RUT950 Bootloader - where to download?

I have a problem similar to this:

RUT955 Bootloader - where to download? - NETWORKING SOLUTIONS - Teltonika Community.

@Caner

Been searching for days until I found the above case. In my case it’s a RUT950 and the device is bricked. I’ll really appreciate if I can get Uboot file(s).
Again, what I need is the bootloader (uboot) NOT firmware.

Thanks in advance!

1 Like

Hello,

Thank you for reaching out.

Could you confirm if you have attempted to upload the RutOS firmware file via the u-boot page, if it is accessible? In some cases, this can restore the device without needing a separate u-boot version upgrade.

Best regards,

Hello Martynas,

Here’s a summary of the issue I’m experiencing:

1. I upgraded the firmware from RUT9XX_R_00.06.09.5 to RUT9_R_00.07.06.13 via the bootloader menu.
2. After the upgrade, I restored a previously backed-up configuration that was running on the device.
3. Post-restoration, the device began exhibiting the following issues:

  • Configuration changes are not saved. Any modifications made are reverted after a reboot.
  • Downgrading to the previous firmware or upgrading to the latest version via the bootloader menu hasn’t doesn’t even work because once the device boots up, it goes straight back to exactly how it was before (back to the firmware I upgraded to before the issue began).
  • Restoring to factory defaults (including via CLI) also hasn’t worked. After each attempt, the device reverts to firmware version RUT9_R_00.07.06.13 along with the restored backup configuration.
  • System utilization shows abnormal behavior, with RAM usage stuck at 100%, even though RAM Buffered and Flash Used percentages appear normal (e.g., 20% and 12%, respectively).

Given these observations, I suspect that upgrading the bootloader might resolve the issue and allow the device to properly update or downgrade to a different firmware version.

I’ll greatly appreciate any advice on the next steps or provide guidance on how to proceed.

Thank you for your assistance.

Hello,

Thank you for providing detailed information about the issue.

Just to clarify, after the RUT9_R_00.07.06.13 firmware was installed and a factory reset was performed, the device should have removed all previous configurations and returned to its default settings without returning to previous firmware.

As a next step, could you try downgrading the RutOS firmware through the WebUI? You can do this by navigating to System → Firmware and manually uploading the older or latest available version. Once downgraded, check if the same behavior persists.

Please let me know the results, and we can proceed with further troubleshooting.

Best regards,

Yes, this is exactly what I expect. But that’s not the case. After Factory Reset, everything remains the same as though nothing was done.

I’ve attempted this several times, but there have been no changes. In fact, I just tried it again based on your suggestion, and the behavior persists. When I follow this method, the device appears to format and upload the firmware, but once it boots up, it behaves as though nothing new was done.

When I use the bootloader route, the device only accepts the legacy firmware. After uploading the legacy firmware via the bootloader UI, it acts as though it’s upgrading or updating. However, once the process is complete and the device boots up, no changes are applied—it remains the same.

For example:
The LAN IP on the device is 172.16.186.1. After any upgrade or downgrade (via the bootloader), the device’s LAN IP should reset to 192.168.1.1. However, it still maintains 172.16.186.1, as though no action was taken.

For additional context: In the bootloader menu, I must change my PC’s IP to be within the router’s LAN IP network range of 192.168.1.0. But after uploading the legacy firmware, the device boots back up with 172.16.186.1 instead of resetting.

I’ve tried both legacy firmware versions:

  • RUT9_R_00.07.06.13_WEBUI.bin (Mass Production Firmware)
  • RUT9XX_R_00.06.09.5_WEBUI.bin (Latest Legacy Firmware)

Unfortunately, the results are the same with both versions.

1 Like

@Martynas @Caner