Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Thursday May 26, 2016
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC Technical > Engine Management & Tuning > Commercial ECU Reflashes

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads. 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-18-2006, 10:11 PM   #51
colby
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 15918
Join Date: Mar 2002
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:
08 STI/02 PGT WRX
DGM / Orange

Default

I have heard of at least 3 other people having this problem. I thought the same thing at first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zaarin
Is there any documentation at all of this problem occurring or not occurring to other people? So far this seems to be the first we've heard of such problems. There's a lot of speculation going around considering only one person has had such an experience. Did Cobb verify that the EcuTek intentionally crippled the cpu's ability to communicate with other programs? Is it possible that this is a one-time error? A bug or a glitch or something? Just throwing the possibility out there...
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
colby is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Old 06-19-2006, 12:31 AM   #52
RainMaker
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 93301
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland, Oregon
Vehicle:
06 CGM STI SM#17
Now with alot less verve!

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by west_minist
I do not think so, since I have came across it in the Caribbean.
I'd like to have come accross this in the Caribbean. I may have been much more chill about it. Maybe in my 4th Pina Colada when I'd heard the news.
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 01:01 AM   #53
west_minist
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 53451
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Caribbean
Vehicle:
2000 JDM Impreza SRX
w/ AVCS Silver

Default

LOL LOL.

In my area, not that at all. A gallon of White Run or CockSpur finest LOL.

The thing is, I do not know if the users knows about this. This sounds legal.

Last edited by west_minist; 09-23-2006 at 10:59 PM.
west_minist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 09:36 AM   #54
Bigspin
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 24786
Join Date: Sep 2002
Default

I am really disapointed that this thread has come to bashing a company that paved the way for reliable ECU reflashes. You can not pursue legal action against a companies product that you used under your own free will. Did someone hold a bat to your legs and tell you to use this product? I have used Ecutek in the past and i will continue to use. Any time you modify your car, you should not expect to recover your investment. You do it because you enjoy your car and want to improve one aspect or another of its overall package. I still think, even knowing that I can not sell my ECU's to another customer with the license in it if I sell my car, I still made the right choice using the EcuTek product. I have yet to have an issue with any of their products since 2002. Not even a CE light whether related to the flash or not.

I do agree that if you were planning on recuperating money by selling an ECUTEK flashed ecu in the future that being SOL kind of sucks. On the other hand, it does offer the company a since of security that there software can not be copied and it protects their tuners work indefinately.

When 1000"s and 1000's of dollars are invested in a product, the company needs to protect that investement.

In my opinion, if this is true, EcuTek played a smart move by encouraging top end companies and their tuners by protecting their information. I am sure it is only a matter of time before other flash companies will start doing the same if they believe that there software is at risk of being hacked or copied.

If this does go into legal action, I fear that more damage will come then good to the aftermarket industry. Look at the situation for what it is. No one is trying to cheat anyone else. Company A is protecting their software and their tuners work. Person B needs to be aware of that fact before making his choice. He (or SHE) either agrees or not with the security features of the EcuTek ECU.

MY TWO CENTS WORTH
Bigspin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 10:01 AM   #55
JRSCCivic98
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 67080
Join Date: Jul 2004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigspin
I am really disapointed that this thread has come to bashing a company that paved the way for reliable ECU reflashes. You can not pursue legal action against a companies product that you used under your own free will. Did someone hold a bat to your legs and tell you to use this product? I have used Ecutek in the past and i will continue to use. Any time you modify your car, you should not expect to recover your investment. You do it because you enjoy your car and want to improve one aspect or another of its overall package. I still think, even knowing that I can not sell my ECU's to another customer with the license in it if I sell my car, I still made the right choice using the EcuTek product. I have yet to have an issue with any of their products since 2002. Not even a CE light whether related to the flash or not.

I do agree that if you were planning on recuperating money by selling an ECUTEK flashed ecu in the future that being SOL kind of sucks. On the other hand, it does offer the company a since of security that there software can not be copied and it protects their tuners work indefinately.

When 1000"s and 1000's of dollars are invested in a product, the company needs to protect that investement.

In my opinion, if this is true, EcuTek played a smart move by encouraging top end companies and their tuners by protecting their information. I am sure it is only a matter of time before other flash companies will start doing the same if they believe that there software is at risk of being hacked or copied.

