23 Jun
2015
23 Jun
'15
10:57 a.m.
Some years ago, I wrote about a clone of the Beeprog (made by Elnec) I
bought here locally in Brazil.
Now, seems chinese are cloning the Beeprog PLUS (!!!)
I got a Beeprog+ in the used market here in Brazil. Asked for Elnec
warranty, since the programmer was manufactured in (month)11(year)2012. It
all went well up to the serial number.
It was made past the stop manufacture date. It stopped manufacturing in
07/2012.
Seems I got another hot potato on my hand :'(
Pay atention on that!
---
Enviado do meu Apple IIGS (pq eu sou chique)
Meu site: http://www.tabalabs.com.br
Meu blog: http://tabajara-labs.blogspot.com
23 Jun
23 Jun
11:22 a.m.
On 06/23/2015 07:57 AM, Alexandre Souza wrote:
Some years ago, I wrote about a clone of the Beeprog (made by Elnec)
I bought here locally in Brazil.
Now, seems chinese are cloning the Beeprog PLUS (!!!)
I got a Beeprog+ in the used market here in Brazil. Asked for Elnec
warranty, since the programmer was manufactured in (month)11(year)2012.
It all went well up to the serial number.
It was made past the stop manufacture date. It stopped manufacturing
in 07/2012.
Seems I got another hot potato on my hand :'(
Pay atention on that!
I can understand Elnec's distress over the cloning of their product, but
they did themselves no favor by taking the approach described here:
"...The manufacturer of the fake BeeProgs stole our logo and
intellectual property by manufacturing fake copies of BeeProg
programmer. This "product" uses also our software and users of this fake
BeeProg are asking for our free technical support. Although the copy of
the BeeProg programmer is done well, the manufactures of the fake
BeeProg overlooked few details. Result is, the fake BeeProg unit differs
from the original, visible for the software. We've
used one of these
differences - it is not a serial number - and our software could
detect
this fake hardware. If PG4UW software detects a fake hardware, it shows
message "Fake programmer unit detected!" and programmer will no longer work.
If you're facing such situation, contact please the vendor, where from
you bought the programmer, for full credit return. Or you can take this
vendor to court for selling a fake products. We regret, we could not
provide any assistance in this case..."
In the USA, they would probably end up as the target of legal action,
since refusing to do the update is legitimate, but disabling the device
is a no-no. It amounts basically to theft of a product from the
(unaware) owner--sort of an extra-judicial vigilante killing.
This reminds me of early failed floppy-copy-protection schemes.
Fortunately, there are solutions to restore functionality to the clone
Beeprog. I do not know if the same obtains for the clone Plus.
--Chuck
11:33 a.m.
On 2015-06-23 17:22, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 06/23/2015 07:57 AM, Alexandre Souza wrote:
I doubt there any legal problems with their course of action. They are
not obliged to ensure that their software works correctly on a pirate
copy of their hardware.
If they add some additional checks, and they trap out on a clone, I
doubt that could be considered illegal. They do not try to destroy your
device. Their software just refuse to run. And I can't see it other than
they are in their right to do that. Talk with the manufacturer of the
clone for a software update from them instead.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Some years ago, I wrote about a clone of the Beeprog (made by Elnec)
I bought here locally in Brazil.
Now, seems chinese are cloning the Beeprog PLUS (!!!)
I got a Beeprog+ in the used market here in Brazil. Asked for Elnec
warranty, since the programmer was manufactured in (month)11(year)2012.
It all went well up to the serial number.
It was made past the stop manufacture date. It stopped manufacturing
in 07/2012.
Seems I got another hot potato on my hand :'(
Pay atention on that!
I can understand Elnec's distress over the cloning of their product, but
they did themselves no favor by taking the approach described here:
"...The manufacturer of the fake BeeProgs stole our logo and
intellectual property by manufacturing fake copies of BeeProg
programmer. This "product" uses also our software and users of this fake
BeeProg are asking for our free technical support. Although the copy of
the BeeProg programmer is done well, the manufactures of the fake
BeeProg overlooked few details. Result is, the fake BeeProg unit differs
from the original, visible for the software. We've used one of these
differences - it is not a serial number - and our software could detect
this fake hardware. If PG4UW software detects a fake hardware, it shows
message "Fake programmer unit detected!" and programmer will no longer
work.
If you're facing such situation, contact please the vendor, where from
you bought the programmer, for full credit return. Or you can take this
vendor to court for selling a fake products. We regret, we could not
provide any assistance in this case..."
In the USA, they would probably end up as the target of legal action,
since refusing to do the update is legitimate, but disabling the device
is a no-no. It amounts basically to theft of a product from the
(unaware) owner--sort of an extra-judicial vigilante killing.
11:59 a.m.
I doubt there any legal problems with their course of
action. They are
not obliged to ensure that their software works correctly on a pirate copy
of their hardware.
If they add some additional checks, and they trap out on a clone, I doubt
that could be considered illegal. They do not try to destroy your device.
Their software just refuse to run. And I can't see it other than they are
in their right to do that. Talk with the manufacturer of the clone for a
software update from them instead.
If you use a software newer than 2.62, it bricks your clone device.
Period.
12:03 p.m.
