NATs, private subnets, etc, all
>>> controlled by a regular Linux computer acting as a firewall.
>>>
>> Still a very good way of doing it.
>
> Yes. I absolutely love linux in that it gives me the full power to do
> whatever I want, without me being restricted to "no more than 64
> sockets without a Professional license", etc.
>

I hear yah on that one. I'm real curious on how CptDondo did his usb
gps thing on his wrt54. Google searching as I type....

#15 (**permalink**) 09-25-2007, 05:34 PM

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:29:35 -0500, § <tdstr@foadspammer.com> wrote:
> Ignoramus30458 wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:06:38 -0500, § <tdstr@foadspammer.com> wrote:
>>> Ignoramus30458 wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:43:11 -0700, CptDondo <yan@NsOeSiPnAeMr.com> wrote:
>>>>> act as a GPS server for my handheld
>>>> How does it act as a GPS server? Does it have a built in GPS receiver?
>>>>
>>> I'm interested in the function as well.
>>>
>>>> My own feeling about all this is that a regular Linux box can do those
>>>> routing things with more convenience.
>>> The convenience factor for me was *not* tying up another pc and spending
>>> the time for a linux install/config.
>>
>>> The DD-WRT flash and config took all of about 15 minutes total.
>>>
>>
>> Just 15 minutes? That's great. I am very impressed. I am not trying to
>> demean what you do, at all, I think that it is great.
>>
>> As for tying another PC, a Linux box can do all kinds of things
>> besides being a firewall. I do not have a "dedicated firewall linux
>> box" myself.
>>
>> My approach is, obviously, much more applicable to a wired situation
>> than to a wifi situation, where your solution excels.
>>
>> (I have a wifi subnet at home, and use ssh port redirection to
>> accomplish some of the things that you are doing)
>
> That's a busy box!

It is not a big deal traffic-wise and CPU-wise.

I have another linux box that is my plasma TV box (we watch movies
with it), that is also a nameserver for my domains, backup webserver
for algebra.com, and it does quite a bit more of other things as well.

>>
>>>> I have a network at home with NATs, private subnets, etc, all
>>>> controlled by a regular Linux computer acting as a firewall.
>>>>
>>> Still a very good way of doing it.
>>
>> Yes. I absolutely love linux in that it gives me the full power to do
>> whatever I want, without me being restricted to "no more than 64
>> sockets without a Professional license", etc.
>>
>
> I hear yah on that one. I'm real curious on how CptDondo did his usb
> gps thing on his wrt54. Google searching as I type....

#16 (**permalink**) 09-25-2007, 06:23 PM

Ignoramus30458 <ignoramus30458@NOSPAM.30458.invalid> writes:

> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:10:18 -0700, CptDondo <yan@NsOeSiPnAeMr.com> wrote:
>> Ignoramus30458 wrote:
(snip)
>> It's got a $30 USB GPS puck.
>
> I am very interested in buying one for my laptop. Would you recommend
> a particular one that works with Linux?
(snip)

Holux do a SiRF III one IIRC. I think I needed the PL2303 driver for
that, and for another one I bought. So long as it talks NMEA 0183 you're
probably fine - gpsd and other applications tend to understand that.

Mark (not sure how he should trim the Newsgroups: line)

#17 (**permalink**) 09-25-2007, 06:37 PM

On 2007-09-25, Ignoramus30458 <ignoramus30458@NOSPAM.30458.invalid> wrote:
>
> My own feeling about all this is that a regular Linux box can do those
> routing things with more convenience.

It depends on what you mean by convenience. The Captain has already
laid out some points (moving parts, power consumption); I'd like to add
(slightly) increased security: by running an open-source OS on dedicated
firewall hardware, you isolate the machines behind the firewall device.
So if your firewall is cracked, there's still an extra step of having to
crack your home box. But if you're running additional services on your
firewall, they're compromised immediately if the firewall is.