If this does go into legal action, I fear that more damage will come then good to the aftermarket industry. Look at the situation for what it is. No one is trying to cheat anyone else. Company A is protecting their software and their tuners work. Person B needs to be aware of that fact before making his choice. He (or SHE) either agrees or not with the security features of the EcuTek ECU.

MY TWO CENTS WORTH
Ok, first of all... what's uncool here is that you cannot even reflash the ECU back to OEM code when you want to sell the car. In other words, once EcuTek is on it you can't do isht with it. You can't even have your Subaru dealer try and troubleshoot a CEL for you because they can't connect and read anything off the ECU. This is the bad part... not that you cannot get your money back.

Also, there's no copying or hacking of their stupid ass software. The flashing method is a Denso one... not an EcuTek one. EcuTek didn't pave the way for anything... they just happened to be the first ones to sit in a garage and hack the Denso ECU. This is no different then what Cobb did.

If this is really happening, then the reasoning is probably for EcuTek to lock as many ECUs out as possible. That way if someone buys their product and then realizes that they can retune their ECU for free with OpenECU stuff (which they weren't aware of before they bought EcuTek) they cannot use that software, or for that matter, any other flashing software. So, not only are they monopolizig the market against OpenECU, but they are also doing it against Cobb as well. While people have posted that EcuTek isn't scared of Cobb in the marketplace, I tend to disagree with this. Cobb has a very good product with quick realtime tuning and changing of maps. A lot of people are going the Cobb route right now because of the access to user tuning software and the quick easy map switching. EcuTek's been dragging their ass for years on map switching for the 04+ cars, let alone a user tuning feature. Their money is not in this... their money is in the return customers to the tuners for new tunes/flashes. These customers have to pay a reflash fee as well as the normal tuner fees for their time. That's where EcuTek makes it's money from... not selling a user tuning version of their software to you.

Either way, I wouldn't be too worried... if the handshake was changed to something else which allows the new EcuTek software to interface with the ecu... it's just a matter of time before that change get's figured out. (Do you honestly think if Cobb found the problem they aren't going to implement the solution into their product? )

Last edited by JRSCCivic98; 06-19-2006 at 10:07 AM.
JRSCCivic98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 10:34 AM   #56
Tea cups
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 103136
Join Date: Dec 2005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigspin
I am really disapointed that this thread has come to bashing a company that paved the way for reliable ECU reflashes. You can not pursue legal action against a companies product that you used under your own free will. Did someone hold a bat to your legs and tell you to use this product?...

If this does go into legal action, I fear that more damage will come then good to the aftermarket industry. Look at the situation for what it is. No one is trying to cheat anyone else. Company A is protecting their software and their tuners work. Person B needs to be aware of that fact before making his choice. He (or SHE) either agrees or not with the security features of the EcuTek ECU.
It seems that Ecutek isn't telling anyone the consequences of their new flash procedure. Obviously they didn't tell the OP. If they were upfront about it before anybody got the flash and told them they couldn't reflash back to stock or marry an AP or anything else, then I think it would be a different story. If they had it posted on their web site and made it clear for everyone, then that would be different. Maybe they could offer to give you free reflashes back to the stock map in the future from your local ecutek dealer. That might be more reasonable.

And it is not like someone got a copy of the ecutek software, hacked it, and that's how the open source project got started. Instead, open source hacked the ecu on its own and created their own software and even a cable. I don't feel sorry for ecutek, I guess because of the promised user tuning ability for years and not delivering and the heavy handed way they tried to intimidate the open source project. Cobb, on the other hand, I respect more. When AccessECU first came out, it undercut Ecutek's price. And Cobb finally delivered with the Streetuner. So, now with mounting pressure from the free tuning tools, what does Cobb do? Lowers the price on streetuner and is coming out with streetuner advanced, which will have more features and supposedly some features never before offered to the Subaru community. Ecutek's crap is basically the same offering it was years ago.
Tea cups is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 10:42 AM   #57
Freon
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 88322
Join Date: Jun 2005
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Vehicle:
2009 BMW 135i

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigspin
...
Ecutek isn't notified their customers that once they get an Ecutek, they're locked in and will never be able to get rid of the Ecutek or use any other reflash. That ECU is hosed for good. If you can't find an Ecutek tuner, or don't feel like paying whatever rate the Ecutek tuner feels like, you're screwed.