On 2015-06-23 17:59, Alexandre Souza wrote:
Yes. Ask the manufacturer of the device to fix it. Do you really expect
that someone who have nothing to do with the device has any
responsibility here? You (or whoever) install software that was not
intended for the device on it anyway, and then you blame the maker of
that software.
Do you also try to install OS-X on a DELL laptop, and claim that it's
Apples fault that your DELL machine don't work? (God knows what
interesting things might happen if you actually try this...)
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
I doubt there any legal problems with their
course of action. They are
not obliged to ensure that their software works correctly on a pirate
copy of their hardware.
If they add some additional checks, and they trap out on a clone, I
doubt that could be considered illegal. They do not try to destroy
your device. Their software just refuse to run. And I can't see it
other than they are in their right to do that. Talk with the
manufacturer of the clone for a software update from them instead.
If you use a software newer than 2.62, it bricks your clone device.
Period. 
12:10 p.m.
On Jun 23, 2015, at 12:03 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt
at Update.UU.SE> wrote:
On 2015-06-23 17:59, Alexandre Souza wrote:
Yes. Ask the manufacturer of the device to fix it. Do you really expect that someone who
have nothing to do with the device has any responsibility here? You (or whoever) install
software that was not intended for the device on it anyway, and then you blame the maker
of that software.
It depends. If the failure is an accidental side effect of a failed attempt to talk to
the device, that?s excusable. If the code goes out of its way to disable the device, it
is not. It?s a bit like bringing your Ford to a Chevy garage. A result of ?I can?t fix
that? is fine. Having the technicians pull out the spark plugs and say ?ok, here is your
car back? is not.
I doubt there any legal problems with their
course of action. They are
not obliged to ensure that their software works correctly on a pirate
copy of their hardware.
If they add some additional checks, and they trap out on a clone, I
doubt that could be considered illegal. They do not try to destroy
your device. Their software just refuse to run. And I can't see it
other than they are in their right to do that. Talk with the
manufacturer of the clone for a software update from them instead.
If you use a software newer than 2.62, it bricks your clone device.
Period.
Do you also try to install OS-X on a DELL laptop, and claim that it's Apples fault
that your DELL machine don't work? (God knows what interesting things might happen if
you actually try this...)
Most likely it will detect the wrong hardware and simply say ?not supported? and stop.
But it won?t wipe the device BIOS in retaliation.
paul
12:32 p.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Paul
Koning
Sent: 23 June 2015 17:10
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: [RANT]False Beeprog. AGAIN.
They have deliberately damaged it. If using software you don't own is THEFT as the
various copyright organizations want us to believe then this is Criminal Damage and
Vandalism.
This backfired badly on FTDI ....
On Jun 23, 2015, at 12:03 PM, Johnny Billquist
<bqt at Update.UU.SE> wrote:
On 2015-06-23 17:59, Alexandre Souza wrote:
Yes. Ask the manufacturer of the device to fix it. Do you really expect that
someone who have nothing to do with the device has any responsibility
here? You (or whoever) install software that was not intended for the device
on it anyway, and then you blame the maker of that software. I doubt there any legal problems with their
course of action. They
are not obliged to ensure that their software works correctly on a
pirate copy of their hardware.
If they add some additional checks, and they trap out on a clone, I
doubt that could be considered illegal. They do not try to destroy
your device. Their software just refuse to run. And I can't see it
other than they are in their right to do that. Talk with the
manufacturer of the clone for a software update from them instead.
If you use a software newer than 2.62, it bricks your clone device.
Period.
It depends. If the failure is an accidental side effect of a failed attempt to talk
to the device, that?s excusable. If the code goes out of its way to disable the
device, it is not. It?s a bit like bringing your Ford to a Chevy garage. A result
of ?I can?t fix that? is fine. Having the technicians pull out the spark plugs and
say ?ok, here is your car back? is not.
Pretty common these days...
http://www.macworld.com/article/1140818/hackbook.html
Do you also try to install OS-X on a DELL laptop, and claim that it's
Apples fault that your DELL machine don't work? (God knows what
interesting things might happen if you actually try this...)
Most likely it will detect the wrong hardware and
simply say ?not supported?
and stop. But it won?t wipe the device BIOS in retaliation.
paul
Dave
G4UGM
12:32 p.m.
On 2015-06-23 18:10, Paul Koning wrote:
But unless I misunderstood things, the software merely does a check if
the hardware looks sane, and if not it displays a message saying that
this is the wrong hardware, and it refuses to continue running.
What if it accidentally do write something to some NVR just by the
process of trying to detect if the hardware makes sense? (We had that
problem with NetBSD on VAX 4000 machines for many years, where it tried
to probe for some hardware which on that specific machine actually was
some NVRAM with parameters that NetBSD smashed.)
And I would also hope it would just display a message, and then refuse
to continue.
Where is the difference?
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
On Jun 23, 2015, at 12:03 PM, Johnny Billquist
<bqt at Update.UU.SE> wrote:
On 2015-06-23 17:59, Alexandre Souza wrote:
Yes. Ask the manufacturer of the device to fix it. Do you really expect that someone who
have nothing to do with the device has any responsibility here? You (or whoever) install
software that was not intended for the device on it anyway, and then you blame the maker
of that software.
