Pro-668: Radio Shack PRO-668 loaded with Whistler DMR firmware

[willtorres918]

I usually don't post my opinion on here but enough of the whining. We all knew we were taking a chance doing this procedure on the scanner. Take responsibility for your actions.

Agreed.

I haven't lost any functionality yet but as soon as the time is right my 668 will be going to Whistler.

Sent from my SM-J700T1 using Tapatalk

 

[SCPD]

They can say that all they want, but first off you can still pull the original RS software that would load the firmware locally from here: https://www.radioshack.com/products...-digital-trunking-scanner?variant=20332485509
But now that you'd actually have the software of doing so, you cant actually load it back in, so it isn't lost.

I want to understand. You have a RadioShack scanner, RadioShack is long out of business. You used a hacker tool to load in contemporary Whistler firmware to receive DMR against firmware instructions on Whistler's website.

Now your radio no longer receives DMR, which you didn't pay for via hacker tools that attack Whistler, and you are complaining that you can't revert to the old RadioShack firmware that has less capability and bug fixes than the hacker Whistler firmware that just has DMR disabled?

Sounds to me that you are still better off than before. I'm confused.

 

[ChibiPaw]

I want to understand. You have a RadioShack scanner, RadioShack is long out of business. You used a hacker tool to load in contemporary Whistler firmware to receive DMR against firmware instructions on Whistler's website.

Now your radio no longer receives DMR, which you didn't pay for via hacker tools that attack Whistler, and you are complaining that you can't revert to the old RadioShack firmware that has less capability and bug fixes than the hacker Whistler firmware that just has DMR disabled?

Sounds to me that you are still better off than before. I'm confused.

Why do you assume that is my goal? Could I not just be experimenting, and have real interest in DMR or other features? But thats really none of anyone's business what anyone does with their own property. Beside, it's not like it's a John Deere tractor.

 

[fredva]

Not that I am aware of such disclaimer. They pretty much pretended the procedure didnt exist to the public until now.

It's posted on their web pages where the Whistler firmware downloads are available.

 

[fredva]

Why do you assume that is my goal? Could I not just be experimenting, and have real interest in DMR or other features? But thats really none of anyone's business what anyone does with their own property. Beside, it's not like it's a John Deere tractor.

Some would say your experiment, your responsibility.

 

[JustLou]

Not that I am aware of such disclaimer. They pretty much pretended the procedure didnt exist to the public until now.

Whistler did not provide the procedure to put their firmware on the Radio Shack scanners. Whistler did not tell of any of us to do it. Anyone including myself that decided to use a 3rd party tool to put hacked firmware on their scanner did it ant their own discretion. As for you claiming "damage" earlier, what is the damage? The radio still works as it did when it had RS firmware, and most people feel it decodes digital better.

 

[buddrousa]

You buy the scanner but WHISTLER STILL OWNS THE FIRMWARE. You bought your PC but MICROSOFT still owns the WINDOWS OS or You bought your APPLE but APPLE still owns your OS.

 

[EricCottrell]

Adding my finding to the collective here.
so we have to identical Pro-668 scanner here, which my friend brought over. One is now DMR-less because I failed to read the thread here before applying it, but the other one is saved because I stopped the process from completing the process.


Scanner A was upgraded to CPU 4.6, DSP 3.1, and was powered on. No longer able to use Eric's tool to downgrade CPU. I was able to copy DSP 3.0, but the payload has been delivered because I've powered it up. Lost DSP reception, and cannot use Eric's tool to downgrade firmware to original RS CPU.

Scanner B was upgraded too to CPU 4.6, DSP 3.1, However, my friend who owns this unit did NOT powered up, but instead went to bed. I was able inform him of the issue and quickly replaced the CONFIG__.bin with version 3.0. Scanner was able to retain DSP reception


Scanner A was replaced with a copy of Scanner B's SD card. In a side by side test. Scanner A cannot receive DSP and Scanner B can. Scanner A still cannot be firmware altered by Eric's tool.