Really, get a Cobb. I still see no reason for anyone to use Ecutek anymore. Cobb's product is superior in pretty much every conceivable way.
Freon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 11:59 AM   #58
RainMaker
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 93301
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland, Oregon
Vehicle:
06 CGM STI SM#17
Now with alot less verve!

Default

Many after-market tuning companies with modern ECUs are started with someone that has an "In" for the map locations and knows somebody that can put together some code. Other folks have to go in and find all the maps, find the algorythms, and do a huge amount of legwork. The companies that have an "In" are most often one-trick ponies. They arent otherwise capable of developing larger featuresets and enhanced capabilities. If you only have that "In", and if that is your only competitive advantage, then you are justifiably paranoid that someone else will discover or rip off what you have. The problem is that at the root, you are protecting somethign that you DIDNT work that hard for... you are just trying to be the only one to profit off of a secret.

I'm not saying who is who, but I personally think its exceptionally clear. I don't advocate the theft of intellectual property, but how bad can you feel for someone when what was questionably "stolen" is something that you got through the back door anyways?

EcuTEK could have been moderately blameless in this situation. EcuTEK could have all licensees (prior to flash) sign a paper showing that they understand that their PCM is being irreversibly converted to an EcuTEK-only PCM.

But none of us would have bought it then, would we?
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 12:00 PM   #59
David Power - EcuTeK
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 117936
Join Date: Jun 2006
Default

EcuTeK instigated the locking of the data in the ECU as a direct response to our dealer network across the world.

Our partners (the tuners) have been concerned that their intellectual property was being copied and perhaps would be programmed into vehicles to which it was not suitable therefore causing engine failures for which they might be blamed.

This is not an attempt to hijack the ECU but simply a response to a feature request by our tuning partners who have invested a huge amount of their time and effort into development of ROM files.

We are beta testing software to our dealers which will allow the ECU to be returned completely to standard with no locking. This will mean that it can then be programmed by the dealer or other hardware. This is being released in a few days.

In the event of a dealer reflash being required on a modified car then it would be advisable for the customer to visit his tuner in the first instance. He will be able to program the ECU using the latest version of ROM file but with his changes incorporated. We do provide EcuTeK dealers with the very latest ROM files which are as up to date as anything the dealers have. This is a far safer and more sensible option, as re-flashing a modified vehicle back to standard is not advisable.

We would also advise that Trey Cobb will be incorporating the same changes as us, thus allowing programming by Cobb products over EcuTeK and vice versa.

This is in direct response to requests from his dealers and allows him to protect his work.
David Power - EcuTeK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 12:01 PM   #60
RainMaker
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 93301
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland, Oregon
Vehicle:
06 CGM STI SM#17
Now with alot less verve!

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freon
Cobb's product is superior in pretty much every conceivable way.
Cobb is coming from behind on the number of maps made accessible. They dont have quite as many.

But thats what happens when you have to do the legwork and FIND the maps. It takes awhile, doesnt it?
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 12:15 PM   #61
Bishop
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 59993
Join Date: Apr 2004
Chapter/Region: International
Location: WWAAYY west of the Mississippi
Vehicle:
Ass, grass or cash
no one rides for free!!

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Power - EcuTeK
EcuTeK instigated the locking of the data in the ECU as a direct response to our dealer network across the world.

Our partners (the tuners) have been concerned that their intellectual property was being copied and perhaps would be programmed into vehicles to which it was not suitable therefore causing engine failures for which they might be blamed.

This is not an attempt to hijack the ECU but simply a response to a feature request by our tuning partners who have invested a huge amount of their time and effort into development of ROM files.

We are beta testing software to our dealers which will allow the ECU to be returned completely to standard with no locking. This will mean that it can then be programmed by the dealer or other hardware. This is being released in a few days.

In the event of a dealer reflash being required on a modified car then it would be advisable for the customer to visit his tuner in the first instance. He will be able to program the ECU using the latest version of ROM file but with his changes incorporated. We do provide EcuTeK dealers with the very latest ROM files which are as up to date as anything the dealers have. This is a far safer and more sensible option, as re-flashing a modified vehicle back to standard is not advisable.