It depends. If the failure is an accidental side effect of a failed attempt to talk to
the device, that?s excusable. If the code goes out of its way to disable the device, it
is not. It?s a bit like bringing your Ford to a Chevy garage. A result of ?I can?t fix
that? is fine. Having the technicians pull out the spark plugs and say ?ok, here is your
car back? is not. I doubt there any legal problems with their
course of action. They are
not obliged to ensure that their software works correctly on a pirate
copy of their hardware.
If they add some additional checks, and they trap out on a clone, I
doubt that could be considered illegal. They do not try to destroy
your device. Their software just refuse to run. And I can't see it
other than they are in their right to do that. Talk with the
manufacturer of the clone for a software update from them instead.
If you use a software newer than 2.62, it bricks your clone device.
Period. Do you also
try to install OS-X on a DELL laptop, and claim that it's Apples fault that your DELL
machine don't work? (God knows what interesting things might happen if you actually
try this...)
Most likely it will detect the wrong hardware and simply say ?not supported? and stop.
But it won?t wipe the device BIOS in retaliation.
12:41 p.m.
But unless I misunderstood things, the software merely
does a check if the
hardware looks sane, and if not it displays a message saying that this is
the wrong hardware, and it refuses to continue running.
No Johnny. As I said, it bricks (renders inoperable) your hardware if it
isn't original.
3:01 p.m.
On 2015-06-23 18:41, Alexandre Souza wrote:
Yes. The software refuses to run, and just displays a message that you
are running on fake hardware.
Does that prevent you from loading some other software on said device?
How did you get the "broken" software on the device?
There is a difference between refusing to run, and trying to destroy the
hardware.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
But unless I
misunderstood things, the software merely does a check if
the hardware looks sane, and if not it displays a message saying that
this is the wrong hardware, and it refuses to continue running.
No Johnny. As I said, it bricks (renders inoperable) your hardware
if it isn't original. 
3:13 p.m.
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2015-06-23 18:41, Alexandre Souza wrote:
Yes. The software refuses to run, and just displays a message that you are
running on fake hardware.
Does that prevent you from loading some other software on said device?
How did you get the "broken" software on the device?
There is a difference between refusing to run, and trying to destroy the
hardware.
He's mentioned more than once that this software BRICKS the device. When
something is bricked, that means you might as well treat it like the stone
kind for all the use you're going to get out of it from then on.
It's dead, pushing up daisies, it's run down the curtain to the Choir
Invisible. IT'S BRICKED.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
But
unless I misunderstood things, the software merely does a check if
the hardware looks sane, and if not it displays a message saying that
this is the wrong hardware, and it refuses to continue running.
No Johnny. As I said, it bricks (renders inoperable) your hardware
if it isn't original.
3:23 p.m.
He's mentioned more than once that this software
BRICKS the device. When
something is bricked, that means you might as well treat it like the stone
kind for all the use you're going to get out of it from then on.
In the last message I added (render it unoperable) for the ones who
don't know the slang :)
It's dead, pushing up daisies, it's run down
the curtain to the Choir
Invisible. IT'S BRICKED.
Man, I LOLed with this "pushing up daisies" :D
3:27 p.m.
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Alexandre Souza wrote:
It is most assuredly NOT pining for the fjords! :)
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
He's mentioned more than once that this
software BRICKS the device. When
something is bricked, that means you might as well treat it like the stone
kind for all the use you're going to get out of it from then on.
In the last message I added (render it unoperable) for the ones who don't
know the slang :)
It's dead, pushing up daisies, it's run
down the curtain to the Choir
Invisible. IT'S BRICKED.
Man, I LOLed with this "pushing up daisies" :D
3:41 p.m.
It's dead, pushing up daisies, it's run down
the curtain to the Choir
Invisible. IT'S BRICKED.
Man, I LOLed with this "pushing up
daisies" :D
3:54 p.m.
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Fred Cisin wrote:
It is most assuredly NOT pining for the fjords! :)
It is a relatively common euphemism, and is explicitly included in the
classic Monty Python "Dead Parrot" sketch.
http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/jokes/monty-python-parrot.html
Fred, if there's anyone on this list that DIDN'T get the joke, they need
to turn in their nerd cards.
:)
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
It's dead,
pushing up daisies, it's run down the curtain to the Choir
Invisible. IT'S BRICKED.
Man, I LOLed with this "pushing up
daisies" :D 
4:21 p.m.
On 06/23/2015 03:13 PM, geneb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Should he stick a fork in it?
--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/
Registered Linux user number 464583
"Computers have lots of memory but no imagination."
"The problem with troubleshooting is that trouble shoots back."
- from some guy on the internet.
On 2015-06-23 18:41, Alexandre Souza wrote:
Yes. The software refuses to run, and just displays a message that you
are running on fake hardware.
Does that prevent you from loading some other software on said device?
How did you get the "broken" software on the device?
There is a difference between refusing to run, and trying to destroy
the hardware.
He's mentioned more than once that this software BRICKS the device.
When something is bricked, that means you might as well treat it like
the stone kind for all the use you're going to get out of it from then on.
It's dead, pushing up daisies, it's run down the curtain to the Choir
Invisible. IT'S BRICKED.
g.
But
unless I misunderstood things, the software merely does a check if
the hardware looks sane, and if not it displays a message saying that
this is the wrong hardware, and it refuses to continue running.
No Johnny. As I said, it bricks (renders inoperable) your hardware
if it isn't original.
4:24 p.m.
