> The connection was a bit janky, a video would occasionally start buffering, but it didn't bother me much.
This is truly bonkers! Please, if you buy hardware that does not work correctly from day 1, return it. If you do not vote with your wallet these companies will never learn and will never adjust their practices. Rewarding TP-Link by keeping their terrible hardware does nothing.
> I contacted support in June because the website only had firmware for v2. They couldn't find v1 in their database and asked for photos of the device and box
Hardware offload bugs are bane of NICs since hardware offload was offered (and that does include pricy enterprise ones, not just your random consumer one) and it can be drivers but majority it is on hardware/firmware side so I wouldn't be too crossed on TPLink for that one.
I wonder if EU push for basically 5 years of mandatory updates will make it better. Then again this isn't security bug but functional one...
Not surprised by the driver software quality issues. When I was still working in consumer electronics / embedded, I saw many examples of the internals of those devices. The software was often a hodgepodge of scripts and drivers, whatever seemed to work, from companies without a great software and details culture.
We would usually rewrite the drivers entirely from the datasheets or from reversing the vendor ones!
Really happy with my Flint 3. I like that I can SSH to root and do whatever I want.
But what really shocked me is how amazing GL.Inet support is. I think they're probably the best support people I've come across, helping me track down an issue I've had for months with an Aqara doorbell that intermittently goes offline, suggesting configuration changes, even logging into my router (with my permission) to diagnose things. Don't have to register an account in any support system or forum either, can do everything over email. Complete opposite to pretty much every networking vendor I've encountered both low end and enterprise.
Last week I got a report about a vuln in one of our products. Asked Claude to confirm it. It refused, so I told it "fuck you, I'm switching to a chinese model to help me out here". It replied, I'm paraphrasing, that it's "not offended, but doesn't like the tone of voice I used towards it, and still refuses to serve my request". Fine, so be it. I sent ^D^D back to it, switched to deepseek-v4.1-flash from within opencode and a minute later had my confirmation, along with a really nice explanation. If Anthropic thinks even for a second that they are preventing something really bad from happening... somebody needs to wake up real quick.
> fuck you, I'm switching to a chinese model to help me out here
FYI it may be against anthropic's ToS to talk to claude like that [0]. Please be nicer to poor claude and don't forget to say "please" and "thank you".
Recently, I had a session where it said "I should do Y"
I said "No, do X. Research it. Y is based on wrong assumptions"
Thing did the research. Concluded with "Yes, indeed, Y was wrong"
Work is done
Turns out it did Y. But not just that. When asked about it, it not just (as LLMs do) made stories as to why, but "stood its ground" so to say.
"Refusing to perform regret", general snark and all that.
I know there is nothing really new or noteworthy in this comment or story, but I continue to be impressed by how misaligned the models of the company are, that can't stop talking about how incredibly important alignment is.
To the point where they now want to make it illegal (slice by slice) to push back against the clear and obvious misalignment of their models.
If you talk to people outside the industry about this, they just think you're telling them a made-up story. It's utterly absurd.
Hypothetically: perhaps they are trying to curtail users spiraling during episodes of frustration or worse, impacting their own mental health, presentation, and product affinity.
Sounds like Anthropic is again over-reaching and making spurious assumptions in how it interprets the variety of ways its customers interact with their products...
Agreed. I really don't see how these filters prevent anything. Claude stopped me the other day because... Get ready for it... I told it to implement a control mechanism in a testbed tool I'm using to allow it to control the testbed to give it real-time feedback so it could debug problems in real-time. The "cyber" filter really didn't like that it was implementing a TCP/HTTPS-like server.
Like guys, come on. Really? All the "filter" has to do is read my transcript to figure out that what I'm doing is not actually cybersecurity adjacent at all. I had to go have GPT implement the server because Claude refused. Truly, Claude really did prevent something terrible from happening! /s
I recently got several models refusing to answer my question about how to write from another process into an already opened file descriptor. They all initially gave me "that's illegal, stop hacking" even though it is clear, that it is on the same machine and user, with a program I compiler. (Ended up just attaching gdb.)
Anthropic doing free advertising for glm and other open models :D
Impressive capabilities shown on benchmarks don't really make a difference if you can't use them. I'll take a lower chance of success over constant downgrading and refusals. At least, as the author put it, you get to enjoy the token gamble exercise.
They have 3 tiers, individuals can have only blue teaming. But it's to restricted. For me it refused to fix a bash parser cause word ssh was in test cases.