We would also advise that Trey Cobb will be incorporating the same changes as us, thus allowing programming by Cobb products over EcuTeK and vice versa.

This is in direct response to requests from his dealers and allows him to protect his work.

well there you have it folks!
Bishop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 01:52 PM   #62
RainMaker
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 93301
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland, Oregon
Vehicle:
06 CGM STI SM#17
Now with alot less verve!

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Power - EcuTeK
We are beta testing software to our dealers which will allow the ECU to be returned completely to standard with no locking. This will mean that it can then be programmed by the dealer or other hardware. This is being released in a few days.
Thanks for the response. Please include PDXTuning in your Beta test. They are one of your most prolific tuners, and have communicated a lack of the capability to me.

While I understand a desire by the tuners to create tunes that cannot be "ripped off", the revenue that you are speaking of them losing is that of the more standard and applicable "stage 2 tunes" or similar.

In this case, I question the logic. You are irreversibly alterning a PCM of your customers without telling them so that you can protect a non-customer who has stolen the work of one of your tuners from his own ignorance. It sounds like horrible business logic.

OpenECU or others would quickly work this out. After that you would have accomplished nothing but the dissatisfaction of your own customers.

In a market where IP is the product and little hardware is required, the only way to keep customers is INNOVATION. I can't stress that enough.
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 02:06 PM   #63
happasaiyan
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 37731
Join Date: Jun 2003
Default

instead of locking the whole ECU, all that would be required is the software to produce a master checksum and the tuner be required to keep that checksum on file after they tune a customers ecu. if they dont match, sorry, you modified your tune, you have to pay for us to fix it now.
happasaiyan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 02:25 PM   #64
Tea cups
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 103136
Join Date: Dec 2005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Power - EcuTeK
Our partners (the tuners) have been concerned that their intellectual property was being copied and perhaps would be programmed into vehicles to which it was not suitable therefore causing engine failures for which they might be blamed.
That sounds like a bit of stretch. Someone going to steal a tune they didn't pay for, flash it to their car and then the shop can be held responsible when they blow their engine? That's like me stealing my neighbor's professionally installed sprinkler system, installing it myself in my yard and then expecting the company to fix it when it breaks.

I've noticed some professional tuners are now using the free tuning tools. If that catches on, and as these tools get better and better (especially when realtime tuning becomes a reality), why would anyone want to pay license fees for a commercial program. Not sure how Cobb and Ecutek set up their contracts with these tuners - over a period of time, per tune?
Tea cups is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 02:44 PM   #65
DMS North America
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 50608
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Blainville, Quebec, Canada
Default

intrestesting thread. Subscribed
DMS North America is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 02:47 PM   #66
Bigspin
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 24786
Join Date: Sep 2002
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tea cups
That sounds like a bit of stretch. Someone going to steal a tune they didn't pay for, flash it to their car and then the shop can be held responsible when they blow their engine? That's like me stealing my neighbor's professionally installed sprinkler system, installing it myself in my yard and then expecting the company to fix it when it breaks.

Sucks, but I have seen it happen first hand. There are some people out there that do try to do things that to the normal guys like us seems illogical and immoral, but they try it anyways. If the world was 100% honest, this would never be the issue.

Both COBB and ECUTEK in my opinion are on the right track, and I for one am happy that Mr. Power posted here and am anxious to see Trey's response as well. I thank them both for taking the time to read through this blurb of accusations and some valid points of discussion.
Bigspin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 03:10 PM   #67
David Power - EcuTeK
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 117936
Join Date: Jun 2006
Default

By the way we made this change to the software more than six months ago.

In that time it does not seem to have caused the huge number of problems that one might believe from reading this thread.
David Power - EcuTeK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 03:21 PM   #68
Trey
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 670
Join Date: Dec 1999
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Austin, the Republic of Texas
Default

Just to follow up with what Dave @ EcuTek stated:

We will offer compatibility with EcuTek reflashed ECUs for our future releases, and visa versa. EcuTek and ourselves have enjoyed open communication for some time so while we don't share IP, we don't make attempts to work against each other in a way that might negatively effect our user base. Both companies have committed to disclosing protection mechanisms we have, or will, put in place as a means to protect our own, and our tuner's work.

