Author Topic: Reasons for hacking DSOs  (Read 89946 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13196
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #125 on: March 21, 2016, 09:57:40 pm »
AFAIC, sending customers firmware as an upgrade is not secure. Once the firmware is decrypted or the bootloader is cracked, it's game over. Rather than an unlock code being public, now your entire firmware is available to any cloner in china who can reverse engineer your hardware and use your own (very slightly modified, so now it's not a copy) firmware to make a clone product with only a minimal time and effort... completely bypassing the R&D that you put into your product.
Total nonsense. Every oscilloscope has the complete firmware already loaded into its flash memory, which can easily be hacked at low cost in China.

It would be more secure to only put the basic firmware on the instrument and allow the user to download additional apps to improve the functionality of the software. The downloads can be encrypted with the unique key hidden away in a flash IC somewhere and the user only gets the software they have purchased the licence for.

Software allows anyone (including myself) to have a scalable hardware system that can meet the needs of many. The lowest cost offering is enough to cover the cost of the hardware and the development of the basic software. The extra capacity or the capability of the hardware is totally free to use how you see fit - BUT using the software that you illegally circumvented a security scheme  for is not yours to use. If you write your own code - it's yours. If you spend 30 minutes circumventing a key system so that you can have the benefit of the 100's or 1000's of hours of paid efforts of others is not right.
That's total nonsense. I paid for the all the hardware, therefore the software should enable me to be able to use all of it. It costs the developer no extra time to give me the full bandwidth, that was already in the 'scope in the first place. Fair enough, writing a routine to decode I2C does ensure an additional software development costs but the extra bandwidth does not. In fact it's more likely the developer has spent additional time crippling the hardware in the first place!

Quote
Since I sell a product that the food on my table comes from, I want it to remain viable. I have built in various options that add features and performance for a cost. It allows me to capture the customers looking for a lower cost of entry and also be interesting to the higher-end with only a single manufacturing configuration - everyone wins. If a base model needs to be upgraded, there is no downtime. The customer pays for the option, I send a key and they have the feature they wanted. It would be such a disappointment if someone started hacking my product and posting the hack on the internet claiming that it is totally fair because they own the hardware. The option software took me months to work out.
I don't mind paying for additional software options but if you start charging me to use extra memory, bandwidth, speed, etc. which I already have, then you can get lost.
 

Offline rx8pilot

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3513
  • Country: us
  • If you want more money, be more valuable.
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #126 on: March 21, 2016, 10:08:24 pm »
You are exactly the wrong customer for us I guess.

We could, as an alternative, offer 4 or 5 different hardware variants each with it's own fixed features and pricing. When you buy it you are stuck with it forever. If you want another small feature, you have to buy a whole new system for a few $k or so. Your original unit will still work of course, but now you have 99% feature overlap that you do not need. The cost of which one would be higher since we now have to manage 4-5 different designs instead of one. Or, I could simply sell the bare hardware and a good luck charm necklace. Good luck figuring out the software entirely on your own.

I will continue down my road. Being thankful that you are in the minority enough that it is not a real business problem - yet.
Factory400 - the worlds smallest factory. https://www.youtube.com/c/Factory400
 

Online KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3650
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #127 on: March 21, 2016, 10:50:23 pm »
Quote
loaded into its flash memory, which can easily be hacked at low cost in China.
Hmm. I'm not too sure on that. Yeah, I guess it's different when scopes runs on Unix and the code is on separate EEPROMS.

The other thing that I just thought about is the cost of manufacturing. Say you have 3 different upgrades/options. If you load a different firmware/software for each model you have potentially eight different assembly lines and inventory of parts. Or at least you have to switch over your assembly line(s) to make different models and still have to stock 8 different variants. (I believe in most large scale manufacturing the IC's are flashed before the boards are even assembled; not done through ICSP.... that's how I do it, anyway, lol).

Using the same firmware for each model gives you one assembly line and stock of inventory and 8 different labels/housings. In the final step of QA, the device is set to w/e is needed by a tech who doesn't need to have access to the naked firmware.

In a competitive market, increasing profit for the manufacturer is the same thing as reducing cost for the consumer. Is good for all.

Quote
I paid for the all the hardware
I don't know how many times this has been written by other people. This is complete and utter nonsense. When you buy a DSO you are not paying for the hardware! If you want hardware, you can go to mouser and buy the high speed ADCs and BNC connectors and processor and LCD... and you will have nothing.