--keith

--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

#18 (**permalink**) 09-25-2007, 06:58 PM

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:23:02 -0400, Mark T.B. Carroll <Mark.Carroll@Aetion.com> wrote:
> Ignoramus30458 <ignoramus30458@NOSPAM.30458.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:10:18 -0700, CptDondo <yan@NsOeSiPnAeMr.com> wrote:
>>> Ignoramus30458 wrote:
> (snip)
>>> It's got a $30 USB GPS puck.
>>
>> I am very interested in buying one for my laptop. Would you recommend
>> a particular one that works with Linux?
> (snip)
>
> Holux do a SiRF III one IIRC. I think I needed the PL2303 driver for
> that, and for another one I bought. So long as it talks NMEA 0183 you're
> probably fine - gpsd and other applications tend to understand that.
>
> Mark (not sure how he should trim the Newsgroups: line)

OK, I think that I will buy this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16858179009

i

#19 (**permalink**) 09-25-2007, 07:43 PM

§ wrote:

> I hear yah on that one. I'm real curious on how CptDondo did his usb
> gps thing on his wrt54. Google searching as I type....

Look around on the OpenWrt site. The Broadcom BCM47xx SOC has USB so
you can hardware hack a linksys for USB. Me, I took the easy way; I
bought a Linksys WRTSL54GS, which comes with a USB port. The other two
routers I have are Viewsonic WR100; see my writeup on the openwrt page:

<http://wiki.openwrt.org/OpenWrtDocs/Hardware/Viewsonic/WR100>

--Yan

#20 (**permalink**) 09-25-2007, 07:47 PM

Mark T.B. Carroll wrote:
> Ignoramus30458 <ignoramus30458@NOSPAM.30458.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:10:18 -0700, CptDondo <yan@NsOeSiPnAeMr.com> wrote:
>>> Ignoramus30458 wrote:
> (snip)
>>> It's got a $30 USB GPS puck.
>> I am very interested in buying one for my laptop. Would you recommend
>> a particular one that works with Linux?
> (snip)
>
> Holux do a SiRF III one IIRC. I think I needed the PL2303 driver for
> that, and for another one I bought. So long as it talks NMEA 0183 you're
> probably fine - gpsd and other applications tend to understand that.

I think that's what I have. Definitely any of the Sirf III chipset
pucks is the way to go. PL2303 sounds familiar too; I seem to recall
that I needed that module as well...

You can buy them on E-Bay for $30 or so, and that chipset is truly amazing.

--Yan

#21 (**permalink**) 09-26-2007, 01:31 AM

On 2007-09-25, Ignoramus30458 <ignoramus30458@NOSPAM.30458.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:43:11 -0700, CptDondo <yan@NsOeSiPnAeMr.com> wrote:
>> act as a GPS server for my handheld
>
> How does it act as a GPS server? Does it have a built in GPS receiver?
>
> My own feeling about all this is that a regular Linux box can do those
> routing things with more convenience.

You can get a brand new WRTG54 (or some other equivalent) for
$40 (used ones you can get for $0-$20), it's the size of a
paperback book, it's completely silent, it only burns about 5
Watts.

> I have a network at home with NATs, private subnets, etc, all
> controlled by a regular Linux computer acting as a firewall.

Which cost somewhere between $300-$1000, is a _lot_ larger, has
annoying fans, and burns about 20X the power.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! RELAX!!... This
at is gonna be a HEALING
visi.com EXPERIENCE!! Besides,
I work for DING DONGS!

#22 (**permalink**) 09-26-2007, 01:46 AM

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:31:57 -0000, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
> On 2007-09-25, Ignoramus30458 <ignoramus30458@NOSPAM.30458.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:43:11 -0700, CptDondo <yan@NsOeSiPnAeMr.com> wrote:
>>> act as a GPS server for my handheld
>>
>> How does it act as a GPS server? Does it have a built in GPS receiver?
>>
>> My own feeling about all this is that a regular Linux box can do those
>> routing things with more convenience.
>
> You can get a brand new WRTG54 (or some other equivalent) for
> $40 (used ones you can get for $0-$20), it's the size of a
> paperback book, it's completely silent, it only burns about 5
> Watts.