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
On 06/23/2015 03:13 PM, geneb wrote:
Only after unplugging it first.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Should he stick a fork in it? On 2015-06-23 18:41, Alexandre Souza wrote:
He's mentioned more than once that this software BRICKS the device.
When something is bricked, that means you might as well treat it like
the stone kind for all the use you're going to get out of it from then on.
It's dead, pushing up daisies, it's run down the curtain to the Choir
Invisible. IT'S BRICKED.
g.
> But unless I misunderstood things, the
software merely does a check if
> the hardware looks sane, and if not it displays a message saying that
> this is the wrong hardware, and it refuses to continue running.
No Johnny. As I said, it bricks (renders inoperable) your hardware
if it isn't original.
Yes. The software refuses to run, and just displays a message that you
are running on fake hardware.
Does that prevent you from loading some other software on said device?
How did you get the "broken" software on the device?
There is a difference between refusing to run, and trying to destroy
the hardware.
1 p.m.
On 06/23/2015 09:32 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
But unless I misunderstood things, the software merely
does a check if
the hardware looks sane, and if not it displays a message saying that
this is the wrong hardware, and it refuses to continue running.
You do misunderstand the situation. Elnec has publicly stated that it
checks for one of the illegal clones and subsequently erases the NVRAM.
This is independent of the owner's knowledge or lack thereof, that
he's got a bootleg copy.
The intent is clear, as is the public statement. They're taking a gripe
they have with some Chinese bootleggers and depriving (stealing) the use
of your device because it isn't theirs. That is, they've determined
that the device isn't legitimate and, as a result, disabled it--in lieu
of taking action against a hard-to-pin-down bootlegger.
And, as mentioned, FTDI tried the same approach and got burned badly.
All one needs is a hungry lawyer--class-action cases can pay off big.
--Chuck
3:03 p.m.
On 2015-06-23 19:00, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 06/23/2015 09:32 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
What is in the NVRAM? And how did it get there in the first place? Are
you saying that it is impossible to reprogram the device with some other
firmware after you have tried the version Elnec have which detects your
clone?
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
But unless I misunderstood things, the software
merely does a check if
the hardware looks sane, and if not it displays a message saying that
this is the wrong hardware, and it refuses to continue running.
You do misunderstand the situation. Elnec has publicly stated that it
checks for one of the illegal clones and subsequently erases the NVRAM.
3:38 p.m.
New subject: [RANT] EX-PARROT (Was:False Beeprog. AGAIN.
We have now had conflicting "definitive" statements ranging from "the
software simply displays a message and refuses to run", to "the software
irreparably damages the device"
What is in
the NVRAM? And how did it get there in the first place? Are you
saying that it is impossible to reprogram the device with some other firmware
after you have tried the version Elnec have which detects your clone?
But unless I misunderstood things, the software merely
does a check if
the hardware looks sane, and if not it displays a message saying that
this is the wrong hardware, and it refuses to continue running.
You do
misunderstand the situation. Elnec has publicly stated that it
checks for one of the illegal clones and subsequently erases the NVRAM. It's dead, pushing up daisies, it's run down
the curtain to the Choir
Invisible. IT'S BRICKED.
"C: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He
has ceased
to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed
'im
to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies!
'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig!
'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down
the
curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!"
http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/jokes/monty-python-parrot.html
Some modern devices have been so badly designed that it becomes possible
IN SOFTWARE to erase/rewrite code that is required to boot the device,
and which is required to be able to run code needed to "repair"/rewrite
that code. Thus "brick" the device.
(about a decade ago, we had a thread that included stacking algorithms for
using dead/unwanted commodity devices as construction materials)
Surely any competent designer will provide a way to prevent/recover from
that situation!
That could consist of a physical switch or jumper that must be manually
set before the system can writeover the NVRAM.
OR there could be a second boot ROM in the machine that could be jumpered
into place to enable booting, perhaps to a limited recovery mode, if/when
the primary boot is damaged.
OR, in worst case, the NVRAM could be socketed, and a replacement copy
could be physically installed.
YES, the part(s) could be unsoldered, and replacement soldered in. THAT
does not seem like an acceptable recovery requirement.
Why are such incompetent designers still employed in the industry?
As a classic example of design by marketing, . . .
Vault corporation in a matter of minutes set into action (by announcement
of "Pro-Lock PLUS") a sequence of irreversible events that eliminated the
existence of the company. In an essentially identical situation, of
taking retaliatory action upon detection of a "fake".
Few are aware that Vault apparently NEVER actually sold a single copy of
the announced system.
Do we need to retell THAT saga?
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
3:47 p.m.
New subject: [RANT] EX-PARROT (Was:False Beeprog. AGAIN.
It was thus said that the Great Fred Cisin once stated:
Surely any competent designer will provide a way to prevent/recover from
that situation!
That could consist of a physical switch or jumper that must be manually
set before the system can writeover the NVRAM.
OR there could be a second boot ROM in the machine that could be jumpered
into place to enable booting, perhaps to a limited recovery mode, if/when
the primary boot is damaged.
OR, in worst case, the NVRAM could be socketed, and a replacement copy
could be physically installed.
YES, the part(s) could be unsoldered, and replacement soldered in. THAT
does not seem like an acceptable recovery requirement.
Why are such incompetent designers still employed in the industry?
It could be due to an unforseen situation not considered by the designers.
