OpenWrt Two Approval
130 comments
·March 29, 2025neilv
donnachangstein
Is it really any different than every person who insists on running pfSense for security reasons then immediately suggesting some Chinese shitbox PC off AliExpress as the ideal platform to run it on?
Also, since when has having a Wikipedia page proven a company legitimate? You know most companies author their own pages anyway, that's kind of how Wikipedia works.
wtallis
> suggesting some Chinese shitbox PC off AliExpress as the ideal platform to run it on?
How reasonable do you think it is to be this automatically suspicious of any computer coming from China? A generic low-cost barebones Intel PC certainly has plenty of space for compromised firmware to hide, but it's implausible that a Chinese intelligence agency would indiscriminately deploy an attack that made use of a compromised Intel Management Engine firmware signing key to put firmware rootkits in cheap hardware sold to individual consumers.
On an embedded system like the OpenWRT Two where the entire BOM of the system will be public and the OS has full control over the raw flash memory, a purely software-based supply chain attack would be extremely difficult, and a hardware-based supply chain attack would be expensive. Do you think an intelligence agency would really bother with this for a device that is mostly going to be shipping to nerdy hobbyists?
There's more to a threat model than just recognizing that an attack may be technically feasible.
donnachangstein
> How reasonable do you think it is to be this automatically suspicious of any computer coming from China?
Based on their track record? Pretty fucking reasonable.
I would say that most probably isn't malicious collaboration with the CCP, rather sheer incompetence. Shipping secure anything just isn't part of their culture. Read a comment on HN the other day from someone that evaluated Huawei hardware for a telco and swore it was so full of holes to be unusable.
The ingrained extreme cheapness of Chinese culture doesn't help. Security is viewed as a luxury - why waste time and money on it when that could be better spent elsewhere?
That said, the incompetence gives them plausible deniability when the intelligence agencies take advantage to exploit the holes for their own use.
josteink
> How reasonable do you think it is to be this automatically suspicious of any computer coming from China? A generic low-cost barebones Intel PC certainly has plenty of space for compromised firmware to hide
The problem seems to be that this firmware doesn’t really get updated once the machine is sold.
That’s legitimate criticism for a security-critical network component.
486sx33
VERY reasonable , if not a total piece of crap with fake copied hardware, a security nightmare with hardware level integrated spyware.
Don’t bother importing. They should start seizing these at the port
neilv
The people who source no-name/random-name computer/networking hardware off of AliExpress to use for routers aren't the security-conscious people I'm talking about.
As I said, GL.iNet is a popular company.
I didn't say that having a Wikipedia page proves that a company is legitimate.
I know how Wikipedia works.
throwaway48476
Usually the kind of people installing their own router software are the homelabbers who would buy a netgate appliance or equivalent in a professional setting.
unethical_ban
As opposed to the people who run insecure software on questionable hardware? Is everyone supposed to buy Checkpoint?
ElectRabbit
By looking at the security history of Checkpoint.. uhm.. :-)
teleforce
The existing OpenWrt One is running a version of Banana Pi, also a product by a Chinese company [1],[2],[3].
From their website, "Banana Pi open source hardware community is an open source hardware project led by Guangdong Bipai Technology, and supported by Taiwan Hon Hai Technology (Foxconn)."
[1] Banana Pi OpenWrt One:
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005007795779282.html
[2] Banana Pi website:
https://www.banana-pi.org/web/index.php
[3] Banana Pi:
3np
I'm less concerned with their jurisdiction and company profile than their absent software/firmware maintenance.
I have a bunch of their different models and in practice most of them are unusable today (based on ancient upstream with missing important updates; their sources are a huge mess with scarce and out-of-date docs so have fun resolving that yourself; device dtb/driver require unavailable patches; IIRC their stock vendor firmware phones out and they seem to be pushing towards a centrally managed cloud platform I wouldnt trust)
It really is a shame as on paper and out-of-box-right-after launch their devices seem great but after spending too many days failing to get working builds for in particular the Mudi/E750 while realizing that stock firmware is unsafe in untrusted networks, I've given up on them until I see some drastic change in maintenance culture.
The collaboration with OpenWrt might make the "Two" an exception, I guess, if the OpenWrt people are involved and demanding enough.
simoncion
You should be aware of how much collaboration the OpenWRT folks have with -say- Ubiquiti Networks. [0] And yet, OpenWRT runs fine on the UAP-AC-LITE and -LR.