That is indeed great.

>> I have a network at home with NATs, private subnets, etc, all
>> controlled by a regular Linux computer acting as a firewall.
>
> Which cost somewhere between $300-$1000, is a _lot_ larger, has
> annoying fans, and burns about 20X the power.
>

except the linux firewall box can do all sorts of other things, it
does not have to be dedicated.

i

#23 (**permalink**) 09-26-2007, 02:12 AM

On 2007-09-26, Ignoramus30458 <ignoramus30458@NOSPAM.30458.invalid> wrote:

>> You can get a brand new WRTG54 (or some other equivalent) for
>> $40 (used ones you can get for $0-$20), it's the size of a
>> paperback book, it's completely silent, it only burns about 5
>> Watts.
>
> That is indeed great.
>
>>> I have a network at home with NATs, private subnets, etc, all
>>> controlled by a regular Linux computer acting as a firewall.
>>
>> Which cost somewhere between $300-$1000, is a _lot_ larger,
>> has annoying fans, and burns about 20X the power.
>
> except the linux firewall box can do all sorts of other
> things, it does not have to be dedicated.

It does have to be on all the time, which can be annoying when
you need to rebuild/upgrade that machine and the others can't
get to the 'net until that job is done.

There are also people who are too paranoid to have a "general
purpose" Lintel box connected to the internet. The thought
being that a dedicated, single-purpose box (running a non-IA32
architecture) will be much harder to exploit than an IA32 box
with a lot of huge, complex applications and services running
on it. I'm not sure there's a lot to that argument.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I left my WALLET in
at the BATHROOM!!
visi.com

#24 (**permalink**) 09-26-2007, 03:32 AM

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:46:53 -0500 in comp.os.linux.networking,
Ignoramus30458 <ignoramus30458@NOSPAM.30458.invalid> spake unto us, saying:

> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:31:57 -0000, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
>
>>> I have a network at home with NATs, private subnets, etc, all
>>> controlled by a regular Linux computer acting as a firewall.
>>
>> Which cost somewhere between $300-$1000, is a _lot_ larger, has
>> annoying fans, and burns about 20X the power.
>
> except the linux firewall box can do all sorts of other things, it
> does not have to be dedicated.

But it does have to be ON. :-)

I just picked up a Linusys WRT54G v8.0 (yeah, I know I should've gotten
the GL instead) WAP/router/firewall mainly to free up my old Linux f/w
box, and I think it's nice to be able to multiboot again w/o canning my
internet connection...

--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Mableton, GA USA
Mainframe/Unix bit twiddler by day, OS/2+Linux+DOS hobbyist by night.
WARNING: I've seen FIELDATA FORTRAN V and I know how to use it!
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.

#25 (**permalink**) 09-26-2007, 04:31 AM

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:32:34 -0000, Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:46:53 -0500 in comp.os.linux.networking,
> Ignoramus30458 <ignoramus30458@NOSPAM.30458.invalid> spake unto us, saying:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:31:57 -0000, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I have a network at home with NATs, private subnets, etc, all
>>>> controlled by a regular Linux computer acting as a firewall.
>>>
>>> Which cost somewhere between $300-$1000, is a _lot_ larger, has
>>> annoying fans, and burns about 20X the power.
>>
>> except the linux firewall box can do all sorts of other things, it
>> does not have to be dedicated.
>
> But it does have to be ON. :-)

I do not have a habit of turning computers off (except for my linux
laptop).

> I just picked up a Linusys WRT54G v8.0 (yeah, I know I should've gotten
> the GL instead) WAP/router/firewall mainly to free up my old Linux f/w
> box, and I think it's nice to be able to multiboot again w/o canning my
> internet connection...
>

Without a doubt.