BTW, as I understand it, a scope that is say 70MHz that can be hacked to 200MHz is not like the manufacturer is locking out the functionality beyond 70MHz. It's just the signal becomes attenuated (more than the minimum 3dB spec or w/e) past 70MHz. It will still work at 71MHz, and even up to 200MHz. I am not familiar with scope design, but perhaps it is possible that in this specific case, the scope is using software to boost/correct the signal to actually get beyond 70MHz?
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 11:20:53 pm by KL27x »
 

Online hamster_nz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2137
  • Country: nz
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #128 on: March 21, 2016, 11:02:23 pm »
Saleae Logic is a good case in point - AFAIK, the hardware is a Cypress FX2 chip with a PID:VID.

$15 for a 'compatible' clone or $109 for the original (in a far nicer case).

Both work just as well, but only one actually supports the team that write the "free to download" software.

I shamefully admit that I have a $15 compatible from a friend that I use quite a bit, but have a real one on my Christmas/Birthday wishlist.

Gaze not into the abyss, lest you become recognized as an abyss domain expert, and they expect you keep gazing into the damn thing.
 

Online KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3650
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #129 on: March 21, 2016, 11:03:58 pm »
I bought the real Logic, first. I ordered a clone when I heard about them on the forum, just to play with.... was thinking of doing some hardware hacking on it add some features.

But I think customs maybe destroyed it, lol. It never arrived. This clone had the gall to actually put "Seleae" on the label.
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13196
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #130 on: March 21, 2016, 11:14:09 pm »
The other thing that I just thought about is the cost of manufacturing. Say you have 3 different upgrades/options. If you load a different firmware/software for each model you have potentially eight different assembly lines and inventory of parts. Or at least you have to switch over your assembly line(s) to make different models and still have to stock 8 different variants. (I believe in most large scale manufacturing the IC's are flashed before the boards are even assembled; not done through ICSP.... that's how I do it, anyway, lol).

Using the same firmware for each model gives you one assembly line and stock of inventory and 8 different labels/housings. In the final step of QA, the device is set to w/e is needed by a tech who doesn't need to have access to the naked firmware.
No, forget the 8 firmware options. Just ship them all with exactly the same basic firmware and even the same labels/housings. No crippling the hardware. Additional software can be supplied on a cheap USB stick which the user can install on purchase.


Quote
I paid for the all the hardware
I don't know how many times this has been written by other people. This is complete and utter nonsense. When you buy a DSO you are not paying for the hardware! If you want hardware, you can go to mouser and buy the high speed ADCs and BNC connectors and processor and LCD... and you will have nothing.
No, it's not nonsense. When I buy a 'scope I do own the hardware. Not only have I paid for all of the parts but I've paid for them to be assembled on to a PCB and packaged in a box, including a good fair share of it towards non-recurring engineering costs, which I accept is probably the lion share of the cost. When I buy a 'scope with 24MB, I've paid for every single MB of that memory, including all of the design costs of getting it to work, irrespective of whether only half of the memory is enabled or not. Demanding a ransom to unlock half of the memory is a clearly a con.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 11:19:48 pm by Hero999 »
 

Online KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3650
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #131 on: March 21, 2016, 11:22:10 pm »
Ok. You win. :wtf:
You own the hardware. You can write your own software to run it.
And we can all buy only top end oscilloscopes, even when we don't need them.

Anyhow, I was responding to the post that said the manufacturers are lazy for not making a different firmware for each model... so your idea of just having one model is a little different and just revolving that initial argument.

Quote
BTW, as I understand it, a scope that is say 70MHz that can be hacked to 200MHz is not like the manufacturer is locking out the functionality beyond 70MHz. It's just the signal becomes attenuated (more than the minimum 3dB spec or w/e) past 70MHz. It will still work at 71MHz, and even up to 200MHz. I am not familiar with scope design, but perhaps it is possible that in this specific case, the scope is using software to boost/correct the signal to actually get beyond 70MHz?
Any thoughts on this? It's not like when you turn your function generator to 71MHz, the screen says "please see your local dealer for an upgrade."
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 11:38:02 pm by KL27x »
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13196
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #132 on: March 21, 2016, 11:32:04 pm »
Ok. You win. :wtf:
You own the hardware. You can write your own software to run it.
That's not my point. I accept that the firmware costs money to write and am happy to fund it. My only demand is that the software doesn't deliberately cripple the hardware I've purchased and I don't have to pay a ransom to use it.