While it is true we have all gotten into the ECU through one "back door" or another, the end result is a raw binary dump with no comments or documentation. The work necessary to define what all these values do, and HOW they work, takes an enormous amount of effort. To think that someone could suddenly decipher this information in the matter of a day or even a few weeks would be naive at best. Reverse engineering an ECU is a multi-layer process. Dumping data or reverse engineering a device to determine the methods to upload a boot program are only one small step in the entire process.

As for us feeling a threat from the "open" source community, I cannot honestly say my perception of threat is felt by those truly committed to the "Open Source" philosophy. I am actually open to those that endeavor to learn what we have and more, and wish to do so by actually walking the same path we have and learning, as we have, along the way. That is the nature of open source so far as I've always known it, a path to knowledge discovery.

My concern and threat is due to the fact that Colby Boles has been actively soliciting the work that has been performed by "OpenECU" for sale to other companies such as those that offer Handheld programmers. And not for a very small chunk of change I might add. As I am in constant contact with others in my industry, I have no reason to think the CEO's or COO's of these respective companies would benefit from lying to me about that fact. Competition is the way of life in business, so I'm far from bellyaching. I think half those companies started with information acquired from former employees of either a Big3 or another competitor so its the way of life in this industry I'm afraid. Furthermore, the info is for the most part free online, just some critical things like oh I dunno, source code, that Colby has kept to himself. Makes sense why, now...

I just think if I were an active member of the "open" community I'd feel a little deceived. Granted Cobly "figured out" how to get in (though he can't show his work or describe his methods which is odd for open source) but a good portion of the other work has been performed by others for free. I certainly hope if a sale is made all you get something in return. And please don't take this as an attack of the "open" community as I don't believe it is the majority of the member's intention to profit, or cause harm to others, with the knowledge.

As someone has already mentioned, we must continue to innovate to stay ahead. Our intentions are to do just that. However any innovations we may make within the ECU code is now open for others to simply copy without any work put forth on their own part. We have other innovations, aside from our Realtime tuning, we wish to bring to market soon. I can only hope it is somewhat understandable we'd like the ability to protect those innovations for as long as possible.

Best regards,
Trey @ COBB
Trey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 03:32 PM   #69
PDXTuning
NASIOC Vendor
 
Member#: 49831
Join Date: Dec 2003
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: www.pdxtuning.com
Vehicle:
2008 Get Tuned Now
Knowledge is Power

Default

The real problem here is not that they locked down the ECU. The problem is it was locked down and, in this case, we were not able to unlock it. It is not common for our customers to want to switch from EcuTek to AP or from AP to EcuTek. The solution to this problem is exactly what EcuTek has done. Get the authorized dealers the ability to undo the license and this would not have been an issue.

We have had more customers come back to us and ask us to reflash their ECU because the dealer wrote over it or installed a new ECU than we have had people switch. In this case the dealer would have not been able to flash the ECU, and the customer would not have been inconvenienced with coming back to us after a standard service to get their map loaded back on.

With regard to the openecu effort, we do not have a problem with that. If someone develops the technology on their own to flash the ECU and they want to make it open source great. What I personally have a problem with is people using the openecu tools and openly asking for our maps to load for free on the car. We support both Cobb and EcuTek in locking our intellectual property. There is nothing like spending 100s of hours refining maps and then seeing them being passed around for free.

Letís look at one possible scenario. Someone gets their hand on one of our stage 2 maps, but he/she got one for an Injen intake vs. stock. Not knowing any different they run the map on the car for 2 months and the motor goes away. When that person is asked what EM they have they will say it is a PDX map. I seriously doubt they are going to advertise that they stole the map and ran it on their car, but they will likely say it is one we developed.

I am glad to see that EcuTek is going to release a tool that will allow us to avoid this situation in the future. Once this tool is in our hands I do not see a problem with what EcuTek is doing, and as a vendor/tuner I support it.

Both Cobb and EcuTek are going to have to improve their product; that is the only way either of them will survive the openecu effort. That is the beauty of competition, it forces all parties to either put up or shut up.