How can I tell if my WRT54G supports embedded Linux? Maybe I should
take it off eBay.

i

#26 (**permalink**) 09-26-2007, 08:12 AM

Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2007-09-26, Ignoramus30458 <ignoramus30458@NOSPAM.30458.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> You can get a brand new WRTG54 (or some other equivalent) for
>>> $40 (used ones you can get for $0-$20), it's the size of a
>>> paperback book, it's completely silent, it only burns about 5
>>> Watts.
>> That is indeed great.
>>
>>>> I have a network at home with NATs, private subnets, etc, all
>>>> controlled by a regular Linux computer acting as a firewall.
>>> Which cost somewhere between $300-$1000, is a _lot_ larger,
>>> has annoying fans, and burns about 20X the power.
>> except the linux firewall box can do all sorts of other
>> things, it does not have to be dedicated.
>
> It does have to be on all the time, which can be annoying when
> you need to rebuild/upgrade that machine and the others can't
> get to the 'net until that job is done.
>
> There are also people who are too paranoid to have a "general
> purpose" Lintel box connected to the internet. The thought
> being that a dedicated, single-purpose box (running a non-IA32
> architecture) will be much harder to exploit than an IA32 box
> with a lot of huge, complex applications and services running
> on it. I'm not sure there's a lot to that argument.
>

There is plenty of truth to that argument - there is little doubt that
an x86 machine has more attack vectors than a MIPS machine running
exactly the same software, since the former is subject to buffer
overflow and code injection attacks that the later is not (that's not to
say you couldn't make such attacks on MIPS, merely that available
toolkits and software all aim at attacking x86 machines due to their
popularity).

Of course, a well-configured x86 box will be a perfectly reliable
firewall for all practical purposes. And being familiar with the system
you are working on (for a complex system, anyway) is as important as any
inherent security benefits.

But what *does* make a big difference is keeping your firewall box
simple in regard to software - you don't run unnecessary services, and
you use the simplest possible alternatives for the services you need
(assuming they are good enough, of course). Thus you don't run apache
on your firewall - making you therefore immune to any security flaws in
apache, and you don't want to use X for configuring your firewall. You
don't even want that sort of thing installed in the first place.

If you want to make a single consolidated server and firewall server,
the best way is to have the server stuff running as virtual machines so
that you have *almost* as good security as if they were physically
separated.

#27 (**permalink**) 09-26-2007, 11:33 PM

Ignoramus30458 wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:32:34 -0000, Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:46:53 -0500 in comp.os.linux.networking,
>> Ignoramus30458 <ignoramus30458@NOSPAM.30458.invalid> spake unto us, saying:
>>
>>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:31:57 -0000, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I have a network at home with NATs, private subnets, etc, all
>>>>> controlled by a regular Linux computer acting as a firewall.
>>>> Which cost somewhere between $300-$1000, is a _lot_ larger, has
>>>> annoying fans, and burns about 20X the power.
>>> except the linux firewall box can do all sorts of other things, it
>>> does not have to be dedicated.
>> But it does have to be ON. :-)
>
> I do not have a habit of turning computers off (except for my linux
> laptop).
>
>> I just picked up a Linusys WRT54G v8.0 (yeah, I know I should've gotten
>> the GL instead) WAP/router/firewall mainly to free up my old Linux f/w
>> box, and I think it's nice to be able to multiboot again w/o canning my
>> internet connection...
>>
>
> Without a doubt.
>
> How can I tell if my WRT54G supports embedded Linux? Maybe I should
> take it off eBay.

To some extent, they all do, but the V5 and later models have half the RAM and half the flash memory
of earlier models. The V5 thru V8 models come from the factory running VxWorks. The others already
run Linux, which is how the alternate firmware sources got started. Due the GPL, Linksys had to make
their kernel sources available. Only the driver for the Broadcom wireless chip could be distributed
in binary-only form. That driver file has been an important resource in the reverse engineering of
the BCM43xx chips, which has led to the bcm43xx opn-source driver for Linux.

If your WRT54G doesn't have a version listed on the name plate, then it is likely a V1, which will
run 3rd party Linux firmware.