Several years ago a friend of mine bricked at CAR (BMW I believe---it was a
high end German car in any case). He was updating the firmware on the car
when the power cut out, leaving the firmware in an inconsistent state. The
fix required an engineer from Germany to fly to the US ...
-spc (Some things you just don't think about ... )
3:49 p.m.
New subject: [RANT] EX-PARROT (Was:False Beeprog. AGAIN.
On Jun 23, 2015, at 3:47 PM, Sean Conner <spc at
conman.org> wrote:
...
It could be due to an unforseen situation not considered by the designers.
Several years ago a friend of mine bricked at CAR (BMW I believe---it was a
high end German car in any case). He was updating the firmware on the car
when the power cut out, leaving the firmware in an inconsistent state. The
fix required an engineer from Germany to fly to the US ...
-spc (Some things you just don't think about ? )
True. But any designer who implements firmware update without considering the possibility
of power failure is not qualified for the job.
paul
4:01 p.m.
New subject: [RANT] EX-PARROT (Was:False Beeprog. AGAIN.
> It could be due to an unforseen situation not
considered by the designers.
> Several years ago a friend of mine bricked at CAR (BMW I believe---it was a
> high end German car in any case). He was updating the firmware on the car
> when the power cut out, leaving the firmware in an inconsistent state. The
> fix required an engineer from Germany to fly to the US ...
It surprises me that the firmware was not in a removable module that could
be sent to Germany. It would seem that it would be in some sort of metal
cased, but replaceble ECU, etc.
'course such things can alse get further complicated if they include
security features. Hardly any new lock system has NEVER locked out a
legitimate user.
> -spc (Some things you just don't think about
? )
ABSOLUTELY!
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Paul Koning wrote:
True. But any designer who implements firmware update
without
considering the possibility of power failure is not qualified for the
job.
Well, everybody makes misteaks. I would have thought that that particular
one had become common knowledge, but . . .
4:55 p.m.
New subject: [RANT] EX-PARROT (Was:False Beeprog. AGAIN.
On 2015-06-23 21:49, Paul Koning wrote:
That was my reaction too. Are people seriously saying that even in
normal circumstances, you can brick the device? The most typical failure
mode being if you get a power interruption while flashing new firmware.
If the designers seriously did not take that scenario into
consideration, then we have a more broken design than I would allow for.
And to respond to the people who said I should re-read the original post
where it was stated that it was bricked... Here is the original text,
and there is no mention of bricking.
"...The manufacturer of the fake BeeProgs stole our logo and
intellectual property by manufacturing fake copies of BeeProg
programmer. This "product" uses also our software and users of this fake
BeeProg are asking for our free technical support. Although the copy of
the BeeProg programmer is done well, the manufactures of the fake
BeeProg overlooked few details. Result is, the fake BeeProg unit differs
On Jun 23, 2015, at 3:47 PM, Sean Conner <spc
at conman.org> wrote:
...
It could be due to an unforseen situation not considered by the designers.
Several years ago a friend of mine bricked at CAR (BMW I believe---it was a
high end German car in any case). He was updating the firmware on the car
when the power cut out, leaving the firmware in an inconsistent state. The
fix required an engineer from Germany to fly to the US ...
-spc (Some things you just don't think about ? )
True. But any designer who implements firmware update without considering the
possibility of power failure is not qualified for the job. from the original, visible for the software. We've
used one of these
differences - it is not a serial number - and our software could
detect
this fake hardware. If PG4UW software detects a fake hardware, it shows
message "Fake programmer unit detected!" and programmer will no longer work.
If you're facing such situation, contact please the vendor, where from
you bought the programmer, for full credit return. Or you can take this
vendor to court for selling a fake products. We regret, we could not
provide any assistance in this case..."
Note that the text says "it shows message ''...'' and programmer will
no
longer work."
That by no means means that it is actually bricked. It merely says that
the firmware will not continue past that point.
Now, if someone actually have one of these devices, and can verify that
it actually bricks it, then we can talk. Until then, all I have is the
above information from Elnec, which do not suggest anything beyond
showing a message, and not continuing past that point.
If the manufacturer of the device have not made allowance to recover
from a bad firmware installation, then there is a
problem. But that is
not necessarily something you can blame Elnec for either...
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
5:58 p.m.
New subject: [RANT] EX-PARROT (Was:False Beeprog. AGAIN.
Now, if someone actually have one of these devices,
and can verify that
it actually bricks it, then we can talk. Until then, all I have is the
above information from Elnec, which do not suggest anything beyond
showing a message, and not continuing past that point.
I have, I've seen it be bricked by the software.
6:39 p.m.
New subject: [RANT] EX-PARROT (Was:False Beeprog. AGAIN.
On 2015-Jun-23, at 2:58 PM, Alexandre Souza wrote:
I'm not familiar with the Beeprog in detail, so I'm just asking here...
Now, if
someone actually have one of these devices, and can verify that it actually bricks it,
then we can talk. Until then, all I have is the above information from Elnec, which do not
suggest anything beyond showing a message, and not continuing past that point.
I have, I've seen it be bricked by the software. From what has been said the Beeprog requires a software
controller, I take it it's not a standalone device, and people have been using the
Elnec software to control the counterfeit hardware.
So what exactly does bricked mean here? That, after trying to run it from a new version of
Elnec software, it will no longer run with the earlier version of the ELNEC software from
before the counterfeits came to ELNEC's attention?