Quote
Quote
BTW, as I understand it, a scope that is say 70MHz that can be hacked to 200MHz is not like the manufacturer is locking out the functionality beyond 70MHz. It's just the signal becomes attenuated (more than the minimum 3dB spec or w/e) past 70MHz. It will still work at 71MHz, and even up to 200MHz. I am not familiar with scope design, but perhaps it is possible that in this specific case, the scope is using software to boost/correct the signal to actually get beyond 70MHz?
Any thoughts on this? It's not like when you turn your function generator to 71MHz, the screen says "please see your local dealer for an upgrade."
I haven't done any tests to confirm this. I bought my Rigol 1054z knowing it's really a 100MHz 'scope with 24MB or memory, not 12MB. Had it not being so trivial to unlock those things I've paid for, I wouldn't have bought it.
 

Online KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3650
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #133 on: March 21, 2016, 11:39:55 pm »
Perfectly fine, except when you says things like this:
Quote
unlock those things I've paid for

So can you just buy another handful of EEPROMS and boost your memory to 48MB? It's that easy, right?  :-DD It doesn't take any design work to get that much information on an EEPROM that fast? No possibility that there is some software trickery through data compression, etc? That maybe took some work? That maybe cost someone some money?

They probably just downloaded 99% of their firmware from the Arduino library, right? :)

I can buy a 128 GB thumb drive for $40.00.. I'm sure I can boost my scope, no problem.

Beside, offering increased memory has been a staple "scam" of our economy for decades. Whether it's physical or just a code unlock... meh. I don't care. This shit is what makes the economy go round. It's how we get to keep borrowing money from China. It's how we continue to live the American dream. It's fully necessary. Without this kind of thing, we have the Great Depression all over again. Give people something to buy... Make them want it... and we all have roofs and AC and food. Without the want, without the dangling carrot, without the push to spend... half of us are out of jobs and this carousel doesn't work anymore. :)

Quote
I haven't done any tests to confirm this.
So you don't even know what your bandwidth hack actually did, other than giving you a warm fuzzy feeling of accomplishment? :)

« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 11:58:01 pm by KL27x »
 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10299
  • Country: gb
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #134 on: March 21, 2016, 11:57:03 pm »
That's total nonsense. I paid for the all the hardware, therefore the software should enable me to be able to use all of it.

By that reasoning, and I use the term loosely, once you have bought the PC hardware all software on it should be free. Or maybe you think it is immoral for Microsoft to charge more for Win*Pro than Win*Home?

A more accurate statement would be that you bought the hardware and you bought low-end software. If you want high end software, you have to pay extra to get it.

There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline rx8pilot

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3513
  • Country: us
  • If you want more money, be more valuable.
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #135 on: March 22, 2016, 12:12:10 am »
HAAS does this kind of thing on CNC milling machines.

There response is that you did not buy the inactive hardware, but they were kind enough to put their property in the machine in the event you choose to pay for it in the future. When you pay the option price, you now own the hardware too. Legally, I doubt that has even a pinch of good standing, but it illustrates the concept reasonably well.

They charge $1000 for an ethernet port and people pay for it. Why? Because they can't get it any other way and their are still many people that are willing to work with RS-232 or USB sticks. The only thing you get for the $1k is the pigtailed RJ-45 on a custom sheet metal plate along with a software key. Done.

If you don't like it, you can buy a Mori, Okuma, etc that cost 3x the price (extra $200k) and have ethernet included. You could hack it and risk bricking your $100k machines while voiding the warranty.
Factory400 - the worlds smallest factory. https://www.youtube.com/c/Factory400
 

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2169
  • Country: au
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #136 on: March 22, 2016, 12:25:33 am »
Quote
1. In today's environment, the practice of 'unlocking' features is quite simply an effective way to ship a product with stable, properly configured FW/SW.
2. It is clear extra features were designed to made available after obtaining the appropriate licence/key through certain channels - eg purchase.  Market segmentation is not evil - it is pragmatic and it is transparent.
3. Accessing these features outside the spirit of the licensing schema is wrong.  Call it what you want - theft, stealing, or whatever.  The bleating about the exact words used is simply SEMANTICS.  Get over it.
4. Saying that a programmer has already been paid for the software on a device is simply short-sighted and a vain attempt to justify wrong actions.  There's a lot of attempting to justify wrong actions.
5. If you want to rewrite the FW/SW yourself to do all sorts of cool stuff, then you aren't benefiting from someone else's work - so, go for it.
I hate to repeat myself, but I don't see anyone else commenting on this.