Larry

#28 (**permalink**) 09-27-2007, 02:31 AM

"Larry Finger" <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> wrote in message
news:P6BKi.140893$ax1.42745@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Ignoramus30458 wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:32:34 -0000, Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:46:53 -0500 in comp.os.linux.networking,
>>> Ignoramus30458 <ignoramus30458@NOSPAM.30458.invalid> spake unto us,
>>> saying:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:31:57 -0000, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I have a network at home with NATs, private subnets, etc, all
>>>>>> controlled by a regular Linux computer acting as a firewall.
>>>>> Which cost somewhere between $300-$1000, is a _lot_ larger, has
>>>>> annoying fans, and burns about 20X the power.
>>>> except the linux firewall box can do all sorts of other things, it
>>>> does not have to be dedicated.
>>> But it does have to be ON. :-)
>>
>> I do not have a habit of turning computers off (except for my linux
>> laptop).
>>
>>> I just picked up a Linusys WRT54G v8.0 (yeah, I know I should've gotten
>>> the GL instead) WAP/router/firewall mainly to free up my old Linux f/w
>>> box, and I think it's nice to be able to multiboot again w/o canning my
>>> internet connection...
>>>
>>
>> Without a doubt.
>>
>> How can I tell if my WRT54G supports embedded Linux? Maybe I should
>> take it off eBay.
>
> To some extent, they all do, but the V5 and later models have half the RAM
> and half the flash memory
> of earlier models. The V5 thru V8 models come from the factory running
> VxWorks. The others already
> run Linux, which is how the alternate firmware sources got started. Due
> the GPL, Linksys had to make
> their kernel sources available. Only the driver for the Broadcom wireless
> chip could be distributed
> in binary-only form. That driver file has been an important resource in
> the reverse engineering of
> the BCM43xx chips, which has led to the bcm43xx opn-source driver for
> Linux.
>
> If your WRT54G doesn't have a version listed on the name plate, then it is
> likely a V1, which will
> run 3rd party Linux firmware.
>
> Larry

Even V5 and above can be flashed with a 3rd party Linux firmware. As I
stated in a previous post to this very thread, http://www.dd-wrt.com
provides information on flashing v5 and above WRT54G routers. I
successfully flashed my v5. It involves more than flashing 1 file but it's
hardly difficult.

#29 (**permalink**) 09-27-2007, 02:46 AM

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:31:09 -0400, jch <jch@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Larry Finger" <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> wrote in message
> news:P6BKi.140893$ax1.42745@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Ignoramus30458 wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:32:34 -0000, Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:46:53 -0500 in comp.os.linux.networking,
>>>> Ignoramus30458 <ignoramus30458@NOSPAM.30458.invalid> spake unto us,
>>>> saying:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:31:57 -0000, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a network at home with NATs, private subnets, etc, all
>>>>>>> controlled by a regular Linux computer acting as a firewall.
>>>>>> Which cost somewhere between $300-$1000, is a _lot_ larger, has
>>>>>> annoying fans, and burns about 20X the power.
>>>>> except the linux firewall box can do all sorts of other things, it
>>>>> does not have to be dedicated.
>>>> But it does have to be ON. :-)
>>>
>>> I do not have a habit of turning computers off (except for my linux
>>> laptop).
>>>
>>>> I just picked up a Linusys WRT54G v8.0 (yeah, I know I should've gotten
>>>> the GL instead) WAP/router/firewall mainly to free up my old Linux f/w
>>>> box, and I think it's nice to be able to multiboot again w/o canning my
>>>> internet connection...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Without a doubt.
>>>
>>> How can I tell if my WRT54G supports embedded Linux? Maybe I should
>>> take it off eBay.
>>
>> To some extent, they all do, but the V5 and later models have half the RAM
>> and half the flash memory
>> of earlier models. The V5 thru V8 models come from the factory running
>> VxWorks. The others already
>> run Linux, which is how the alternate firmware sources got started. Due
>> the GPL, Linksys had to make
>> their kernel sources available. Only the driver for the Broadcom wireless
>> chip could be distributed
>> in binary-only form. That driver file has been an important resource in
>> the reverse engineering of
>> the BCM43xx chips, which has led to the bcm43xx opn-source driver for
>> Linux.
>>
>> If your WRT54G doesn't have a version listed on the name plate, then it is
>> likely a V1, which will
>> run 3rd party Linux firmware.
>>
>> Larry
>
> Even V5 and above can be flashed with a 3rd party Linux firmware. As I
> stated in a previous post to this very thread, http://www.dd-wrt.com
> provides information on flashing v5 and above WRT54G routers. I
> successfully flashed my v5. It involves more than flashing 1 file but it's
> hardly difficult.
>
>