I haven't tried the dialing forward or backward of the dates. Not sure why if that would make any difference, maybe perhaps the date was dialed back before July 1st 2017.

Also, this reminds me an awful lot of the Sony BMG copy protection rootkit scandal, while I understand the DMR access since it isn't listed on the box. However, taking the ability to use the RS firmware might be in violation of consumer rights law in California , Texas , and New York.


So anyone else made any progress in reversing the damage?

Hello,

It is being current being looked at and it might take some time to test it. Does P25 work?

Besides Sony BMG, this also reminds me of the US government employees that got into trouble when they tried to hack back at the company hired to pen test government servers. If I see a road construction sign with a warning that car damage could occur, and I use the road, construction workers are not justified in using a sledgehamer to take out my headlights. It is one thing to disable a new DMR feature, but it is beyond the pale if Whistler also breaks existing features paid for in the original purchase.

There is an active discussion in the vehicle and electronics worlds about "Right to Repair" (and Tinker, Make, Re-use, or Break). I am interested in how things work, so this started out as a reverse engineering project of how my old PSR-800 worked and how software updates were done. I accidentally discovered the similarity between the PSR-800 and WS-1080 hardware. There was discussion of this in a couple of threads when this project began. I did this to be a fun project and not to make money off of it.

I feel that I have a right to modify my scanner as long as I do not break the law. I used techniques that were used by other projects to not violate copyright and assumed Whistler held the copyrights. That is one thing that is unusual, the lack of copyright notices. This is the first firmware I have seen that does not have a copyright notice in the firmware image or displays it. The only copyright notice in the Whistler documentation is for the Radioreference library. The PSR-800 documentation also had a DVSI copyright notice as required in the DVSI license, but this was dropped. Lack of copyright notice only has the effect of reducing awarded damages in a lawsuit. If you look at Uniden, they display copyright on their scanners, and have several notices in their documentation.

I am now more confident that the Pro-668 and WS-1080 are the same hardware as Whistler did not use the hardware id mentioned earlier. It would not work if the Pro-668 and WS-1080 used the same id.

73 Eric

 

[MaximusTheGreat]

A great thread has now turned into a debate amongst "Lawyers". People that must of gotten their law degrees from being fan boys of corporations.

The whole back and back and forth is getting old. Everyone has chimed in on what they perceive as right and wrong. That's awesome everyone gave there 2 cents. Let's move on to posts that are directly related to the original op. If perhaps the legality is to be continued, Mods should open a new section for Legality Beagles.

PS... I'm following this thread as I am thankful for the tool that made my scanner "work better". I want to read posts on that subject. Don't care for the other drama that fan boys are bringing up. Which honestly, I don't see what the point is.

 

[ChibiPaw]

Hello Eric,

P25 Phase 1 seems to work, but can't tell if Phase 2 does since it's hard to find some sample data for it to attempt. So, I don't know for sure beyond phase 1.

Regarding to the analogy, of Sony BMG, the more I think about it the more Im starting parallel it more to the John Deers Service Advisor situation, which is getting a lot of attention from law makers.

In a similar note, I've been involved with similar projects on the Garmin GPS units, and not a single person I know had any interest in profiting off of it, it was purely for the sake of self enrichment. Garmin is well aware of it for many years, and they don't seem to have issues with it, and have never issued update to altar their field devices in the manner Whistler had. For this reason, they have made into a very loyal customer. and have have purchased dozens of Garmin devices over other vendors, that are comparable or even cheaper offerings.

Now that you've brought that up the copyright notices from Uniden, I had to power mine to check it out for myself. And sure enough you're right on the way how Uniden display them.

Anyways, since I have two units that are variable in two different states. If you need sample data, or simply a copy of the either images to experiment on, or simply need me to try something on one of the two units, please let me know. I'm more than happy to contribute to aid you on this project.

Hello,

It is being current being looked at and it might take some time to test it. Does P25 work?

Besides Sony BMG, this also reminds me of the US government employees that got into trouble when they tried to hack back at the company hired to pen test government servers. If I see a road construction sign with a warning that car damage could occur, and I use the road, construction workers are not justified in using a sledgehamer to take out my headlights. It is one thing to disable a new DMR feature, but it is beyond the pale if Whistler also breaks existing features paid for in the original purchase.