6. Security of the firmware.

Having been asked to make unlockable features in firmware for a client, I have thought on it and given the following "secure" options, of which they all include flashing the entire firmware onto the chip.
1. Have a simple code to unlock. Just email the code. But once the cat is out of the bag, everyone will have it.
2. Have a mathematic algorhythm query/response for an unlock. Same deal, but at least it might hold up longer.
3. Have a unique random chip ID for each device. Adds expense, and you have to track each product serial number and this must be looked up for each customer requesting an upgrade.

AFAIC, sending customers firmware as an upgrade is not secure. Once the firmware is decrypted or the bootloader is cracked, it's game over. Rather than an unlock code being public, now your entire firmware is available to any cloner in china who can reverse engineer your hardware and use your own (very slightly modified, so now it's not a copy) firmware to make a clone product with only a minimal time and effort... completely bypassing the R&D that you put into your product.

So all this "they put the entire software on the device, because they're lazy and it deserves to be hacked" is nonsense. The software/firmware is the majority of the dev cost on these new DSO's and a very valuable part of the IP, and sending it out to thousands of people, encrypted or not, would be lunacy. Code-protection on the chip is still one of the most secure ways to protect this IP; hence, delivering the product with the full firmware burned on it is very practical from a security standpoint. Forget morality and laziness... this is common sense. Sending a firmware for an upgrade produces all of the same problems as an unlock code, but now you're adding vulnerability of your actual firmware.
And providing the entire firmware/software with all the options inside it is somehow more secure? Copyright very explicitly protects the distribution of the software without the right holders permission, the grey area is these "licenses" that are growing to cover more and more software, they don't have a strong track record in courts but keep getting pushed as legitimate ways to protect the copyright owner when they aren't as strong as the alternatives.

You've chosen one model, and others will choose other models. If I buy software from a seller second hand, I'll use it, the shrink-wrap license should not apply to me. It gets more entertaining when you do these transactions cross border.
 

Online KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3650
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #137 on: March 22, 2016, 01:01:43 am »
Quote
And providing the entire firmware/software with all the options inside it is somehow more secure?

Yes. In my case. (I'm sure there are differences in a modern DSO running unix, though, and sometimes the manufacturer has to issue firmware patches updates etc, anyway... but....) The security of the "upgrade/unlock" is secondary in this case. I'm talking about the ability to clone the entire device. Not to unlock devices I purchase from the manufacturer to get an extra feature. Handing out firmware with an installer is one step closer to posting your source code online. And it doesn't solve any problem.

What's to stop you from buying the upgrade, getting this new firmware, then sharing it? Code locks/registration keys, of course. So why not just use the code lock by itself? As I have shown there are a lot of practical reasons, not just security, why doing separate firmwares is costly. Single firmware is not lazy, it's practical.

To touch base with the OP, I bet most of the hackers are just hobbyists. And most of them probably do it just because other people are doing it. And because higher numbers are better. And just in case they need it in the future. Etc.

As for 24MB vs 12MB.... that is going to make what difference, exactly, in practice? A factor of 10 or 100, yeah, I can imagine some things that tool could do which the lower version could not. A factor of 2?... same thing except for the 1 in 1000 borderline cases where it matters. 12MB is going to be WAY more than enough in most cases. And in most cases where it is not, 24MB is still going to be WAYYY too small.  In 999 out of 1000 cases it does matter... as a selling point. Because bigger numbers are better, and we all want what's better. And that's why it was offered that way in the first place.   :-DD Seriously ironic. That someone would take issue that he's not getting what he "paid for." In a case where the issue at stake is just fluff for the guy that has to have bigger and better (and is willing to pay for it.)
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 02:21:15 am by KL27x »
 

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2169
  • Country: au
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #138 on: March 22, 2016, 02:28:48 am »
Quote
And providing the entire firmware/software with all the options inside it is somehow more secure?