Mine is V2 and is flashable. Could anyone explain in a couple of
sentences just what is involved in flashing one. Thanks

i

#30 (**permalink**) 09-27-2007, 04:56 AM

"Ignoramus25760" <ignoramus25760@NOSPAM.25760.invalid> wrote in message
news:fc6dnR2J3u3qlmbbnZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d@giganews.com ...
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:31:09 -0400, jch <jch@nospam.com> wrote:
>> "Larry Finger" <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> wrote in message
>> news:P6BKi.140893$ax1.42745@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>> Ignoramus30458 wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:32:34 -0000, Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:46:53 -0500 in comp.os.linux.networking,
>>>>> Ignoramus30458 <ignoramus30458@NOSPAM.30458.invalid> spake unto us,
>>>>> saying:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:31:57 -0000, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have a network at home with NATs, private subnets, etc, all
>>>>>>>> controlled by a regular Linux computer acting as a firewall.
>>>>>>> Which cost somewhere between $300-$1000, is a _lot_ larger, has
>>>>>>> annoying fans, and burns about 20X the power.
>>>>>> except the linux firewall box can do all sorts of other things, it
>>>>>> does not have to be dedicated.
>>>>> But it does have to be ON. :-)
>>>>
>>>> I do not have a habit of turning computers off (except for my linux
>>>> laptop).
>>>>
>>>>> I just picked up a Linusys WRT54G v8.0 (yeah, I know I should've
>>>>> gotten
>>>>> the GL instead) WAP/router/firewall mainly to free up my old Linux f/w
>>>>> box, and I think it's nice to be able to multiboot again w/o canning
>>>>> my
>>>>> internet connection...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Without a doubt.
>>>>
>>>> How can I tell if my WRT54G supports embedded Linux? Maybe I should
>>>> take it off eBay.
>>>
>>> To some extent, they all do, but the V5 and later models have half the
>>> RAM
>>> and half the flash memory
>>> of earlier models. The V5 thru V8 models come from the factory running
>>> VxWorks. The others already
>>> run Linux, which is how the alternate firmware sources got started. Due
>>> the GPL, Linksys had to make
>>> their kernel sources available. Only the driver for the Broadcom
>>> wireless
>>> chip could be distributed
>>> in binary-only form. That driver file has been an important resource in
>>> the reverse engineering of
>>> the BCM43xx chips, which has led to the bcm43xx opn-source driver for
>>> Linux.
>>>
>>> If your WRT54G doesn't have a version listed on the name plate, then it
>>> is
>>> likely a V1, which will
>>> run 3rd party Linux firmware.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>
>> Even V5 and above can be flashed with a 3rd party Linux firmware. As I
>> stated in a previous post to this very thread, http://www.dd-wrt.com
>> provides information on flashing v5 and above WRT54G routers. I
>> successfully flashed my v5. It involves more than flashing 1 file but
>> it's
>> hardly difficult.
>>
>>
>
> Mine is V2 and is flashable. Could anyone explain in a couple of
> sentences just what is involved in flashing one. Thanks
>
> i

They're all flashable. It's basically the same process you'd go through to
upgrade to a new Linksys firmware version. With WRT54G v5 and above, the
process is a little more involved as you have to flash a couple of extra
files first.