I'd wager there's nearly zero collaboration between the overwhelming majority of the hardware manufacturers that create hardware that OpenWRT runs on and the OpenWRT folks.
Your concern is entirely unwarranted and -if I might be a little uncharitable- seems to come from a position of ignorance (whether actual or feigned, I cannot tell).
[0] Less than zero.
3np
What does that have to do with anything? I'm speaking about experience of deploying existing gl.inet devices, marketed as "fully open source" with OpenWrt being front-and-center in marketing, as well as being promoted on the OpenWrt wiki.
That someone from the community has made OpenWrt run fine on Ubiquiti gear has nothing to do with my comment and is not indicative of anything (if anything perhaps supporting the notion that glinet should be able to do better).
> Your concern is entirely unwarranted and -if I might be a little uncharitable- seems to come from a position of ignorance (whether actual or feigned, I cannot tell).
Yeah, that's quite uncharitable. Did you read the last line of the comment you replied to?
Speaking of ignorance... How many new embedded devices have you personally ported OpenWrt (or any Linux dist for that matter) to? How many glinet devices do you have experience deploying self-compiled builds to? How much time have you spent digging through their sources and patches?
Havoc
You’re not making those specs for 250 bucks without shenzen being involved
moffkalast
This is honestly a fantastic deal for both sides, we get cheap hardware, they get working software. We're both terrible at doing the other bit and all governments are gonna have backdoors regardless.
numpad0
I'd like an L3Harris gamer router with IBM CPU, Intel ROM/RAM, Xilinx DSP, and Analog Devices modem, all at $49, but only if there's going to be such a thing, ever...
cushychicken
This gave me a good laugh XD
throwaway48476
L3 would make it $49k...
miohtama
Can you recommend Western companies that would be able to produce similar hardware at the same price point?
danieldk
MicroTik is European (Latvian) and makes some affordable routers. Their own RouterOS is closed source, but many models are supported by OpenWrt (no experience). If you are willing to spend more, OPNsense (Netherlands) also sells hardware. In the old days one could also recommend PFsense hardware, but they are becoming more and more closed (though you can usually run OPNsense on the same hardware).
QNAP is Taiwanese. Their QHora routers use closed software, but I think most models are supported by OpenWrt.
u8080
I would like to avoid Mikrotik at all costs since they are not only running questionable proprietary software, but has a history of GPL violation.
Currently they provide sources for GPL components this way, what a joke of a company:
>To get a CD with the corresponding source code for the GPL-covered programs in this distribution, wire transfer $45 to MikroTikls SIA, Ūnijas iela 2, Riga, LV-1039, Latvia.
ElectRabbit
I really love their Switches, Routers and directional radio link stuff.
But: Mikrotik has problems with end-user Wifi - Their APs are old and weak.
greggsy
Mikrotik devices compete in the mid-tier commercial and prosumer markets (the same market Unifi compete in).
GL.Inet are firmly in the personal and budget enthusiast market.
The price differences between those two markets is almost 2:1.
walterbell
In the absence of PC Engines (RIP) Swiss design made in Taiwan, there is the South Korean ODROID from https://hardkernel.com.
Compulab in Israel has some customizable IoT boards, https://www.compulab.com/products/sbcs/sbc-iot-imx8-nxp-i-mx...
QNAP in Taiwan has QHora routers, but much higher price points.
cycomanic
The irony here is that it's the US who has been proven to break into allied networks and infrastructure and done both political and industrial espionage against their allies.
a3w
The west is now split, I have the same trust in China, as in US based companies.
facile3232
Similarly, I'd like one from outside both american/european AND chinese influence. I think you'd be absolutely insane to trust either of them.
Honestly, if we're ever going to have a decent open hardware movement, I think it's going to come from a place like Nigeria or Peru, not a wealthy country.
sgjohnson
https://store.ui.com/us/en/category/all-cloud-gateways/produ...