Jarrad
PDXTuning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 03:47 PM   #70
colby
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 15918
Join Date: Mar 2002
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:
08 STI/02 PGT WRX
DGM / Orange

Default

Thanks for addressing this. If tuners want to protect their IP, they should be able to do so. My only complaint here was the side effect of permanently locking customer's hardware. What you are proposing is probably the best comprimise solution.

I don't know how many times I can repeat this, but the purpose of the OpenECU project is not to enable people to copy other tuners/companies maps - it is to allow people to tune (or have others tune) their own cars without limitation or obfuscation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Power - EcuTeK
EcuTeK instigated the locking of the data in the ECU as a direct response to our dealer network across the world.

Our partners (the tuners) have been concerned that their intellectual property was being copied and perhaps would be programmed into vehicles to which it was not suitable therefore causing engine failures for which they might be blamed.

This is not an attempt to hijack the ECU but simply a response to a feature request by our tuning partners who have invested a huge amount of their time and effort into development of ROM files.

We are beta testing software to our dealers which will allow the ECU to be returned completely to standard with no locking. This will mean that it can then be programmed by the dealer or other hardware. This is being released in a few days.

In the event of a dealer reflash being required on a modified car then it would be advisable for the customer to visit his tuner in the first instance. He will be able to program the ECU using the latest version of ROM file but with his changes incorporated. We do provide EcuTeK dealers with the very latest ROM files which are as up to date as anything the dealers have. This is a far safer and more sensible option, as re-flashing a modified vehicle back to standard is not advisable.

We would also advise that Trey Cobb will be incorporating the same changes as us, thus allowing programming by Cobb products over EcuTeK and vice versa.

This is in direct response to requests from his dealers and allows him to protect his work.
colby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 03:57 PM   #71
RainMaker
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 93301
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland, Oregon
Vehicle:
06 CGM STI SM#17
Now with alot less verve!

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PDXTuning
The solution to this problem is exactly what EcuTek has done.
Slight technicality...

EcuTEK has said they will do.

I fully concur that if:

a) It was made known to me that a dealer could not access the ECU prior to the sale of the license, and

b) You (PDX) could reverse the lock so as to allow (even if only in your presence) the writing of the AP code right over your IP and their license,

we would have no issue today.

On a side note, thanks to each vendor (Cobb, PDXT, EcuTEK) for coming to the table in a civil manner. That alone speaks highly of your intentions, even when we argue about the results of actions.

Chris
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 04:01 PM   #72
RainMaker
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 93301
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland, Oregon
Vehicle:
06 CGM STI SM#17
Now with alot less verve!

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by colby
Thanks for addressing this. If tuners want to protect their IP, they should be able to do so. My only complaint here was the side effect of permanently locking customer's hardware. What you are proposing is probably the best comprimise solution.
LS1 (GM) tuning software offers a "encryption" option that (IIRC) throws enough forwarding vectors to obscure maps and their contents. In that sense, anything can connect to the ECU, but little can understand the raw output.

I have no belief that PDXTuning and I will ever part ways, so to speak, but I would be hesitant to rest the future of my PCM on my ongoing relationship with *any* single aftermarket auto vendor.
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 04:58 PM   #73
colby
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 15918
Join Date: Mar 2002
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:
08 STI/02 PGT WRX
DGM / Orange

Default

I just can't not take the bait from you

1. I have not actively solicited anything for sale to other companies. Other companies have been contacting me. I have not signed any deals to do work with anyone at this point. In any case, I will continue to provide all of my software for free with source code - that will never change even if I was to help someone else on a commercial project.

2. You seem to be suggesting that I don't release the source code to my work. I do - it just lags a little behind on my releases. To date this hasn't been much of a collaborative project, and I don't have a lot of time to support all the questions from people trying to setup a complex build environment with no less than 5 compilers an tens of source libraries, some over 1GB in size. The code is also young and I also enjoy the freedom of completely changing and restructuring any of the code base that I wish if I think it is right without have to notify anyone. Once I can organize the source code into an installable project with a readme on how to set it up, I will do so. I do this project because I think it is fun, and it's always more fun to write new code and hack new ECUs than to document old work. I think it is unfair for you to criticize the timeliness of which I give away my hard work for free when you charge for the same things and provide no source code or information.