There is an active discussion in the vehicle and electronics worlds about "Right to Repair" (and Tinker, Make, Re-use, or Break). I am interested in how things work, so this started out as a reverse engineering project of how my old PSR-800 worked and how software updates were done. I accidentally discovered the similarity between the PSR-800 and WS-1080 hardware. There was discussion of this in a couple of threads when this project began. I did this to be a fun project and not to make money off of it.

I feel that I have a right to modify my scanner as long as I do not break the law. I used techniques that were used by other projects to not violate copyright and assumed Whistler held the copyrights. That is one thing that is unusual, the lack of copyright notices. This is the first firmware I have seen that does not have a copyright notice in the firmware image or displays it. The only copyright notice in the Whistler documentation is for the Radioreference library. The PSR-800 documentation also had a DVSI copyright notice as required in the DVSI license, but this was dropped. Lack of copyright notice only has the effect of reducing awarded damages in a lawsuit. If you look at Uniden, they display copyright on their scanners, and have several notices in their documentation.

I am now more confident that the Pro-668 and WS-1080 are the same hardware as Whistler did not use the hardware id mentioned earlier. It would not work if the Pro-668 and WS-1080 used the same id.

73 Eric

 

[ChibiPaw]

You buy the scanner but WHISTLER STILL OWNS THE FIRMWARE. You bought your PC but MICROSOFT still owns the WINDOWS OS or You bought your APPLE but APPLE still owns your OS.

Wrong,
If I want remove the windows off the computer I've bought off of a store, and install linux on the same hardware, I have that right to do so. Microsoft/Apple would not have the rights to alter the bios or insert things into the MBR to prevent loading of other operating system and "encourage" people to buy and use their OS. Especially when it's set up to be a randomware-esq manner.

 

[Fasteddy2]

P-25 PHASE 2 does work .I live NEAR Los Angeles and i pick up EDISON P-25 PHASE 2...just fine living 25 miles away.

 

[Septa3371CSX1]

So far my Pro 668 has only lost DMR functionality. It's still better than it was in that it decodes P25 Phase 1 and 2 better than it did with the RS firmware and handles LSM slightly better (but still nowhere near what an XTS or APX can do). It sounds like I won't be able to get DMR to work again on my own but it still works via the IF output and DSD+.

 

[SCPD]

Wrong,
If I want remove the windows off the computer I've bought off of a store, and install linux on the same hardware, I have that right to do so. Microsoft/Apple would not have the rights to alter the bios or insert things into the MBR to prevent loading of other operating system and "encourage" people to buy and use their OS. Especially when it's set up to be a randomware-esq manner.

You and the others are completely missing the point. This is not a PC, an iPhone, iPad, TV, GPS, etc. etc. I've laid it out a bit in my previous posts but won't draw a roadmap. The hacking is dangerous to the hobby. There are only two real scanner manufacturers, Uniden and Whistler. Both are being hacked and both are required to have a vibrant base for innovation and improvement which benefits everyone here. Everything I have typed has falled on deaf ears and I'm really not too surprised considering the state of things these days. The hacks will continue, pride will win over restraint which is what I'm asking for as the person who put together and led the team that brought you all of what you enjoy in the GRE digital line which is now Whistler.

My advice is to send your radio in, at the very nominal price and get the upgrade. Don't help the hackers who just flat out don't get it, their efforts will hurt everyone who enjoys this hobby. No I'm not talking about the two companies getting extra sales and such which some have said the hacks have generated. Everyone here is thinking first order effects.

The real issue is different and I have seen the results of such stupidity first hand that would blow most peoples minds here. When you have nothing new, latest/greatest to buy this whole thread will be long forgotten. Now is the chance to do something to help the hobby.

Eric and Doe are super smart, I've already complemented them. Guys, put your efforts into making things better for everyone here and maybe step back for a moment and imagine what I have been typing might be real and into second order effects of what you are doing. It's not about civil legal issues as some have assumed.