4x 2.5GbE (one of them even a PoE port)
1x 10GbE SFP+
WiFi 7 with MLO
$279
danieldk
Ubiquiti gear is great, but does not use open source software like OpenWrt Two. And I think most modern Ubiquiti routers are not supported by OpenWrt.
squarefoot
Mikrotik sells also bare boards. They come with their RouterOS platform (Linux based, closed) but some can run OpenWRT. Also Olimex has really interesting and open products, but they're not primarily aimed at networking.
null
TechDebtDevin
GL Intelligence is just their 'American Agency', or their legal representation in the United States since they are a foreign company. Probably an American consultant firm they fund. This is required. You can't use your Hong Kong lawyers here.
nfriedly
This is awesome! I've been using OpenWRT for more than a decade, and I think it's great that they're designing their own hardware now.
I'm on a GL.iNet MT-6000 right now, and it's a great router. The stock firmware is based on openwrt, and they make it very easy to upgrade to an official openwrt release. I bought it before the OpenWRT One became available, but I probably would have gone with it anyways because it has two 2.5gb ports whereas the OpenWRT One only has a single 2.5gb port. I'm on 1gb internet right now, so that would be fine for the moment, my ISP has already been advertising 2gb service coming soon, and I'd like to upgrade once it's available.
It looks like the MT7988 chip they chose for the OpenWRT Two supports either two 10gb ports or one 10gb and a bunch of other ports, so I think they made the right call. It should be capable of handling up to 5gb internet service, so it'd be a better fit for someone like me.
I imagine it'll also be one of the first and likely best OpenWRT devices to support Wi-Fi 7.
PaulKeeble
There is experimental support for the Asus BT8 which is a be14000 device, there are snapshot builds for it but issues going back to the Asus firmware. Also banana pi R4 development board and it's got a be14000 WiFi card. These are all the devices I know that have support but many of the mt7988s should get added in time.
usui
Is there a reasonable scenario where enough people vote "no" here? It seems unlikely, so a nuanced discussion where pros and cons are considered seems more productive. Seems like a yes/no vote makes more sense if there is actual contention or disagreement among internal factions.
If you vote no, you'll basically be seen as the stickler person without a good reason.
18 people are missing (abstained?), so could that be interpreted as an ambiguous "no"?
reaperman
In a slightly different reality, most members might reasonably vote no if it was deemed too costly for the organization's budget, or if the champion of the project was seen as unreliable, or if there were genuine concerns with the chosen contractor. Some of these could change after a short bit -- a sudden funding source appears, a different leader of the project steps up, or they address concerns with the contractor bid.
Havoc
Probably acts more like a project lead election
Cyphase
Previously:
OpenWRT One Released: First Router Designed Specifically for OpenWrt - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42285689 - Dec 2024 (144 comments)
Springtime
It's weird reading the claim as there have been plenty of routers designed for OpenWRT in years prior. Some even quasi-bespoke. A selling point of the product is they release their source code but afaik this just means OpenWRT per se (and I suppose the bootloader) as various chips have closed source firmware anyway (much like other products that try to be as open source as possible).
Cyphase
Awesome, I hope this work continues. I got to put my hands on a One a few weeks ago at SCaLE 22x[0], where the Software Freedom Conservancy was the "Network Sponsor"[1] and the WiFi was being provided by a bunch of Ones.
[0] https://www.socallinuxexpo.org/scale/22x
[1] https://www.socallinuxexpo.org/scale/22x/sponsor/software-fr...
petesergeant
> OpenWRT "One" and "Two" are physical routers designed specifically to run OpenWRT. This is describing "Open WRT Two", a physical piece of hardware, that will have a price-tag, rather than some new software release of OpenWRT.
ksec
> "Two" will (hopefully) be in the 250$ region
What does that mean ?
petesergeant
OpenWRT "One" and "Two" are physical routers designed specifically to run OpenWRT. This is describing "Open WRT Two", a physical piece of hardware, that will have a price-tag, rather than some new software release of OpenWRT.
RestartKernel
This should be at the top, since it's not clear at all from the RFC.
ksec
Yes. I was thinking it will only work or it works on $250 dollar routers but I know for sure that is not the case. And I didn't even know OpenWRT made hardware routers.
I search and looked at that router.... I wish someone from Eero or Ubnt hardware team would lend them a hand.
squarefoot
Possibly the result of little or no announcements elsewhere. I learned about the OpenWRT One existence only after searching what OpenWRT Two is 10 minutes ago.
teruakohatu
I read that as “It will cost around $250.”
Cyphase
That "Two" will hopefully retail for around 250 dollars.
The full sentence:
> "Two" will (hopefully) be in the 250$ region with yet again a portion of that being donated to the project.
the-grump
Heck yeah. GL.iNet is awesome, and these specs will make this the one router to rule them all for consumer applications.
