|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#51 | |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 15918
Join Date: Mar 2002
Chapter/Region:
NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:08 STI/02 PGT WRX DGM / Orange |
![]() I have heard of at least 3 other people having this problem. I thought the same thing at first.
Quote:
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#52 | |
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! |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#53 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 53451
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Caribbean
Vehicle:2000 JDM Impreza SRX w/ AVCS Silver |
![]() 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 11:59 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#54 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 24786
Join Date: Sep 2002
|
![]() 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 ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#55 | |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 67080
Join Date: Jul 2004
|
![]() Quote:
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 11:07 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#56 | |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 103136
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
![]() Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#57 | |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 88322
Join Date: Jun 2005
Chapter/Region:
MWSOC
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Vehicle:2009 BMW 135i |
![]() Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#58 |
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! |
![]() 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? ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#59 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 117936
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
![]() 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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#60 | |
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! |
![]() Quote:
But thats what happens when you have to do the legwork and FIND the maps. It takes awhile, doesnt it? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#61 | |
Scooby Guru
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!! |
![]() Quote:
well there you have it folks! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#62 | |
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! |
![]() Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#63 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 37731
Join Date: Jun 2003
|
![]() 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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#64 | |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 103136
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
![]() Quote:
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? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#65 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 50608
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Blainville, Quebec, Canada
|
![]() intrestesting thread. Subscribed
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#66 | |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 24786
Join Date: Sep 2002
|
![]() Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#67 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 117936
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
![]() 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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#68 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 670
Join Date: Dec 1999
Chapter/Region:
TXIC
Location: Austin, the Republic of Texas
|
![]() 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. ![]() 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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#69 |
Former Vendor
Member#: 49831
Join Date: Dec 2003
Chapter/Region:
NWIC
Location: www.pdxtuning.com
Vehicle:2008 Get Tuned Now Knowledge is Power |
![]() 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. Let’s 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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#70 | |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 15918
Join Date: Mar 2002
Chapter/Region:
NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:08 STI/02 PGT WRX DGM / Orange |
![]() 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:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#71 | |
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! |
![]() Quote:
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 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#72 | |
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! |
![]() Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#73 | |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 15918
Join Date: Mar 2002
Chapter/Region:
NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Vehicle:08 STI/02 PGT WRX DGM / Orange |
![]() 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:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#74 |
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! |
![]() I am now concerned that the locking also is being performed on cars other than 06 DBW cars...
Is that true? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#75 | |||
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 670
Join Date: Dec 1999
Chapter/Region:
TXIC
Location: Austin, the Republic of Texas
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]() 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 |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 07:43 PM |
Reminder: Do not purchase Maxtor drives. | aod | Off-Topic | 81 | 03-01-2007 08:25 PM |
60mphn4 - If this is your liscense plate, read this | linux>windows | Mid West Subaru Owners Club Forum -- MWSOC | 19 | 10-10-2005 06:20 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 10:36 PM |