Yes. In my case. (I'm sure there are differences in a modern DSO running unix, though, and sometimes the manufacturer has to issue firmware patches updates etc, anyway... but....) The security of the "upgrade/unlock" is secondary in this case. I'm talking about the ability to clone the entire device. Not to unlock devices I purchase from the manufacturer to get an extra feature. Handing out firmware with an installer is one step closer to posting your source code online. And it doesn't solve any problem.

What's to stop you from buying the upgrade, getting this new firmware, then sharing it? Code locks/registration keys, of course. So why not just use the code lock by itself? As I have shown there are a lot of practical reasons, not just security, why doing separate firmwares is costly. Single firmware is not lazy, it's practical.
I've made it very clear, sharing the code is a copyright infringement, while breaking a license is a contractual issue. Different legal protections, one of which is harmonised worldwide while one is not and requires localisation (and may not be possible in some jurisdictions).

Handing over the entire codebase in a product, with an update, etc, is relying on the contract to keep it from being used. Less protection than copyright, and you can combine both with copyright and licensing for more protection if you do not distribute the entire package to all customers. Handing out the entire software/firmware is cheaper/easier/convenient but offers less legal protection. How can you say it offers more protection?

If you want to discuss cloning and counterfeit products, this really isn't the discussion to derail.
 

Online KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3650
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #139 on: March 22, 2016, 02:33:52 am »
I didn't know that was a derailment. It seemed pertinent, at the time. I guess legal protection is all that matters. Proprietary IP and trade secrets, who cares?  :-//

We all know you can patent code. Oh wait, you can't. So you should just rely on copyright and law to protect your code. Yep. Surely there is no novel code that was written in the pushing of the speed and resolution and refresh rate and fidelity envelope. Nope. Nothing new in recreating phospur brightness and dwell time. That was probably perfected years ago by some dude on an Arduino.  ;D And they can't steal our version/agorythms, because it's copyrighted. ALL they could do is to take this work and improve it to make it better! And who'd want to do that?! (Considering the belief that these companies have license to print money for nothing, I think we ALL would! But I'd be more worried about competing companies. :))

OK, I'm going to get back on my medication. Sorry for the interruption.  >:D :-[
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 03:22:44 am by KL27x »
 

Offline vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5058
  • Country: au
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #140 on: March 22, 2016, 02:46:45 am »
Even though it is seldom done,you can make the same argument for "hardware hacks".

Many years ago,(1988),I was heavily involved in a project to convert a TV Transmitting site,designed for full-time attended operation into one which would  normally operate in an,automatic,unattended mode.

This entailed getting access to the relay/contactor control system of the 1959 vintage Marconi Transmitters,setting up a Programmable Logic Controller to switch these controls in the required sequence,plus add emergency shutdowns in case of failure.

Another necessity,was to provide automatic program source changeover in case of the loss of the active Studio to Transmitter Link.
The installed  (1974 vintage) Marconi video switcher didn't have the ability to also switch audio,so we "reverse-engineered" it to add that facility.
Upon the receipt of the correct relay closure from the PLC,it would switch the Transmitter's video & audio from one source to another as required.

There were many other things that had to be done,but  I can ask the question re the two above ones.

(1)Was there an "implied" facility of automatic operation in the Transmitters,simply from the sequence of control operations used?

(2)Were we "stealing" functionality from the video switcher manufacturer,knowing that they did produce a combined unit?

(1)In this,case,it is unlikely such an argument would hold water,as we designed our controller to duplicate the operations which a Human would perform.
In any case,if we had replaced the Transmitters with new ones it would have almost certainly been from another source,so no loss to Marconi

(2)Maybe,but again there was no loss of sale to Marconi,as replacements would probably have been "Grass Valley' not Marconi.

Of course,Management would have laughed in my face if I had suggested spending several million dollars to assuage my conscience!


Another,"sort of" related thing--

Some years back,I bought an "e-Machines" W7 desktop computer,for $A400--quite a good deal.
It turned out the rotten thing would "crash' at any pretext.

"OK,let's look at the Microsoft pages to find out how to fix this."

Alas,none of the fixes worked,as the computer was shipped with a "dumbed down" version of Windows 7,with some of the more useful functions replaced with proprietary "e-Machines" crap.

Eventually,I could stand it no more,so I bought a proper Windows 7 disc,& did a "clean install".
The thing has run like a dream,ever since!
Of course.it has now cost me $600!