It’s a wonderful time to be into free software and free hardware. Thank you folks!
asmor
I have one of their travel routers (Beryl), and they beat a U7 Pro (the one with horrible still unfixed firmware) in consistency and throughput with one device connected to 5 GHz. While I sit next to the UniFi AP and the Beryl sits behind a concrete wall. And it's not a small difference either. I run it in AP mode for game streaming now because the UniFi keeps dying, even when I'm the only device on 6 GHz.
The polish I'm missing on supposed premium products.
M95D
OpenWrt went crazy in the last few years. OpenWrt (the OS) is a mess:
- bugs are ignored,
- bug fixes ignored,
- improvements to core OpenWrt are ignored (although package PRs are still accepted somehow),
- almost no new documentation,
- no reply for documentation clarifications on the forum,
- significant parts of OpenWrt are not accessible for PRs or bug reports: fstools, procd, ubus, etc.
- no improvements to critical routing features, such as hardware acceleration,
- routers abandoned left and right (kernel no longer fits in the factory partition) and absolutely no support for older kernels,
But now they have video acceleration, mesa, X, wayland, Doom, etc.
With OpenWrt Two, I bet they're going to make the same mistakes as OpenWrt One: not enough memory and not upgradable, wifi not replaceable, no usable expansion slots (mini-PCI, M.2) and, of course, no (e)SATA. Another e-waste product that will be obsolete even before it's available to buy.
I wish they got back to routing.
wtallis
> With OpenWrt Two, I bet they're going to make the same mistakes as OpenWrt One: not enough memory and not upgradable, wifi not replaceable, no usable expansion slots (mini-PCI, M.2) and, of course, no (e)SATA. Another e-waste product that will be obsolete even before it's available to buy.
Those are only mistakes if you ignore the realities of what hardware is available. A highly-integrated SoC designed specifically for wireless router usage is a more cost-effective platform than a generic x86 PC. Basing OpenWRT One and Two on such hardware means work to improve support for those systems is more likely to benefit OpenWRT support for mainstream consumer networking equipment that also uses purpose-built SoCs.
OpenWRT is not yet in a position to influence the hardware design decisions made by companies like Mediatek, Qualcomm, Broadcom for their consumer WiFi product families. Those chips are still designed around what's best for the big brands that are the primary customers: Netgear, Linksys, TP-Link, etc. Adding SATA controllers to a WiFi router SoC does not benefit Netgear, et al., nor does splitting out all the radios to separate chips that could be installed onto M.2 cards (miniPCI and miniPCIe being long obsolete and bandwidth-starved). Asking for eSATA is laughably unrealistic.
A focus on the kind of modular, expandable and upgradable hardware platforms that actually currently exist (namely, PCs) is what leads to the distractions you're complaining about: "video acceleration, mesa, X, wayland, Doom, etc."
teleforce
For another approach to open source networking by Linux Foundation please check DENT OS [1].
> OpenWRT is not yet in a position to influence the hardware design decisions made by companies like Mediatek, Qualcomm, Broadcom for their consumer WiFi product families.
Perhaps I'm biased, but I do believe DENT is in much better position and has more chance of influencing the white-box networking vendor than OpenWRT with regards to their design decisions.
From the website:
"As a Linux Foundation project, DENT utilizes the Linux Kernel, Switchdev, and other Linux based projects as the basis for building a new standardized network operating system without abstractions or overhead. All underlying infrastructure — including ASIC and Silicon for networking and datapath — is treated equally; while existing abstractions, APIs, drivers, low-level overhead, and other open software are simplified. DENT unites silicon vendors, ODMs, SIs, OEMs, and end users across all verticals to enable the transition to disaggregated networks."
[1] DENT:
wtallis
That doesn't even appear to be attempting to address anything relevant to consumer networking. It's a purely enterprise-focused project, mostly about putting a Debian-based OS onto rackmount ethernet switches.
M95D
> Those are only mistakes if you ignore the realities of what hardware is available.
If you think the focus should be on what hardware is available, then why make a OpenWrt Two instead of buying the existing hardware?
> A highly-integrated SoC designed specifically for wireless router usage is a more cost-effective platform than a generic x86 PC.
