Hell no!
Yes, DonS, you should come to the table and provide full disclosure in your discussions regarding this matter.
GRE Scanner firmware dump
- Thread starter benbur27
- Start date
- Status
Yes, DonS, you should come to the table and provide full disclosure in your discussions regarding this matter.
If someones involvement in any company is going to create a problem on this forum, on this subject I am happy to halt. This is simply something interesting to do with a little free time. No laws have been broken, and my feelings certainly aren't hurt. As if "premium subscriber" does not stand out
Or read the copyright notice on the firmware update software. *cough*
I have less interest in people and more in code Just like any piece of hardware.. if the developers aren't adding features and fixing bugs... we will.
Just like any piece of hardware.. if the developers aren't adding features and fixing bugs... we will.DonS
Member
Why?
I'm just questioning the O.P.'s actual achievements in this matter, while quietly giggling to myself. My personal knowledge is irrelevant.
Besides, any intelligent person (or even a casual reader of these forums) could figure out what I might have to "disclose" without your or my assistance.
If you think such explicit "disclosure" is necessary, please feel free to point the O.P. to any of the several RR forum threads that contain that information. As the O.P. said this evening, "I cant [sic] do all the work for you".
Received and understood. Thanks.
DonS
Member
Thanks for the understanding.
Basically, I've been trying to ask the O.P., in not quite these words, to "put up or shut up". I don't think that request should depend on any "disclosure" I might or might not make. I think anyone, regardless of credentials, should be able to demand that of a poster.
"put up or shut up" - DonS
Ok, I will, however this is going to take a little time.
Reverse Engineering takes time Don, I wouldn't ask you to release source code as everyone knows that is not going to happen. Do you believe it is not reversible? I would never post a line of decompiled firmware on a public board, IP is protected and that is one sure way to end up in hot water. My aim is to get a better understanding of the firmware, perhaps make edits or even a new radio menu now.
If anyone is mistaken it is you several posts back when you said that this MCU is not running a M16C/60 core. I am looking at it, and the FCC agrees (after all I posted the data sheet already). If you are correct and I have no idea how to read the english letters on this MCU or the FCC site then gre will need to submit a letter of amendment to the FCC in short order to update the IC list. Are you going to stand by your previous statement that the MCU identified earlier (M3062LFGPGP#U5C) is NOT found in the 310?
Do you think I haven't already searched the forums to see who you are as soon as the "disclosure" words were used? You have helped plenty of people with your posts, no argument there. Are you afraid I am going to reverse the IO and create a better channel management app? Your condescending and "on guard" attitude is quite apparent, I am sorry you feel the need to behave this way. I believe you think you are superior and no one could keep up with you let alone reverse something you created. In reality I have done this many times for much more complex embedded devices, it is usually fun and rewarding.
I have been a developer for a long time as well (please read full time job not hobby), and while the radios menu is great, more features are always desired by users. I will work through the firmware without so many posts as I would rather not create any negative buzz along the way.
Update for now: Found a GCC M16C/60 toolchain and will be testing out an extremely simple build with just lcd control at some point. Ordered another 310 on eBay "just in case" this one suffers from the effort. Documenting the decompressed firmware, and watching the serial comms during firmware updates to get an idea of whether the MCU does a checksum when receiving the new firmware.
Ok, I will, however this is going to take a little time.
Reverse Engineering takes time Don, I wouldn't ask you to release source code as everyone knows that is not going to happen. Do you believe it is not reversible? I would never post a line of decompiled firmware on a public board, IP is protected and that is one sure way to end up in hot water. My aim is to get a better understanding of the firmware, perhaps make edits or even a new radio menu now.
If anyone is mistaken it is you several posts back when you said that this MCU is not running a M16C/60 core. I am looking at it, and the FCC agrees (after all I posted the data sheet already). If you are correct and I have no idea how to read the english letters on this MCU or the FCC site then gre will need to submit a letter of amendment to the FCC in short order to update the IC list. Are you going to stand by your previous statement that the MCU identified earlier (M3062LFGPGP#U5C) is NOT found in the 310?
Do you think I haven't already searched the forums to see who you are as soon as the "disclosure" words were used? You have helped plenty of people with your posts, no argument there. Are you afraid I am going to reverse the IO and create a better channel management app? Your condescending and "on guard" attitude is quite apparent, I am sorry you feel the need to behave this way. I believe you think you are superior and no one could keep up with you let alone reverse something you created. In reality I have done this many times for much more complex embedded devices, it is usually fun and rewarding.
