A security audit for kernel v2.4.36, uClibc, busybox and hostapd (or broadcom-wl/ nas) of that >vintage is going to be …'interesting', you may get the rubber stamp, but not the t-shirt.
Granted - but it entirely depends on the use case. I would not put an AP like this on a private network but if it's a wifi network given over to the general public I don't give a fig if someone breaks into it. Worst case is it becomes no worse than your garden variety Starbucks wifi network. Use At Your Own Risk. Probably better since it's so underpowered if someone tried using it as a mule they would just make it fall down on it's face.
Apparently, you yourself don't really consider it viable, if I may quote your previous post:
That was for the WNR2000v3 of which I have 1 specimen. I have 3 of the WNR1000v2's and those are used in border case areas and the posted firmware for them in this thread loads and runs fine. Uptimes of months, that sort of thing.
The originator of this thread clearly had a box of WNR1000v2s and decided to compile an image - he did, it worked. He must, like me, be using those devices in areas where it's of no concern if the AP gets broken into because the AP itself is on an untrusted network. Once he had a working image, he was done. Since he had no concerns of security, why update the image with new security patches? My initial post was pointing out that I could not get the WNR2000v3 image to flash. It was mainly a warning/informative to other readers that stumble over the thread and have an old WNR2000v3 that if they can't get it to flash, they aren't the only ones having problems. I was surprised with the OP responding.
If the OP has the toolchain setup, such as on a virtual image, that he could spin up and if he did sufficient documentation to be able to fire up the build environment and recompile, then it shouldn't be at all difficult to fix. As I mentioned the error is "invalid trx" so clearly something was missed during the final conversion of the build into a trx file. Very likely it's simple.
But of course, if he didn't save all of this, then forget it. I know he's not going to spend the hours putting everything back together just to identify an error he might have made 4 years ago and if I really want a working image, I'll have to do it myself - and would I for a router that is worth about $10? Would I to support around 4-5 4/32MB Atheros units I have? No, of course not. Several of the 4/32 Atheros units I have work perfectly with DD-WRT so that's an option. I might possibly do it just to prove I can, but the world is full of cheap wifi units that have support in the 23.x train so once more, I'd be wiser to concentrate on those.
But there may be someone else out there who DOES have a box of 50 or so units which would make it worth their time to spend time reading this thread and trying to update them.
As you noted yourself, the world is no longer centered around Broadcom - and what the world
centers around these days (mt7621, mt7622, filogic 820/ 830/ 880, ipq40xx, ipq806x, ipq807x,
(ipq50xx, ipq60xx), rockchip, sunxi, bcm27xx, x86_64, …) is not content with kernel v2.4 or v2.6 or
v3.x or v4.x or v5.x, they really need at least semi-current versions to function.
Yes, that is for new radios for the AX gear and friends. But, like I said with radio, it hasn't changed.
You are dealing with some fundamental physical laws here, To push higher bandwidth over radio you must use higher radio frequencies, but higher frequencies do not operate like visible light emanating from a light bulb. Arguably, the 2.4Ghz spectrum is ALREADY too high.
There are LOTS of people, homeowners and such, who with the most modern cable modems with included radios, cannot get a wifi signal from one end of the house where the internet modem is, to the other. No problem doing this with an AM radio of course, because construction materials like drywall are transparent to lower frequencies. But lower frequencies are lower bandwidth.
What good is an AX radio when it's propagation range inside of a building is no greater than the 20 year old 24Ghz WRT54g it replaced? Honestly, it's probably going to be lower.
The reason the wifi vendors are pushing this gear is because in order for it to "work" you have to blanket the area with multiple APs. So they get to sell more boxes. $$$$, not understanding of radio, is driving this market.
…this doesn't leave that many options.
But it does. In the large scale wifi network I mentioned - which, incidentally, is in a medical facility - that network is entirely outside of the private network. If employees connect to it, they cannot reach the internal network. They can only reach public facing servers, email, etc. It is no different than if they took a laptop home. All of this was deliberate, and it wasn't to be able to build the network out of old wifi units, it was because if the wifi network DID connect with the internal network then I would have to be sure all hosts on the internal network were locked down. And there's too many of them to be sure of that. So, slight amount of increased nuisance for using the network for employees, a gigantic increase in security. It's a no-brainer.