This is exactly why OpenWrt One and probably Two too is just e-waste - because those cheap integrated hardware platforms are e-waste to begin with. They are indeed cost-effective, but only for a brief moment in time.
Wifi drivers are one of the most problematic part of linux kernel. Also, wifi standards are still changing very fast. Non-replaceable wifi is one of the things that's going to kill these boards.
OpenWrt One can only be used as a wireless router. There's no storage, no expansion slots, not even USB3. It can't be repurposed, can't be upgraded, can't even be used as an ordinary ethernet router because there's no switch. In less than a year, OpenWrt Two makes it obsolete. OpenWrt Two won't be any different, so why make it at all? What will that improve? There's tons of boards better than that (BananaPi R-series, GLinet routers).
So that's basically my argument.
(I didn't complain about the CPU. The CPU is probably the most future-proof component in there. Using x86 CPU is probably the worst design decision they could make.)
> Adding SATA controllers to a WiFi router SoC does not benefit Netgear, et al.
So what? That's what PCIe is for (and expansion slots).
Turris Omnia is almost 10 YEARS old and it's still being sold, and at outrageous prices, mind you, even second-hand. It's CPU is obsolete, it's miniPCIe slots are obsolete, it's ethernet is (almost) obsolete, it's memory is barely sufficient, and yet it's still usable as a home router, personal web server, file server, NAS, torrent client, remote download manager, TOR node, proxy, etc. etc. after 9 years! Why is that? Because Wifi was replaceable and it had 2GB RAM at a time when most routers only had 32MB.
Beat that, OpenWrt One&Two!
> A focus on the kind of modular, expandable and upgradable hardware platforms that actually currently exist (namely, PCs) is what leads to the distractions you're complaining about: "video acceleration, mesa, X, wayland, Doom, etc."
No, that's not it. A mini-PCIe / M.2 slot won't fit a GPU (well, it could, but...). A SO-DIMM slot instead of soldered memory also won't change anything. Meanwhile, GPUs are already there in most SoCs supported by OpenWrt, not just x86: Rockchip, Mediatek, Broadcom/RaspberryPi, you name it.
If devs were interested in GPU support, they could have contributed to Buildroot instead. Why did they add it to OpenWrt instead of Buildroot? Probably because it was easy: they're the main devs of OpenWrt with commit privileges. I'm not saying that they abused those privileges. I'm saying that their interest doesn't seem aligned with what OpenWrt is: an OS for routers.
> modular, expandable and upgradable hardware platforms that actually currently exist (namely, PCs)
And this is the second problem with OpenWrt One/Two. If an OpenWrt dev wanted to have an OpenWrt NAS, or an OpenWrt server of some kind, anythining other than (just) a router, only PCs fit the requirements. Not even Rockchip/BananaPi SBCs. Of course that dev is going to contribute with support for PCs in OpenWrt.
wtallis
Am I understanding you correctly: your complaint about OpenWRT software is that they aren't focused exclusively enough on being a router, and your complaint about OpenWRT hardware is that they are focused exclusively on being a router?
kelnos
> they're going to make the same mistakes [...] no (e)SATA.
> I wish they got back to routing.
I feel like you are contradicting yourself.
evanjrowley
GL.iNet's hardware has been great, but it's always annoyed me their products are designed with OpenWRT as an unsupported "advanced function" where updates lag behind the main project. If OpenWRT Two breaks this pattern, then I am very intrigued.
pzo
What I would want to have some company to make one device that would at the same time be:
1) router
2) smart tv (airplay, chromecast, miracast)
3) smart speaker
4) smart home gateway (matter)
5) wireless charging pad
6) private cloud (nextcloud)
7) private backup (removable nvm)
8) private vpn / dns / pihole / adguard
9) mini server
Everything in a nice package and preconfigure and ideally modular (upgradable ssd, wifi).
UmbrelOS [0] is interesting but its quite expensive and its only for home server (no router, no smart speaker, smart tv, wireless charging pad). Apple TV has a great hardware and cheap but so limited for 3rd party. Wish they made it modular that you could attach magnetic speaker, wireless charging pad and had some usb for attaching 4g modem.
teleforce
Please check Synology products, a Taiwanese company. They have affordable products and solutions that provide all your listed requirements and then some more [1],[2]. Not sure if they have one device or several devices integrate together to perform the functions you've listed, more likely the latter.