I have been a developer for a long time as well (please read full time job not hobby), and while the radios menu is great, more features are always desired by users. I will work through the firmware without so many posts as I would rather not create any negative buzz along the way.
Update for now: Found a GCC M16C/60 toolchain and will be testing out an extremely simple build with just lcd control at some point. Ordered another 310 on eBay "just in case" this one suffers from the effort. Documenting the decompressed firmware, and watching the serial comms during firmware updates to get an idea of whether the MCU does a checksum when receiving the new firmware.
InlandAZ
Member
This is all pretty interesting stuff, I'm a systems engineer, but have absolutely no experience in this specific area.
So I've got a very basic question - could you say... take something like the Pro-96 and get it to trunc track 700HMz frequencies?
Just curious.
So I've got a very basic question - could you say... take something like the Pro-96 and get it to trunc track 700HMz frequencies?
Just curious.
Last edited:
I am really interested in it too and hope that he keeps posting incremental discoveries.
Good question. It would depend upon the hardware components and available processing power. If the hardware is there the rest is either:
1.) Modify existing firmware
2.) Write new firmware
Both have their challenges, and both can be done with enough effort. I think I have a Pro 96 or 97 that suffered a case casualty but could be useful for R&D.
petrol88
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 150
Wow. Did you read that first document at the FCC called "Attestation." Me thinks that is what has DonS's unmentionables in a knot. Since even GRE has used a firmware update to take out frequencies, it is certainly possible to use firmware to put them in.
I agree, that's on the list of 500,000 things one should not do. Even as such you have offenders of FCC law all over, we allow import of transceivers that operate on all sorts of controlled frequencies, one only has to look on ebay. My goals would be more for legal type functionality
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2011
- Messages
- 146
In my opinion the FCC restrictions on received frequencies are silly and massively ineffective... Perhaps it made a LITTLE sense when there were still analog cell phones around but not anymore :/
I would be afraid that changes made by altering firmware may cause the device to then lose it's FCC Type Acceptance or certification (whatever they have these days).
If the device is altered by an end-user would it then be in violation of FCC rules since it no longer meets the certifications provided by the manufacturer?
Would it matter if it was only done by an end user and not the manufacturer?
(IOW are we allowed by FCC rules to make alterations like this to our own equipment?)
I had posted musings once about modifying scanner firmware to change feature preferences such as time-outs, since these would not (or should not) cause changes in interference possibilities they would be rather benign. Changes such as frequency range however would go directly to FCC approvals, even if the freqs added/deleted were not prohibited by ECPA or other legislation.
If the device is altered by an end-user would it then be in violation of FCC rules since it no longer meets the certifications provided by the manufacturer?
Would it matter if it was only done by an end user and not the manufacturer?
(IOW are we allowed by FCC rules to make alterations like this to our own equipment?)
I had posted musings once about modifying scanner firmware to change feature preferences such as time-outs, since these would not (or should not) cause changes in interference possibilities they would be rather benign. Changes such as frequency range however would go directly to FCC approvals, even if the freqs added/deleted were not prohibited by ECPA or other legislation.
In my talks with a good friend in the marine radio business: The FCC compliance is for the company to sell it. As an end user you can turn it into a toaster if you wish, however if you modify in such a way as it becomes "illegal", you are accountable.
A good example of this (Although BATF regulation not FCC) is the private owner who buys a Yugo SKS rifle. As is, its fine. When you go changing the compensator, US mag etc you can easily push it out of compliance, it is up to the owner to perform some due diligence.
One more, android tablets with alternate operating systems or wifi drivers. You may very well do something that is against FCC ruling (too many mw, frequency range, etc).
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2011
- Messages
- 146
benbur27 I find your work interesting. I have written dozens of embedded programs and have wanted to rewrite the GRE firmware (from scratch) since acquiring my first model (PRO-92). Many bugs from early code seem to be carried through each model/version/release/etc and that's kept my desire up, but it is a huge effort.
I have been writing firmware (professionally) since 1977 and earlier than that as a hobby. I looked into writing code from scratch and decided the '92 was not a good enough receiver to put that kind of effort into it. But when it comes to the '310... and with code stored in Flash, that's a different matter.
I look forward to seeing you progress through it. Happy New Year!!
I have been writing firmware (professionally) since 1977 and earlier than that as a hobby. I looked into writing code from scratch and decided the '92 was not a good enough receiver to put that kind of effort into it. But when it comes to the '310... and with code stored in Flash, that's a different matter.
I look forward to seeing you progress through it. Happy New Year!!
- Status
Similar threads