3. You seem to keep questioning how to reverse engineer ECUs, so let me tell you how. I expect the you will be sharing what you have learned as well...

a) 2001-2005 WRX - 68HC916Y5 based
* get the chip docs!
* get a BDM from P&E Microsystems
* solder a BDM header the ECU using the handy solder pads Denso left for this purpose
* read out the rom (including the TPU area) with a couple clicks of the BDM software
* get IDA Pro
* write your own HC16 module for IDA Pro because you don't want to spend the money to buy IDA Pro advanced
* publish the source of your HC16 module for free for others to use
* start disassembling - find all the references to code that accesses the serial port
* notice that there is TPU code that uses the serial port ???
* figure out that the TPU area is a bootloader!
* learn what the bootloader wants, including checksums, etc.
* learn how the bootloader keeps the WDT happy
* get a HC16 assembler (COSMIC)
* write a simple kernel program to read out the CPU
* write a better kernel program to reflash the CPU
* discover that your 02 WRX works, but your 04 WRX won't enter the bootloader
* read out 04 WRX with BDM and go through the serial code
* find seed/key algorithm before jumping to bootloader!
* add see/key to PC reflash program

b) 2004+ Subaru DBW - SH7055 and SH7058 based
* get the chip docs!
* try using the same initialization sequence as the WRX
* it works!!!
* build SH cross-compiler
* start writing test kernels - some trial and error here
* the ECU is being reset by a watchdog!
* start tracing pins on the board with a scope - PB15 is twiddling!
* add WDT code to kernel - it works!
* write flashing code - test - test - test
* reprogram using boot mode (solder into ECU) when you screw up
* write another kernel for SH7058 that uses built in reflash functions

c) EVO 7/8 - SH7052 based
* get the chip docs!
* borrow a MUTIII - very handy
* snoop a TSB reflash using the MUTIII (only get one chance!)
* identify init sequence and kernel upload - no seed/key - this is easy!
* Mitsubishi uses boot mode for bootloader, which makes development and flash failures easily recoverable...
* write a simple kernel to dump all of ram so I can see what the Mitsubishi bootloader looks like
* buy IDA Pro Advanced - don't want to write any more modules!
* disassemble bootloader completely to understand how it all works, including initialization codes
* modify Subaru SH7055 kernel to work with SH7052 - easy!
* done!

d) EVO 9 - SH7055 derivative
* get the chip docs!
* borrow a MUTIII
* snoop a reflash using the MUTIII
* same init sequence!
* try loading my SH7055 kernel, and the ECU takes it, but doesn't seem to run the code
* I am stuck in the bootloader for some reason!
* from the snooping, I can see how to read / erase / write with the bootloader, but I want to use my own kernel - but how - I need to be able to read out the bootloader to find out how to load a kernel...
* create a EVO 9 ROM with a trojan kernel in it.
* flash this into the ECU, but is doesn't respond
* start tracing board and discover that there is a WDT that needs to run off of PD8 - but only when not in the init mode
* add WDT code to trojan kernel
* flash it and it runs!
* read out EVO 9 bootloader still left in RAM
* see command to load a kernel!
* see that bootloader uses built in flashing function like SH7058
* make new SH7055 kernel to support new flashing method like SH7058
* it works!

Colby

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey
Just to follow up with what Dave @ EcuTek stated:

We will offer compatibility with EcuTek reflashed ECUs for our future releases, and visa versa. EcuTek and ourselves have enjoyed open communication for some time so while we don't share IP, we don't make attempts to work against each other in a way that might negatively effect our user base. Both companies have committed to disclosing protection mechanisms we have, or will, put in place as a means to protect our own, and our tuner's work.

While it is true we have all gotten into the ECU through one "back door" or another, the end result is a raw binary dump with no comments or documentation. The work necessary to define what all these values do, and HOW they work, takes an enormous amount of effort. To think that someone could suddenly decipher this information in the matter of a day or even a few weeks would be naive at best. Reverse engineering an ECU is a multi-layer process. Dumping data or reverse engineering a device to determine the methods to upload a boot program are only one small step in the entire process.

As for us feeling a threat from the "open" source community, I cannot honestly say my perception of threat is felt by those truly committed to the "Open Source" philosophy. I am actually open to those that endeavor to learn what we have and more, and wish to do so by actually walking the same path we have and learning, as we have, along the way. That is the nature of open source so far as I've always known it, a path to knowledge discovery.