[1] Synology Products A - Z: Applications:
https://www.synology.com/en-global/products-a-z
[2] Synology:
SargeDebian
Openwrt ticks a lot of those boxes if you add storage. For me, the location of my router makes using it as a charging pad, speaker, and TV device impractical anyway, and I can imagine I'm not alone in that.
pzo
Yes I understand in US where a lot of people live in houses this makes less sense but in asia and europe a lot of people live in apartments and they have their router and smart tv box in living room on tv desk. Such router covers whole apartment and direct wired connection to TV would reduce latency with airplay. Many also use 4g usb modem since mobile data providers are cheap there (e.g. in poland you can get 300GB for $7 with 5g included and no contract.
walterbell
Used Lenovo Tiny PCs with VMs, iGPU and 4-port NICs get close.
3np
Got any specific recommendation for 4-port NIC?
walterbell
Depends on your preference for hypervisor/host, network performance, SR-IOV partitioning, need/avoidance of AMT vPro remote mgnt (e.g. Intel vs. Broadcom), OEM NIC firmware. I've used low-profile Dell quad-port NICs in the past.
wao0uuno
Intel I350-T4. Make sure it’s a genuine one.
M95D
BananaPi R4 + some storage + OpenWrt + native packages and Docker for everything that's missing from native packages.
teruakohatu
I wonder why they are including a 5G port. There does not seem to be a lot of gear that uses it. An additional 1/2.5G or 10G SFP would make more sense.
jauntywundrkind
There's 30$ usb-c adapters out now. Where-as 10Gbe is usually $130+.
Yes there are very few switches with 5Gbe. But I'd be open to that changing!
simoncion
> There's 30$ usb-c adapters out now. Where-as 10Gbe is usually $130+.
Sure, but if you include another SFP+ port, you can run that at 1, 2.5, 5, or 10gbit. Another SFP+ port gives you a BUNCH of options (including the "copper, fiber, or twinax?" option). A 5Gbit copper port locks you in to just that one configuration.
As for the expense of SFP+ modules, go check out the 10Gtek company. The optical ones are very inexpensive [0], and I've had eight of their optical SFP+ modules in my home networking hardware for many, many years with no problems whatsoever. I expect the copper ones to be just as reliable.
[0] And their copper ones are on the low side of average price
m000
Options for who?
5GBASE-T can run on Cat5e/Cat6 cabling which people probably already have. This makes the router a viable product, which can improve your home network performance with minimal investment, just by swapping out your old router.
OTOH, the dual SFP+ configuration is more on the exotic side. It may make sense on some professional setting (or some outlier home network configurations - like yours), but I guess this is not the intended market.
3np
I think it makes sense, actually.
I can plug that port into an existing 10G switch and get 5G over that link, which can be a nice sweetspot (10G can be excessive in terms of power/heat) while we can fully saturate one of the 2.5G ports routed over it without saturating the uplink.
And if not it will still play nice at 2.5.
simoncion
I hope the reason is that they'd have to remove several ports to upgrade that hard-wired 5Gbit port to a 10Gbit SFP+ port. Otherwise, it's very, very silly what they've done.
ynezz
tl;dr RTL8251B does not need a firmware blob
https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2025-Febru...
wtallis
It figures that Realtek is a key part of the story. The availability of Realtek PHYs and NICs is what's finally allowing 2.5GbE and 5GbE to go mainstream for consumer equipment. Aquantia got bought by Marvell and ended up with enterprise-level pricing on all their stuff. Intel completely tanked their reputation for NICs with a few failed attempts to implement 2.5GbE support, and haven't even tried to introduce a consumer-grade 5GbE option. But now that Realtek is in the game, 2.5GbE is widespread in new desktop motherboards and fairly cheap in USB Ethernet adapters.
GL.iNet is a popular brand, though I can't find a Wikipedia page for it.
https://www.gl-inet.com/about-us/ says:
> GL Tech (HK) Ltd: #601, 5W, Hong Kong Science Park, N.T. Hong Kong
> GL Intelligence, Inc.: 10400 Eaton Place, Suite 215, Fairfax, VA 22030
I'm a little curious about this. One of the reasons that some people run OpenWrt is for improved security. In the general security space, a Shenzen company isn't the most usual choice of vendor for Western countries. Also, the company having the US subsidiary/office/unit based in Virginia, and with "intelligence" in the name, hits a somewhat odd note.