• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

trp2525

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,026
That along with trp2525's last comment is completely missing the point, you should at some level be thanking Whistler. What Whistler is doing helps to preserve the hobby against the hack attack by Eric and Doe from unintended consequences. It has nothing to do with any of the comments here that mostly flip things upside down, cause vs effect, well except for noting Whistler warnings, etc.
I don't believe I am missing any point on this thread as I am the OP who started the thread almost a year ago and I have read every posting (1300+ and counting) on it since then. Also, for a point of reference, my PRO-668 scanner is at Whistler right now receiving the official paid upgrade.

That being said, did you see my posting #1306 in this thread on July 14th (http://forums.radioreference.com/radio-shack-scanners/339155-radio-shack-pro-668-loaded-whistler-dmr-firmware-66.html#post2790376)? In that posting I shared my personal comments, thoughts and observations regarding hacking in general and how it could possibly be "dangerous to the hobby" as you put it.
 

carbonfiber

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
5
Location
Trinidad & Tobago
It's amazing how much people want something for nothing. Everyone wanted a DMR solution for products that were never advertised/sold/purchased as such (because it resembled a similar product that later got this feature). Now there is an official DMR solution pathway for these orphaned products, everyone still gripes!

Whistler gave us DMR on the 1080/1088 for FREE! Uniden charged the $60 licence fee for the DMR unlock and no on complained if you had a 436 and wanted the feature.

Eric said he supports the official upgrade and no longer will continue the experiment. Accept that Whistler protected its IP and move on.
 

thegriff

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
85
Location
Atlanta, GA
You may be able to roll it back to 4.5 with the GREFWTOOL

If the dsp is at 3.1 and installed when that version first came out, My understanding is it should not be a problem. Use this info at your own risk as nobody really knows for sure.

Sending it to whistler is the best choice now and especially for future updates.
Tried the roll back to 4.5 but it wouldn't let me do that. The DSP is 3.1 installed in mid-May. I keep getting a CPU Update error and the scanner disconnects from USB.
 

thegriff

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
85
Location
Atlanta, GA
The warning on Whistler's web site is pretty clear.

**IMPORTANT**
This*software is*intended for use with Whistler brand products only. Attempting to update any other brand of scanner with Whistler software/firmware will*cause the scanner to stop functioning.
Not really that clear. If it had said WARNING: We will implement code that removes the DMR functionality and prohibits you from rolling back to stock firmware that'd be a different story.
 

thegriff

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
85
Location
Atlanta, GA
Whistler did NOT break anyone's scanner, and the only thing malicious about the Whistler code was the fact that it took away DMR from scanners that were never meant to receive DMR.

For those that say they won't support Whistler because of their "malicious code", get over it!
Incorrect. They also removed the ability to roll the firmware back to stock prior to resale of the scanner. If they hadn't done that I wouldn't be upset.
 

sibbley

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
1,418
Location
Nazareth, Pennsylvania
Incorrect. They also removed the ability to roll the firmware back to stock prior to resale of the scanner. If they hadn't done that I wouldn't be upset.
You made the decision to use unofficial tool to upgrade you're scanner. Just like the rest of us did. Don't blame Whistler now that you can't roll back to the stock firmware.
 

rgchristy

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
344
Location
Delco, PA
Hello,

You need to copy the CONFIG__.BIN file from your 800 to both your 668 and Ez-Scan directory (Documents/WS1080 Digital). Ez-Scan will copy the CONFIG__.BIN file, which is the DSP code, to the SD Card when you update the programming.

73 Eric
Thanks Eric. Sorry for the additional questions, but I'm just trying to do each step in the correct order, to make sure that I don't have 2 radios without DMR.

My confusion is do I copy the config.bin file from my 800 to the 668 before or after I copy the configuration from the scanner to the computer using WS1080 EZ Scan?

Here's my understanding. Please tell me if this is wrong.

1. Copy the config.bin file FROM the 800 to both the 668 and the EZ-Scan directory
2. Copy the configuration FROM the 668 to the computer using WS1080 EZ-Scan
3. Copy the configuration TO the 800 using WS1080 EZ-Scan

Also, does it matter if I do this procedure with the SD card in or out of the scanner?

Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks again,

Rich C
 

EricCottrell

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
2,275
Location
Boston, Ma
Thanks Eric. Sorry for the additional questions, but I'm just trying to do each step in the correct order, to make sure that I don't have 2 radios without DMR.

My confusion is do I copy the config.bin file from my 800 to the 668 before or after I copy the configuration from the scanner to the computer using WS1080 EZ Scan?

Here's my understanding. Please tell me if this is wrong.

1. Copy the config.bin file FROM the 800 to both the 668 and the EZ-Scan directory
2. Copy the configuration FROM the 668 to the computer using WS1080 EZ-Scan
3. Copy the configuration TO the 800 using WS1080 EZ-Scan

Also, does it matter if I do this procedure with the SD card in or out of the scanner?

Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks again,

Rich C
Hello,

I assume you were using one version of EZ-Scan for both scanners. You need to copy the file from the 800 to the 668 and any directories used by any WS1080 Ez-Scan on the computer. You can either have the SD Card in the scanner or in a card reader.

73 Eric
 

rgchristy

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
344
Location
Delco, PA
Hello,

I assume you were using one version of EZ-Scan for both scanners. You need to copy the file from the 800 to the 668 and any directories used by any WS1080 Ez-Scan on the computer. You can either have the SD Card in the scanner or in a card reader.

73 Eric
That's correct. I'm using WS1080 EZ-Scan for both scanners. I just didn't know whether to copy the 800 config.bin before or after I upload the configuration from the 668 to EZ-Scan.
 
Last edited:

EricCottrell

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
2,275
Location
Boston, Ma
Hello,

Whistler assumed the experiment would continue past the start of their upgrade offer and scanners would end up running CPU 4.8 for free if they did not do anything. Whistler had to actively enforce the warning on their website as the Pro-668 is the same hardware as the WS1080. I quote from the Whistler Class II Permissive Change letter: "We hereby declare that added model is mechanically and technically identical to original model except as below.
1.PRO-668 : WS1080 is the same as the Model : 2000668/PRO-668, WS1080 in hardware aspect.
The difference in model number and brand name serves as marketing strategy."

I doubt the ECPA-1986, or later, comes into play. There is no Canadian firmware for the PSR-800 or later scanners. I would not publish a Cellular hack anyway, because it increases criminal liability with no benefit. It's cachet is long over as there is no analog cellular left for a scanner to monitor. It is a law on the books that has to be applied, but has no benefit anymore. There are other devices, like SDRs, that cover that frequency range out of the box already.

From the outset I tried to follow copyright and fair use. I assume GRE/Whistler owns the copyright to the code. I say assume because I have not found a GRE/Radio Shack/Whistler copyright notice anywhere. There is none in the image. The only copyright notices are for Radioreference and DVSI. The DVSI one is only in the GRE PSR-800 manual, which I find unusual. The DVSI license usually requires mentioning the DVSI copyright in documentation. Uniden, on the other hand, displays copyright messages on power up and has the Uniden and DVSI copyrights in their documentation. I respect the Uniden notices and limitations.

Since there is no reverse engineering restrictions in place on GRE/Whistler scanners, I can legally figure out how the scanner works. I can publish my non-cellular modifications to the code, but not the original code as I do not own the copyright. I can even write complete alternative firmware. This has been done with other receivers and devices for years.

I am surprised at how popular the experiment was and see it more as an interesting result of a company leveraging existing design rather than designing from scratch. GREFwTool was developed so I could learn more about Qt Programming and how GRE firmware updates were done. It also uses a general GRE communications class I am developing for communications with GRE-based scanners.

I doubt I could bring down the scanner hobby. Smarter people like Bill Cheek and Bob Grove could not do it. This is more about pissing off a manufacturer and a code developer.

73 Eric
 

DonS

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
4,105
Location
Franktown, CO
You made the decision to use unofficial tool to upgrade you're scanner.
That tool doesn't merely let you run scanner A's firmware on scanners B, C, and D. It also modifies the executable code (that Whistler put in place as a deterrent) so that you're really not running scanner A's firmware. You're running a changed version that was never released by Whistler.

See the definition of and references to "ws1080PatchTable" in the tool's source.
 

DonS

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
4,105
Location
Franktown, CO
In the end, it seems to be a money maker for Whistler.
Maybe. Depends on how many people:
* hacked their old scanners to get DMR
* would have purchased a WS1080/88 (or later) absent the hack
* are now paying for the WS1080/88 upgrade to their old scanners
* etc.
 

