Kevin Karhan :verified:<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://fedi.sillykittens.net/@k4m1" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>k4m1</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@stman" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>stman</span></a></span> yeah, according to <a href="http://realtek.info/pdf/rtl8139cp.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">the</a> <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/RTL8139" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>RTL8139</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/datasheet" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>datasheet</span></a> this is basically a very cheap 10/100M NIC designed <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/embedded" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>embedded</span></a> systems and low-end/low-cost desktops, and for a device designed and sold in 2006 it made sense, given back then <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/Gigabit" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Gigabit</span></a>-<a href="https://infosec.space/tags/Ethernet" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Ethernet</span></a> and Cat.5 cabling was considered high-end.</p><ul><li>And unlike contemporary / successor chips by <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/Intel" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Intel</span></a> like the famous <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/i210" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>i210</span></a> (which is still offered as <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/i219" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>i219</span></a> but mostly succeeded by the <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/i225" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>i225</span></a> as a 2,5GBase-T version) is way cheaper, which pre-<a href="https://infosec.space/tags/RoHS" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>RoHS</span></a> - NICs being sold for like € 10 <em>retail & brand-new</em>....</li></ul><p>The <a href="https://wiki.osdev.org/RTL8139" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">few issues known</a> only affect like <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/Virtualization" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Virtualization</span></a> setups, a market this thing was never designed for (most likely also never tested against).</p><ul><li>I'd not he surprised if a lot of cheap <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/ThinClients" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ThinClients</span></a> and other systems used these NICs because of the simplicity of integration, being a cheap 3,3V single-chip (+auxilliary electronics) solution and propably costling less than 10¢ on a reel of 10.000.</li></ul><p>It's the reason why to this day we see <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/Realtek" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Realtek</span></a> NICs being shipped instead of fanning-out & enabling <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/SoC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>SoC</span></a>-integrated NICs with a <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/MAC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MAC</span></a> & <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/PHY" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PHY</span></a> instead: Because the auxilliary parts for those are more expensive than just getting a PCI(e lane) somewhere and plonking it down.</p><ul><li>Maybe there have even been some really cheap, low-end <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/Routers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Routers</span></a> / <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/Firewalls" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Firewalls</span></a> aiming at <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/SoHo" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>SoHo</span></a> customers back in those days, cuz back then 16MBit/s <a href="https://infosec.space/tags/ADSL2" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ADSL2</span></a> was considered fast, and Realtek's NICs up until recently only delivered like 60-75% of the max. speed advertised, so by the time someone would notice, that gearvwould've been EoL'd anyway and those who did notice right-away never were the target audience to begin with.</li></ul><p>Most modern NICs are more complex and demand more configuration / driver support...</p>