As much as a user may be annoyed with that and not endear Elnec to them, it still seems
like that would within Elnec's 'rights' (whatever those are here).
If it will no longer run with software from the counterfeiter, or software one wrote
oneself, then the outrage may be justified.
But did the counterfeiter ever produce their own controller software?
4:05 p.m.
New subject: [RANT] EX-PARROT (Was:False Beeprog. AGAIN.
>> Why are such incompetent designers still
employed in the industry?
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Alexandre Souza wrote:
Eh...this is INTENDED by the company. They want to
fry your clone
programmer, so you can buy an original one... :o\
The retaliatory actions, certainly.
The incompetent designers that I was referring to are those who made a
programmer that COULD be fried.
I remember unsoldering a 28 pin ROM for replacement, and was unhappy that
it hadn't been socketed. My soldering skills (lack therof) would
preclude doing the same on a surface mount device.
4:46 p.m.
New subject: [RANT] EX-PARROT (Was:False Beeprog. AGAIN.
On 06/23/2015 02:47 PM, Sean Conner wrote:
Several years ago a friend of mine bricked at CAR (BMW
I believe---it was a
high end German car in any case). He was updating the firmware on the car
when the power cut out, leaving the firmware in an inconsistent state. The
fix required an engineer from Germany to fly to the US ...
If you know what you're doing, you can toggle in new firmware via the
control for the windshield wipers.
4:20 p.m.
New subject: [RANT] EX-PARROT (Was:False Beeprog. AGAIN.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:38:22PM -0700, Fred Cisin wrote:
We have now had conflicting "definitive"
statements ranging from
"the software simply displays a message and refuses to run", to "the
software irreparably damages the device"
What is in
the NVRAM? And how did it get there in the first place?
Are you saying that it is impossible to reprogram the device with
some other firmware after you have tried the version Elnec have
which detects your clone?
Not necessarily incompetence, but probably penny pinching. Adding a
second firmware flash and the switch to toggle between primary and
secondary and another one to actually allow writing to the firmware
flash in the first place ... you can shave a bit off the BOM. Might
not matter much if you only ever make 5 devices, but over thousands
it adds up ...
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
But unless I misunderstood things, the software merely
does a check if
the hardware looks sane, and if not it displays a message saying that
this is the wrong hardware, and it refuses to continue running.
You do misunderstand
the situation. Elnec has publicly stated that it
checks for one of the illegal clones and subsequently erases the NVRAM. It's dead, pushing up daisies, it's run
down the curtain to the Choir
Invisible. IT'S BRICKED.
"C: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He
has
ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't
nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies!
'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig!
'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down
the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!"
http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/jokes/monty-python-parrot.html
Some modern devices have been so badly designed that it becomes
possible IN SOFTWARE to erase/rewrite code that is required to boot
the device, and which is required to be able to run code needed to
"repair"/rewrite that code. Thus "brick" the device.
(about a decade ago, we had a thread that included stacking
algorithms for using dead/unwanted commodity devices as construction
materials)
Surely any competent designer will provide a way to prevent/recover
from that situation! That could consist of a physical switch or
jumper that must be manually set before the system can writeover the
NVRAM.
OR there could be a second boot ROM in the machine that could be
jumpered into place to enable booting, perhaps to a limited recovery
mode, if/when the primary boot is damaged.
OR, in worst case, the NVRAM could be socketed, and a replacement
copy could be physically installed.
YES, the part(s) could be unsoldered, and replacement soldered in.
THAT does not seem like an acceptable recovery requirement.
Why are such incompetent designers still employed in the industry?
4:05 p.m.
On 06/23/2015 12:03 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
What is in the NVRAM? And how did it get there in the
first place? Are
you saying that it is impossible to reprogram the device with some other
firmware after you have tried the version Elnec have which detects your
clone?
It's possible, but as I understand it, reprogramming involves using a
PICKit programming tool, something not everyone has access to. The
point is that prior to Elnec doing their little act of revenge, the
clone programmer worked just fine. Afterwards, not so much.
Perhaps an analogy might be deflating all 4 tires and the spare on your
neighbor's car because he borrowed your lawnmower and won't return it.
Do you have a beef? Sure, you do. Can you vandalize (in a
non-destructive way) his property because you have a beef? Most
law-enforcement people would take a dim view of this.
--Chuck
5 p.m.
On 2015-06-23 22:05, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 06/23/2015 12:03 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
So it is recoverable...
I assume the system can be upgraded in the field through some built in
function in the firmware, and that function is also no longer available
after installing the "latest" version then.
Well, the criminal part is obviously done by the company cloning the
device in the first place. Further aggravated by selling it as some
other device it is not. So they are fraudulent both to Elnec and to end
users.
I know that in the US people sue for all kind of things, and sometimes
the most amazing things stand up in courts, so I wouldn't be surprised
to learn that this could hold up as well, but in my view, Elnec was
perfectly in their right to do what they have done.
How about leaving it at that then? People can disagree with me all they
want.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
What is in the NVRAM? And how did it get there in
the first place? Are
you saying that it is impossible to reprogram the device with some other
firmware after you have tried the version Elnec have which detects your
clone?
It's possible, but as I understand it, reprogramming involves using a
PICKit programming tool, something not everyone has access to. The
point is that prior to Elnec doing their little act of revenge, the
clone programmer worked just fine. Afterwards, not so much.