DonS

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
4,105
Location
Franktown, CO
From the outset I tried to follow copyright and fair use
Yes, you were very careful to avoid sharing, distributing, #including, etc.Whistler's code.

Your "transcoding" function and tables were carefully crafted so that no "raw" version of Whistler's code ever exists, even in a RAM buffer. This care was obvious from a cursory examination of your source many months ago.

(Based on your posts, it looks like you've also been very careful to avoid using the word "encryption", instead using the term "obfuscation". This was almost certainly intentional. You know where that particular line is, and you've been careful to keep your toes barely on the right side of it.)

However, the latest release of your tool, supporting Whistler's WS1080/88 CPU version 4.6, absolutely depends on people sharing a decrypted copy of Whistler's code - rather than just downloading the "obfuscated" version directly from Whistler's web site. You didn't support that version until someone else decrypted and posted it.

You can say that you "follow copyright", and such a position is likely defensible (i.e. you didn't actually copy anything). It's patently obvious, though, that you don't really respect the concept. From its very first release, your tool had no purpose other than defeating the copy and use protections Whistler had put in place on their code.

Then, of course, there's the fact that your tool has been modifying Whistler's code since Feb 2017. What your users' CPUs are running is not what Whistler released.
 

SCPD

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
Yes, you were very careful to avoid sharing, distributing, #including, etc.Whistler's code.

Your "transcoding" function and tables were carefully crafted so that no "raw" version of Whistler's code ever exists, even in a RAM buffer. This care was obvious from a cursory examination of your source many months ago.

(Based on your posts, it looks like you've also been very careful to avoid using the word "encryption", instead using the term "obfuscation". This was almost certainly intentional. You know where that particular line is, and you've been careful to keep your toes barely on the right side of it.)

However, the latest release of your tool, supporting Whistler's WS1080/88 CPU version 4.6, absolutely depends on people sharing a decrypted copy of Whistler's code - rather than just downloading the "obfuscated" version directly from Whistler's web site. You didn't support that version until someone else decrypted and posted it.

You can say that you "follow copyright", and such a position is likely defensible (i.e. you didn't actually copy anything). It's patently obvious, though, that you don't really respect the concept. From its very first release, your tool had no purpose other than defeating the copy and use protections Whistler had put in place on their code.

Then, of course, there's the fact that your tool has been modifying Whistler's code since Feb 2017. What your users' CPUs are running is not what Whistler released.
Thanks Don. I'd like to add that Eric's last post says it all, "pissing off a Mfgr and developer". What a resume Eric! You lack specific experience as to what I may know and are making assumptions that aren't true. Let me send a PM. As in one of my previous posts, I recommend to use your talents for something like making an incredible App for the new remote control protocol. I'm sure you would do an incredible job.
 

scosgt

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
1,275
Maybe. Depends on how many people:
* hacked their old scanners to get DMR
* would have purchased a WS1080/88 (or later) absent the hack
* are now paying for the WS1080/88 upgrade to their old scanners
* etc.
They are getting $60 for a process which, after research, probably costs them pennies since one tech earning whatever they earn per hour can probably do 10-20 at the same time.
Sounds like Uniden.

But seriously, I applaud them for doing this. I know you work for them and have to stick up for them. So be it, it was the right thing to do and Eric pushed them into doing it.
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
309
Thanks Don. I'd like to add that Eric's last post says it all, "pissing off a Mfgr and developer". What a resume Eric! You lack specific experience as to what I may know and are making assumptions that aren't true. Let me send a PM. As in one of my previous posts, I recommend to use your talents for something like making an incredible App for the new remote control protocol. I'm sure you would do an incredible job.

I think if read Eric's posts correctly that he said he would not be making any more versions of the GRE tool because he wanted support what the Whistler group was doing. So he basically said that the last version what's going to be it. He has been recommending to people that they send their unit in for the Legacy upgrade. He said he wanted to support Whistler and their efforts to support the old Radio Shack customers. I think $60 is it pretty reasonable price to pay for this upgrade. I think the company is being very generous. I definitely will be making my future purchases for scanners from Whistler. If I had known about the problem with RadioShack I just would have purchased a WS1080 to begin with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top