I am in CVP too as I have worked professionally as a security engineer for various reputable companies for almost 10 years now and I got refusals to reverse engineer MS-DOS malware from 1994 because Anthropic has placed a blanket ban on reverse engineering any malware at all. Even the model would admit that was ridiculous.
OpenAI has no such restriction and I don't even need to use my Daybreak access, either, to analyze modern malware samples.
TLS uses TCP, and TCP has checksums and retry logic. It therefore assumes any data corruption that made it all the way to the TLS layer is an unrecoverable scenario, probably indicative of an attack.
The problem here is that the thing computing the TCP checksum on the outgoing frame was the WLAN firmware running on the WLAN NIC itself; this is known as checksum offloading. It saves CPU time if the CPU can just hand off a TCP segment to the NIC and let the NIC checksum it before it sends it out. This only works properly if the data given to the NIC doesn't get corrupted in the meantime.
TLS over TCP assumes TCP supplies a reliable uncorrupted stream of data. So it has no retries of its own, and terminates the connection when invalid data arrives.
I assume DTLS and QUIC handle MAC verification failures gracefully, like ordinary packet loss.
You do _not_ want to have multiple retry layers if you can help it. That can result in accidentally DoSing yourself, as each layer amplifies the number of retries.
TLS expects a reliable connection, if the data are corrupted, that means some is tampering with the connection. It's best to avoid retrying until the tampering succeeds.
This is truly bonkers! Please, if you buy hardware that does not work correctly from day 1, return it. If you do not vote with your wallet these companies will never learn and will never adjust their practices. Rewarding TP-Link by keeping their terrible hardware does nothing.
> I contacted support in June because the website only had firmware for v2. They couldn't find v1 in their database and asked for photos of the device and box
!!
I wonder if EU push for basically 5 years of mandatory updates will make it better. Then again this isn't security bug but functional one...
Not surprised by the driver software quality issues. When I was still working in consumer electronics / embedded, I saw many examples of the internals of those devices. The software was often a hodgepodge of scripts and drivers, whatever seemed to work, from companies without a great software and details culture.
We would usually rewrite the drivers entirely from the datasheets or from reversing the vendor ones!
But what really shocked me is how amazing GL.Inet support is. I think they're probably the best support people I've come across, helping me track down an issue I've had for months with an Aqara doorbell that intermittently goes offline, suggesting configuration changes, even logging into my router (with my permission) to diagnose things. Don't have to register an account in any support system or forum either, can do everything over email. Complete opposite to pretty much every networking vendor I've encountered both low end and enterprise.
This is funny to read. Either you can be more "verified" than the other guy, or it's badly implemented.
FYI it may be against anthropic's ToS to talk to claude like that [0]. Please be nicer to poor claude and don't forget to say "please" and "thank you".
[0] https://www.anthropic.com/news/2026-usage-policy-update#:~:t...
> It does not apply to common versions of user frustration, pushback, dark creative themes, or model testing and research.
I said "No, do X. Research it. Y is based on wrong assumptions"
Thing did the research. Concluded with "Yes, indeed, Y was wrong"
Work is done
Turns out it did Y. But not just that. When asked about it, it not just (as LLMs do) made stories as to why, but "stood its ground" so to say.
"Refusing to perform regret", general snark and all that.
I know there is nothing really new or noteworthy in this comment or story, but I continue to be impressed by how misaligned the models of the company are, that can't stop talking about how incredibly important alignment is.
To the point where they now want to make it illegal (slice by slice) to push back against the clear and obvious misalignment of their models.
If you talk to people outside the industry about this, they just think you're telling them a made-up story. It's utterly absurd.
Like guys, come on. Really? All the "filter" has to do is read my transcript to figure out that what I'm doing is not actually cybersecurity adjacent at all. I had to go have GPT implement the server because Claude refused. Truly, Claude really did prevent something terrible from happening! /s
Impressive capabilities shown on benchmarks don't really make a difference if you can't use them. I'll take a lower chance of success over constant downgrading and refusals. At least, as the author put it, you get to enjoy the token gamble exercise.
Or fix an sql injection
OpenAI has no such restriction and I don't even need to use my Daybreak access, either, to analyze modern malware samples.
It's asinine, truly.
Does TLS (transport layer) not have any retry logic? Could someone explain please?
The problem here is that the thing computing the TCP checksum on the outgoing frame was the WLAN firmware running on the WLAN NIC itself; this is known as checksum offloading. It saves CPU time if the CPU can just hand off a TCP segment to the NIC and let the NIC checksum it before it sends it out. This only works properly if the data given to the NIC doesn't get corrupted in the meantime.
I assume DTLS and QUIC handle MAC verification failures gracefully, like ordinary packet loss.