5:15 p.m.
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2015-06-23 22:05, Chuck Guzis wrote:
*headdesk*
Yes, technically it's recoverable. A car that's been set on fire and left
to burn is also technically recoverable.
On 06/23/2015 12:03 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
So it is recoverable...
What is in the NVRAM? And how did it get there in
the first place? Are
you saying that it is impossible to reprogram the device with some other
firmware after you have tried the version Elnec have which detects your
clone?
It's possible, but as I understand it, reprogramming involves using a
PICKit programming tool, something not everyone has access to. The
point is that prior to Elnec doing their little act of revenge, the
clone programmer worked just fine. Afterwards, not so much. I assume the system can be upgraded in the field
through some built in
function in the firmware, and that function is also no longer available after
installing the "latest" version then.
No. the Elnec firmware update effectively destroys the counterfeit device
(in the absence of a person with very specific skills that can undo the
damage).
Well, the criminal part is obviously done by the
company cloning the device
in the first place. Further aggravated by selling it as some other device it
is not. So they are fraudulent both to Elnec and to end users.
Yes, but as is often the case, the end user doesn't know the device they
have is counterfeit.
I know that in the US people sue for all kind of
things, and sometimes the
most amazing things stand up in courts, so I wouldn't be surprised to learn
that this could hold up as well, but in my view, Elnec was perfectly in their
right to do what they have done.
No they weren't. They have effectively destroyed property owned by
someone else. The fact that the device they destroyed is counterfeit is
completely irrelevant! FTDI learned this the hard way when some drooling
MBA decided it would be a good idea to brick people's serial devices.
AFAIK, they're STILL suffering for that - as they well should.
If you brick a piece of equipment that I own, don't bother running.
You'll only die tired.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
12:49 p.m.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 06:03:33PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2015-06-23 17:59, Alexandre Souza wrote:
Yes. Ask the manufacturer of the device to fix it. Do you really
expect that someone who have nothing to do with the device has any
responsibility here? You (or whoever) install software that was not
intended for the device on it anyway, and then you blame the maker
of that software.
I strongly suspect that bricking the fake device is _not_ a side effect,
but quite intentional. Detecting a fake copy of their product, loudly
proclaiming this find and refusing to work with it is perfectly fine
and certainly within their rights. Destroying other people's property
is not.
They are certainly not the first to try to pull this one. FTDI for one
very explicitly bricked fakes of their USB-Serial chips, pissing off
quite a few engineers who then dropped FTDI as a future supplier entirely.
I doubt there any legal problems with their course
of action. They are
not obliged to ensure that their software works correctly on a pirate
copy of their hardware.
If they add some additional checks, and they trap out on a clone, I
doubt that could be considered illegal. They do not try to destroy
your device. Their software just refuse to run. And I can't see it
other than they are in their right to do that. Talk with the
manufacturer of the clone for a software update from them instead.
If you use a software newer than 2.62, it bricks your clone device.
Period. Do you also try to install OS-X on a DELL laptop, and
claim that
it's Apples fault that your DELL machine don't work? (God knows what
interesting things might happen if you actually try this...)
Since Macs have been basic x86 PCs for years, it might even almost work
(although I guess Apple probably checks for some hardware signatures
and tells you to go buy a Mac on foreign hardware). I'm pretty sure the
OS-X installer is not going to try to actively brick your Dell.
Kind regards,
alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
5:50 p.m.
Its one thing to copy a design and stick your own name on it, another to
clone something and stick the legit company name and logo on it. Why can't
they brick a fake if they want to (after all it is the end user trying to
load copyrighted firmware on a fake product not the company seeking out to
brick any old copy)? If I sent a shipload of fake Gucci bags to California
the local port authorities would just grab them and burn them.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Guzis
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 11:22 AM
To: General at classiccmp.org ; Discussion at classiccmp.org:On-Topic and
Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: [RANT]False Beeprog. AGAIN.
On 06/23/2015 07:57 AM, Alexandre Souza wrote:
Some years ago, I wrote about a clone of the Beeprog (made by Elnec)
I bought here locally in Brazil.
Now, seems chinese are cloning the Beeprog PLUS (!!!)
I got a Beeprog+ in the used market here in Brazil. Asked for Elnec
warranty, since the programmer was manufactured in (month)11(year)2012.
It all went well up to the serial number.
It was made past the stop manufacture date. It stopped manufacturing
in 07/2012.
Seems I got another hot potato on my hand :'(
Pay atention on that!
I can understand Elnec's distress over the cloning of their product, but
they did themselves no favor by taking the approach described here:
"...The manufacturer of the fake BeeProgs stole our logo and
intellectual property by manufacturing fake copies of BeeProg
programmer. This "product" uses also our software and users of this fake
BeeProg are asking for our free technical support. Although the copy of
the BeeProg programmer is done well, the manufactures of the fake
BeeProg overlooked few details. Result is, the fake BeeProg unit differs
from the original, visible for the software. We've
used one of these
differences - it is not a serial number - and our software could
detect
this fake hardware. If PG4UW software detects a fake hardware, it shows
message "Fake programmer unit detected!" and programmer will no longer work.
If you're facing such situation, contact please the vendor, where from
you bought the programmer, for full credit return. Or you can take this
vendor to court for selling a fake products. We regret, we could not
provide any assistance in this case..."