As prior, I represent myself in these opinions but without any heaitation know they are spot on.

Craig

 

[SteveSimpkin]

I understand that Craig cannot elaborate on why "The hacking is dangerous to the hobby." but can someone else provide an explanation?
I think it would help if everyone understood the reasons why this might cause damage to the hobby.

 

[SCPD]

Unitended Consequences

I understand that Craig cannot elaborate on why "The hacking is dangerous to the hobby." but can someone else provide an explanation?
I think it would help if everyone understood the reasons why this might cause damage to the hobby.

Against my better judgment as someone who is passionate, ECPA-1986, easily modifiable. What the hackers are defeating was put there for a purpose, by both Uniden and Whistler to protect access to this technology for a mandated reason. Now I've said too much and lets see if the progenitors of this misguided effort actually support our interest as hobbyists.

It took 12 years to defeat so maybe that's not "easily".

Enough said, probably should have checked out a while back. At least UPMAN and I have said who we are so maybe it's believable. Check into Doe's interaction history with Paul on another forum. Just type in his handle on bing or google.

Again I will ask for the super talented people, who say they love expermentation and this hobby, to consider what is really best for the hobby.

I get the excitement of electronics, uPs and firmware, the "buzz" of figuring something out, that's partly why we have these radios. Been there done that. I never released my conquests publicly because it it would only be a brag rite and would hurt others.

I'd like to see someone write great software to take advantage of Whistler's release of the remote control protocol. A much better effort that will help us all!

Craig

 

[TES]

Wrong,
If I want remove the windows off the computer I've bought off of a store, and install linux on the same hardware, I have that right to do so.

You certainly do.

However, if that linux installation somehow keeps you from ever installing any other operating system on that computer, are you going to blame the computer manufacturer? Microsoft? Linus Torvalds?

Microsoft/Apple would not have the rights to alter the bios or insert things into the MBR to prevent loading of other operating system and "encourage" people to buy and use their OS.

If Microsoft or Apple manufactured the computer, they have every right to put measures in place that keep you from installing anything other than their sanctioned operating systems. If you want to try to install something else (including other versions of Microsoft's or Apple's operating systems), any ill effects are on you. Full stop.

Let's say Microsoft manufactures computer #1 (COMP1) and ships it with Windows 7. In the BIOS, they try to keep people from installing anything other than Windows 7 updates.

A few years later, Microsoft manufactures computer #2 (COMP2) and ships it with Windows 10. Hardware-wise, COMP1 and COMP2 are pretty much the same. In the BIOS, they try to keep people from installing anything other than Windows 10. They do this, in part, because they really want to sell COMP2s. (That's why they added desirable features to Windows 10.)

You have a COMP1 running the latest version of Windows 7. You see that your friends all have COMP2s and you're jealous. You really want some of those features that are offered in Windows 10 (which only runs on a COMP2). But, you're either a responsible person living on a budget or a cheap bastard.

So far, so good, right? You're not complaining yet? Sure, you wish that Microsoft would give you those cool Windows 10 features in Windows 7 or make Windows 10 available for your COMP1, but you're not planning a lawsuit or anything. Maybe you get together with some other Bernouts and whine about corporate greed and the 1% keeping you from enjoying what should be "free", but you're really not going to do anything about it.

Until one day, when some random hacker comes along and creates a tool that tweaks Microsoft's installation procedure so that Windows 10 will load - and apparently run just fine - on your old COMP1. Basically, he took the Windows 10 installation package and "transcoded" it so that your COMP1 sees it as a valid OS install. You're all giggly, because now you get the cool whizbang features of Windows 10 that you want without actually having to pay for them. Woo hoo!

Microsoft sees this going on, gets mildly pissed off, and quietly responds by disabling a key feature of Windows 10 if that OS isn't running on a COMP2. Now you're sad again. But, all is not lost! At least you can still run a pirated copy of that last version of Windows 10 on your COMP1.