My concern and threat is due to the fact that Colby Boles has been actively soliciting the work that has been performed by "OpenECU" for sale to other companies such as those that offer Handheld programmers. And not for a very small chunk of change I might add. As I am in constant contact with others in my industry, I have no reason to think the CEO's or COO's of these respective companies would benefit from lying to me about that fact. Competition is the way of life in business, so I'm far from bellyaching. I think half those companies started with information acquired from former employees of either a Big3 or another competitor so its the way of life in this industry I'm afraid. Furthermore, the info is for the most part free online, just some critical things like oh I dunno, source code, that Colby has kept to himself. Makes sense why, now...

I just think if I were an active member of the "open" community I'd feel a little deceived. Granted Cobly "figured out" how to get in (though he can't show his work or describe his methods which is odd for open source) but a good portion of the other work has been performed by others for free. I certainly hope if a sale is made all you get something in return. And please don't take this as an attack of the "open" community as I don't believe it is the majority of the member's intention to profit, or cause harm to others, with the knowledge.

As someone has already mentioned, we must continue to innovate to stay ahead. Our intentions are to do just that. However any innovations we may make within the ECU code is now open for others to simply copy without any work put forth on their own part. We have other innovations, aside from our Realtime tuning, we wish to bring to market soon. I can only hope it is somewhat understandable we'd like the ability to protect those innovations for as long as possible.

Best regards,
Trey @ COBB
colby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 05:41 PM   #74
RainMaker
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 93301
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland, Oregon
Vehicle:
06 CGM STI SM#17
Now with alot less verve!

Default

I am now concerned that the locking also is being performed on cars other than 06 DBW cars...

Is that true?
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2006, 06:51 PM   #75
Trey
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 670
Join Date: Dec 1999
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Austin, the Republic of Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by colby
1. I have not actively solicited anything for sale to other companies. Other companies have been contacting me.
Fair enough. Definitely not the story I was told. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter to me what you do. It wouldn't be the first time a "open source" project was sold off by one of the developers for financial gain, I'm sure it won't be the last.

Quote:
Originally Posted by colby
2. You seem to be suggesting that I don't release the source code to my work.
I just noted it hadn't be released, despite being an open source project and despite the many requests on your own forum. As an outsider looking in, it appeared the lack of source code was a clever, though questionable from an ethical standpoint, move to leave yourself a commercial option. Perhaps after receiving a phone call or two asking, "Do you know a guy named Colby? He just tried to sell us some Subaru and Mitsubishi reflash tech. Isn't that stuff you guys do?" from our friends in the domestic reflash industry I incorrectly made assumptions. For that, I apologize.

Quote:
Originally Posted by colby
3. You seem to keep questioning how to reverse engineer ECUs, so let me tell you how.
I'm not isolated in my questions. Your own forum has several such inquiries. I'll defer comment as to the validity to the steps you've claimed to have taken for a more appropriate setting. I really see no benefit in a public "pissing match".

Rainmaker - EcuTek can state their current software release status. I know we both have in place the ability, and have communicated our current or intended strategy, to prevent a Subaru dealer from overwriting a customer's license stored in the ECU. This would be in place for all 01/02 WRX onward. I know we will provide the ability with our AP, and it sounds like it'll be the case with EcuTek, to "uninstall" the license and revert the ECU back to Subaru's original methods. Thus, "leaving no trace".

I am definitely open to what input the community has.

Kind regards,
Trey @ COBB
Trey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Warning: Do not tailgate an RV towing an SUV. cwareing Vancouver Impreza Club Forum -- VIC 8 07-09-2007 06:43 PM
Reminder: Do not purchase Maxtor drives. aod Off-Topic 81 03-01-2007 07:25 PM
60mphn4 - If this is your liscense plate, read this linux>windows Mid West Subaru Owners Club Forum -- MWSOC 19 10-10-2005 05:20 PM
Thinking about an APS catback for your STI? Read this first. WRXIN Factory 2.5L Turbo Powertrain (EJ Series Factory 2.5L Turbo) 11 02-24-2004 09:36 PM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2016 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2016, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.