In the USA, they would probably end up as the target of legal action,
since refusing to do the update is legitimate, but disabling the device
is a no-no. It amounts basically to theft of a product from the
(unaware) owner--sort of an extra-judicial vigilante killing.
This reminds me of early failed floppy-copy-protection schemes.
Fortunately, there are solutions to restore functionality to the clone
Beeprog. I do not know if the same obtains for the clone Plus.
--Chuck
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
6:19 p.m.
On 06/23/2015 02:50 PM, TeoZ wrote:
Its one thing to copy a design and stick your own name
on it, another to
clone something and stick the legit company name and logo on it. Why
can't they brick a fake if they want to (after all it is the end user
trying to load copyrighted firmware on a fake product not the company
seeking out to brick any old copy)? If I sent a shipload of fake Gucci
bags to California the local port authorities would just grab them and
burn them.
Oh, I agree--and there are procedures to get USCBP to do just that:
http://www.cbp.gov/trade/priority-issues/ipr
But it's awkward to get it done--and costly. Basically, we're awash in
counterfeit goods.
--Chuck
7:05 p.m.
[It's] one thing to copy a design and stick your
own name on it,
another to clone something and stick the legit company name and logo
on it. Why can't they brick a fake if they want to [...]
The same reason I'm not allowed to smash your car window, even if your
car bears an unauthorized copy of my company's logo: it's vandalism,
basically.
If I sent a shipload of fake Gucci bags to California
the local port
authorities would just grab them and burn them.
If you want to argue that Customs has the right to take a shipment of
the fake devices and brick them en masse, I think you'll get a lot less
argument. A better analogy to the case at hand would be, if you sold a
fake Gucci bag retail and Gucci thought they had the right to take it
from the buyer and burn it.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
9:05 p.m.
They didn't burn it, they just made it inoperable when the owner wanted to
install new legit copyrighted firmware. If you kept it as is when purchased
nothing would have happened.
If you took that fake unit into a company shop for free user upgrades I
think they would have the right to rip off their logo (or deface it), remove
the ROM contents, and toss it back to you. Granted they will not get your
business but then again they never had it anyway.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mouse
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:05 PM
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: [RANT]False Beeprog. AGAIN.
[It's] one thing to copy a design and stick your
own name on it,
another to clone something and stick the legit company name and logo
on it. Why can't they brick a fake if they want to [...]
The same reason I'm not allowed to smash your car window, even if your
car bears an unauthorized copy of my company's logo: it's vandalism,
basically.
If I sent a shipload of fake Gucci bags to California
the local port
authorities would just grab them and burn them.
If you want to argue that Customs has the right to take a shipment of
the fake devices and brick them en masse, I think you'll get a lot less
argument. A better analogy to the case at hand would be, if you sold a
fake Gucci bag retail and Gucci thought they had the right to take it
from the buyer and burn it.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
9:35 p.m.
On 06/23/2015 06:05 PM, TeoZ wrote:
They didn't burn it, they just made it inoperable
when the owner wanted
to install new legit copyrighted firmware. If you kept it as is when
purchased nothing would have happened.
If you took that fake unit into a company shop for free user upgrades I
think they would have the right to rip off their logo (or deface it),
remove the ROM contents, and toss it back to you. Granted they will not
get your business but then again they never had it anyway.
Granted, but how does the average purchaser *know* that he has a
counterfeit version? Do you read every line of text on every vendor's
website before you download software? I don't--I go to the page (I
might have gotten there via a search engine, so not have seen any other
pages) that I'm interested in and download the software.
A simple--"you've got a clone, so we're not doing anything for you"
would suffice. But going to the extent of "and we're going make your
unit inoperable, such that you'll need to seek out expert advice to get
it back to where it was" is not cricket. You are stealing functionality
and putting a burden on the unwitting customer to return his unit,
counterfeit or not, to functionality. As I mentioned, that return to
functionality may involve paying someone with the necessary equipment to
do just that.
Your quarrel as a vendor is not with the purchaser who may be
guiltless--being offered a product at a good price with no indication of
its illegitimacy. You've stolen from him. He will probably hate you
for a very long time. While he might have jumped at the chance to
upgrade to a legitimate unit, he'll avoid any of your products at any
cost.
It's not just dishonest; it's stupid.
--Chuck
9:49 p.m.
FTDI recently took the same approach of having their driver deliberately brick counterfeit
chips, rather than throwing an error and refusing to talk to them.
This is why I no longer purchase their chips or design them into my projects. A vendor who
distributes drivers which deliberately brick hardware is too much of a liability. I
understand that counterfeit products are a real problem, but I do not accept that
response.
--
Mark J. Blair, NF6X <nf6x at nf6x.net>
http://www.nf6x.net/
3281
days inactive
3282
days old
41 comments
15 participants
participants (15)
-
alexandre.tabajara＠gmail.com -
als＠thangorodrim.ch -
bqt＠update.uu.se -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dave.g4ugm＠gmail.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
hilpert＠cs.ubc.ca -
jules.richardson99＠gmail.com -
mouse＠Rodents-Montreal.ORG -
nf6x＠nf6x.net -
paulkoning＠comcast.net -
spc＠conman.org -
teoz＠neo.rr.com -
woyciesjes＠sbcglobal.net