Maybe I should have lived with the dumbed down version,as that is how I bought it!

 



« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 02:50:08 am by vk6zgo »
 

Online tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 16359
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. NZ Siglent Distributor
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #141 on: March 22, 2016, 08:44:17 am »
Quote
1. In today's environment, the practice of 'unlocking' features is quite simply an effective way to ship a product with stable, properly configured FW/SW.
2. It is clear extra features were designed to made available after obtaining the appropriate licence/key through certain channels - eg purchase.  Market segmentation is not evil - it is pragmatic and it is transparent.
3. Accessing these features outside the spirit of the licensing schema is wrong.  Call it what you want - theft, stealing, or whatever.  The bleating about the exact words used is simply SEMANTICS.  Get over it.
4. Saying that a programmer has already been paid for the software on a device is simply short-sighted and a vain attempt to justify wrong actions.  There's a lot of attempting to justify wrong actions.
5. If you want to rewrite the FW/SW yourself to do all sorts of cool stuff, then you aren't benefiting from someone else's work - so, go for it.
I hate to repeat myself, but I don't see anyone else commenting on this.

6. Security of the firmware.

Having been asked to make unlockable features in firmware for a client, I have thought on it and given the following "secure" options, of which they all include flashing the entire firmware onto the chip.
1. Have a simple code to unlock. Just email the code. But once the cat is out of the bag, everyone will have it.
2. Have a mathematic algorhythm query/response for an unlock. Same deal, but at least it might hold up longer.
3. Have a unique random chip ID for each device. Adds expense, and you have to track each product serial number and this must be looked up for each customer requesting an upgrade.


That's pretty much the Siglent model for their IP protection and thus far it's been robust.

Enabling options and factory set BW's use SN #'s and unique unit ID hexadecimal codes for generation of activation codes and to date AFAIK this method has not been cracked.

However leaving Telnet access open on their SDG2000X series AWG's must have been an oversight.  :palm:
Avid Rabid Hobbyist
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13196
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #142 on: March 22, 2016, 08:59:47 am »
Perfectly fine, except when you says things like this:
Quote
unlock those things I've paid for

So can you just buy another handful of EEPROMS and boost your memory to 48MB? It's that easy, right?  :-DD It doesn't take any design work to get that much information on an EEPROM that fast? No possibility that there is some software trickery through data compression, etc? That maybe took some work? That maybe cost someone some money?

Of course it costs money. I've already paid for the RAM and development costs of writing the software to transfer the data to it quickly. Whether it's unlocked or not I've still paid good money for it.

Quote
Beside, offering increased memory has been a staple "scam" of our economy for decades. Whether it's physical or just a code unlock... meh. I don't care. This shit is what makes the economy go round. It's how we get to keep borrowing money from China. It's how we continue to live the American dream. It's fully necessary. Without this kind of thing, we have the Great Depression all over again. Give people something to buy... Make them want it... and we all have roofs and AC and food. Without the want, without the dangling carrot, without the push to spend... half of us are out of jobs and this carousel doesn't work anymore.
You Americans keep forgetting that not everyone lives in a place with all the BS and get along quite fine. This kind of rubbish is holding the economy back, rather than advancing it.

Quote
We all know you can patent code.
And the result is not people being rewarded for their development costs but patent trolls who make it difficult for everyone else to innovate.

That's total nonsense. I paid for the all the hardware, therefore the software should enable me to be able to use all of it.

By that reasoning, and I use the term loosely, once you have bought the PC hardware all software on it should be free. Or maybe you think it is immoral for Microsoft to charge more for Win*Pro than Win*Home?

A more accurate statement would be that you bought the hardware and you bought low-end software. If you want high end software, you have to pay extra to get it.
That's totally different since, apart from a small amount of firmware, the software is purchased separately. The hardware is fully operational and the means to use it fully documented. You could install another operating system than Windows free of charge if you wish. The practice of bundling Windows has caused Microsoft problems with those who disagree with the EULA and demand to be refunded for the software.
That's pretty much the Siglent model for their IP protection and thus far it's been robust.

Enabling options and factory set BW's use SN #'s and unique unit ID hexadecimal codes for generation of activation codes and to date AFAIK this method has not been cracked.