The hacker responds with a new version of his tool that "patches" Windows 10. In addition to his earlier "transcoding" of the installation procedure, now he's actually modifying the Windows 10 executables themselves.

You download the hacker's utility and use it to install a modified, unlicensed, unauthorized copy of Windows 10 on your COMP1. You’re a happy freeloading camper once more!

Man, Microsoft just won't let this go! What the hell is with them and their protection of intellectual property? Now they have the gall to encrypt the Windows 10 distributable? You have to wait for some other guy to hack some other Microsoft tools, decrypt the Windows 10 installation package, and post the result online. Now (finally!) the first hacker can modify his tool to patch this version of the installer.

And it works! You're back to getting all those great Windows 10 features on your COMP1 – for free! Everything's coming up puppies, unicorns, free healthcare, and rainbows.

For a little while.

Uh-oh. Looks like your hacked version of Windows 10 isn't working quite as well as you thought it was. The party (or parties) that supplied the decrypted, transcoded, patched versions of Windows 10 (or that supplied the tools that performed the decryption, transcoding, patching) didn't really look at it very well, did they? While they did include a disclaimer with their tool, they had such confidence in their own abilities that they didn't think to really look at what their tool was loading into your COMP1.

Now your COMP1 has most of the new features and bug fixes of the latest Windows 10. It runs just like a COMP2 with the latest Windows 10. Well, except for that one feature that you really wanted. Oh, and now you can't even back-rev to the COMP1's last version of Windows 7, much less a prior pirated version of Windows 10.

Bad hackers! Bad! But it's really not their fault, is it? They were just trying to “experiment” and "help the community". And they had a disclaimer. It's really your fault, right? Trying to get something for nothing? No, that can't be it, either.

I know... it's Microsoft's fault.

Because Microsoft finally decided "enough is enough": If you defeat Microsoft's protections and put pirated, modified Windows 10 code on anything but a COMP2, that poorly-pirated, untested code will kill that one feature you really wanted while also removing the ability to back-rev to a "working" version of pirated Windows 10 code.

Are you really going to complain that Microsoft has harmed you?

No, you're not.

Because, while you might be poor, fiscally responsible, and/or a cheap bastard, you're not a complete imbecile. Somewhere, deep down, you realize that it's kinda tough to blame Microsoft when, not only are you not running Microsoft's code on the product for which it was intended, you're not even running Microsoft's executable. You're running a modified copy of a transcoded copy of a decrypted copy, and not even on the right hardware.

 

[n3617400]

When Eric gave you the utility to turn on the DMR, you were all much more loyal

 

[JustLou]

This thread is starting to remind me of similar threads in the Sony PS3 forums a few years back. When the PS3 launched, it had the ability to run Linux. You could partition the HD, install it easily, then boot into Linux or the regular PS3 software. Sony never discouraged anyone from doing it. It was one of the selling points when it was released. Then a short while later, they completely changed their minds. With very little warning, they released a firmware update that killed running Linux and from going back to previous firmware. People lost their minds and all the message board lawyers wanted to sue. In the end people moved on and it was forgotten about.


EDIT: Whoa, forget what I said at the end. I was completely wrong. Sony settled a 6 year old lawsuit last year for big money. I never knew this until I just Googled it for curiosity.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...linux-on-your-ps3-you-could-get-55-from-sony/

 

[Kaijudo]

Wow scary stuff.

I have a few quick questions for you all.

I have a 668 with Eric's tool on it. The CPU is 4.6, but I'm not sure about the DSP. It looks like the last time I updated it, I updated it to 3.1, which I hear is bad now. So someone help me out please. How do I know what DSP I have installed and how do I know if I lost DMR channels?

I was listening to my radio today and I was picking up a lot of DMR. So how do I know whats working and whats not working with the scanner if I do indeed have the DSP 3.1 on my scanner.

Also, has anyone sent there 668 in and if so, how do you like it?

This may help. I'm looking at what version of EZScan I have right now. It says I have 2.22 and there is a update for 2.24. If I have DSP 3.1, does it mean anything if I installed it when the EZScan App was at version 2.22?