However leaving Telnet access open on their SDG2000X series AWG's must have been an oversight.  :palm:
And as a result, they've lost numerous customers to Rigol.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 09:02:13 am by Hero999 »
 

Offline Warhawk

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 463
  • Country: 00
    • Personal resume
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #143 on: March 22, 2016, 09:22:01 am »
What does whether or not you think I'm an idiot who can't make use of the features have to do with whether using something I bought is theft?

Bloody hell there are some stupid, stupid people on this forum.

Some of them don't even understand that manufacturing a device with the same binary file is milion times cheaper and faster than having customer-specific binaries for every single customer....
You're buying a scope, not a car. Deal with it.  8)

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10299
  • Country: gb
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #144 on: March 22, 2016, 09:31:07 am »
Start addressing, not avoiding, the point being made.

Stop making false statements. Start making arguments based on correct facts and coherent reasoning.

That's total nonsense. I paid for the all the hardware, therefore the software should enable me to be able to use all of it.

By that reasoning, and I use the term loosely, once you have bought the PC hardware all software on it should be free. Or maybe you think it is immoral for Microsoft to charge more for Win*Pro than Win*Home?

A more accurate statement would be that you bought the hardware and you bought low-end software. If you want high end software, you have to pay extra to get it.
That's totally different since, apart from a small amount of firmware, the software is purchased separately.

False, in most cases. Most people buy a software+hardware bundle.

Quote
The hardware is fully operational and the means to use it fully documented. You could install another operating system than Windows free of charge if you wish.

False in many cases: see UEFI.

There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline XynxNet

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 183
  • Country: de
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #145 on: March 22, 2016, 09:36:15 am »
For me morally it comes down to:
Do you believe the manufacturers claimed cost for the upgrade?
In some cases, like the resolution crippled thermo cams, I really doubt that.
 

Offline Warhawk

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 463
  • Country: 00
    • Personal resume
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #146 on: March 22, 2016, 09:36:44 am »
Selling someone a piece of hardware but only allowing them to use half of the memory/bandwidth is stealing.

Hacking the firmware is not stealing. It may be considered to be copyright violation but it isn't stealing because the person who wrote the software still has the code. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STEAL SOFTWARE!

I am wondering what kind of coffee you're drinking ? ;)

Online tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 16359
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. NZ Siglent Distributor
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #147 on: March 22, 2016, 09:38:12 am »
That's pretty much the Siglent model for their IP protection and thus far it's been robust.

Enabling options and factory set BW's use SN #'s and unique unit ID hexadecimal codes for generation of activation codes and to date AFAIK this method has not been cracked.

However leaving Telnet access open on their SDG2000X series AWG's must have been an oversight.  :palm:
And as a result, they've lost numerous customers to Rigol.
It might appear that way on this forum, but I don't have the sales stats to confirm or deny, do you?
Avid Rabid Hobbyist
 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10299
  • Country: gb
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #148 on: March 22, 2016, 10:55:01 am »
For me morally it comes down to:
Do you believe the manufacturers claimed cost for the upgrade?

If you want to pursue your argument further, start by stating what you mean by "cost". Cost including the very significant amortised NRE costs? Marginal production cost? Including/excluding sales and support costs? Most engineers haven't got a clue as to the order of magnitude of those costs.

Even apart from that: no, it shouldn't. Vendors can choose any price they want when selling you something. You can choose to pay that price or not. If too few people pay the manufacturer will either reduce the price or stop selling it.

The only exception is, and should be, where the state controls prices to prevent dangerous profiteering - but obviously that's irreelvant in this case.

There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 9409
  • Country: au
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #149 on: March 22, 2016, 11:05:54 am »
Selling someone a piece of hardware but only allowing them to use half of the memory/bandwidth is stealing.

How can denying access to something that they never had be stealing?  How can selling someone exactly what was on the spec. sheet for the stated price a problem?

Jumping into a straw man argument, methinks.


Quote
Hacking the firmware is not stealing. It may be considered to be copyright violation but it isn't stealing because the person who wrote the software still has the code. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STEAL SOFTWARE!
Semantics.  The action is still wrong.


So - the next time you take a flight somewhere, you buy your economy ticket and when you get on the plane decide you want to occupy a business class seat - or maybe first class ... and your argument is 'I bought a seat on this plane - and I want that one!'

No different to advanced software features.

You didn't pay for the feature, so you aren't entitled to make use of it.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf