HDHomeRun firmware downgrades
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Dan Lanciani on September 26, 2007, 3:29 am
Please log in for more thread options (20070131) SiliconDust has apparently added a lock to the HDHomeRun to prevent the loading of firmware older than the current version. Can anyone who has been following the versions tell me the latest version I can load without being locked in? SiliconDust won't say. This lock makes it impossible to back out an upgrade if there are application compatibility problems. Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Robert Green on September 27, 2007, 10:50 am
Please log in for more thread options Why would they do something that idiotic? Are the DRM police after them? I read a piece in today's NYT that said: "Jesper Johansson--a former senior program manager for security policy at Microsoft who moved to Amazon in September last year--wrote in his blog on Monday that he may drop Windows Media Center for LinuxMCE, a free open-source add-on to the Kubuntu desktop operating system, because problems caused by Microsoft's digital-rights management (DRM) software have proven so difficult to fix." http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1016_3-6210131.html I'm detecting a slow and steady burn from customers about all the DRM crap that they paid for (not Hollywood) and that inhibits their use of digitial media under the supposition that if you want to do anything but what they tell you, you're a crook. Maybe if you ask some tech writers like the guys at CNET why HDHomeRun is "locking" their firmware the HDHR folks will "back out" of their recent policy change. It's worth a shot. -- Bobby G. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Dan Lanciani on September 27, 2007, 5:09 pm
Please log in for more thread options ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM (Robert Green) writes:
| > Sometime after the version of firmware that I'm currently running
|
| > (20070131) SiliconDust has apparently added a lock to the HDHomeRun | > to prevent the loading of firmware older than the current version. | > Can anyone who has been following the versions tell me the latest | > version I can load without being locked in? SiliconDust won't say. | > This lock makes it impossible to back out an upgrade if there are | > application compatibility problems. | Why would they do something that idiotic? I don't know. They have now responded with two different explanations (one about different "factory calibration" and another about a new firmware format that has the property that if you were to be able to downgrade to the previous version it could "damage" the hardware). They also said that there are two classes and it's just that you can't downgrade between classes. But that doesn't seem to agree with a message from a user who couldn't downgrade from a beta to the previous real release, both well into the second "class." The user is unable to make recordings longer than 38-40 minutes. |Are the DRM police after them? I asked that and they said no. They have been adding various phone-home "features" which are supposed to be off unless explicitly turned on, but one user reported that the device was hitting his firewall with outgoing requests 300(?) times per day even though he had never enabled it to phone home. The firmware also got a lot bigger recently with no obvious significant increase in user-visible functionality. I find it hard to believe that they do not understand the debugging 101 rule that says that if a change breaks something the first thing you test is undoing the change. They claim that all firmware releases are completely backwards-compatible so you never need to back out an upgrade, but this was certainly not true in the past. I think they must have a really good (for them) reason for doing this and I'm concerned that it will turn out to be a bad reason for users (beyond the debugging issue). I was never really comfortable with the encrypted firmware (preventing a quick "strings" from showing the latest command changes) but I understood they want to protect their intellectual property from reverse engineering. Taking that in combination with this new change, though, I must regretfully withdraw my recommendation of the product... Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Dan Lanciani on September 28, 2007, 2:59 am
Please log in for more thread options ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM (Robert Green) writes:
| ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM (Robert Green) writes: | > | > Sometime after the version of firmware that I'm currently running
| > | > (20070131) SiliconDust has apparently added a lock to the HDHomeRun | > | > to prevent the loading of firmware older than the current version. | > | > Can anyone who has been following the versions tell me the latest | > | > version I can load without being locked in? SiliconDust won't say. | > | > This lock makes it impossible to back out an upgrade if there are | > | > application compatibility problems. | > |
| downgrade
| > | Why would they do something that idiotic? | > | > I don't know. They have now responded with two different explanations | > (one about different "factory calibration" and another about a new | > firmware format that has the property that if you were to be able to | > downgrade to the previous version it could "damage" the hardware). They | > also said that there are two classes and it's just that you can't | > between classes. But that doesn't seem to agree with a message from a
| user
| > who couldn't downgrade from a beta to the previous real release, both
| longer
| > well into the second "class." The user is unable to make recordings | > than 38-40 minutes.
|
| Two different explanations? Yeah, I would have been happier with one. :( You can read the thread here: http://www.silicondust.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4223 | The "damage the hardware" theory sounds just like the BS Apple is | spreading about hacks to the I-phone rendering the phones useless after they | issue a SW upgrade. I have seen cases where embedded flash updaters failed in bad ways for certain combinations of file size, leaving the device in an unbootable state. But in each of those cases the solution was to fix the bug in the next release and to warn users about the bad ones (or bad combinations). And of course, if you know about the problem in advance you could just as well fix the bug (which has to be in the _new_ firmware) as add the downgrade lockout... | > |Are the DRM police after them?
| significant
| > | > I asked that and they said no. They have been adding various phone-home | > "features" which are supposed to be off unless explicitly turned on, but | > one user reported that the device was hitting his firewall with outgoing | > requests 300(?) times per day even though he had never enabled it to phone | > home. The firmware also got a lot bigger recently with no obvious | > increase in user-visible functionality.
|
| I'm amazed at how quickly HW and SW makers have assumed everyone has an | Internet connection and will gleefully let both talk to whomever they | choose. When I worked in a classified lab, hooking a PC to the internet, | even for a FW bump, would invalidate the unit's security and it would have | to be completely recertified under the assumption that once it's connected | to the WWW, all bets are off in terms of data security. What do the "home | phone" features do for the end user? Or is this just more of nosey | manufacturers wanting to know everything about their customers, even if | those customers don't want to participate knowingly in their data collection | efforts? My understanding is that they are trying to create a channel lineup database by combining information on what channels are available in each area where an HDHR is operating. I think this is used by some software on the PC for PVR/guide functionality. (I use my own software so I'm not sure exactly what's supposed to happen.) | > I find it hard to believe that they do not understand the debugging 101
| completely
| > rule that says that if a change breaks something the first thing you test | > is undoing the change. They claim that all firmware releases are | > backwards-compatible so you never need to back out an upgrade, but this
| was
| > certainly not true in the past. I think they must have a really good (for
|
| > them) reason for doing this and I'm concerned that it will turn out to be | > a bad reason for users (beyond the debugging issue). | I suspect you're entirely correct. I would suspect they've added something | to prevent recording of material broadcast with the "no copy" flag set, but | they're not a recording device, per se, although it's obvious that HDHR | owners will likely be recording programs as VCR owners have been doing for | decades. The primary use of the HDHR is as a tuner for various recording software, so yes, I'd say it is likely that owners will be recording programs. :) | > I was never really comfortable with the encrypted firmware (preventing a
| regretfully
| > quick "strings" from showing the latest command changes) but I understood | > they want to protect their intellectual property from reverse engineering. | > Taking that in combination with this new change, though, I must | > withdraw my recommendation of the product...
|
| Perhaps someone figured out how to break their encryption so they've moved | to a stronger protection algorithm. That's a good possibility that did not occur to me, though I'm not sure why anyone would care about breaking the encryption as long as the firmware wasn't creating DRM problems. | I just | got a hi-rez LCD TV only to discover that nearly every HDTV signal I get on | my Comcast connection is 720, not 1080, so I've got black bars everywhere! The black bars aren't there because of a resolution mismatch but because of the horrible mishandling of aspect ratios. A number of my OTA ATSC stations broadcast always claiming 16:9. When they have 4:3 material (which is a lot of the time) they pillar-box it. When displaying this "16:9" content on my 4:3 TV the default is to letter-box. So I get black bars all the way around a little 4:3 picture on a big 4:3 screen. Fortunately, some devices have an option to expand the 4:3 picture-in-a-picture to full screen. The other night I was confused that none of the usual selection of options was giving me the expected result. It turned out that they were broadcasting actual 16:9 content letter-boxed in a 4:3 window which was then pillar-boxed in their standard 16:9 format! Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Robert Green on September 28, 2007, 8:45 am
Please log in for more thread options ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM (Robert Green) writes:
> | > | > Sometime after the version of firmware that I'm currently running
HDHomeRun
> | > | > (20070131) SiliconDust has apparently added a lock to the > | > | > to prevent the loading of firmware older than the current version.
say.
> | > | > Can anyone who has been following the versions tell me the latest > | > | > version I can load without being locked in? SiliconDust won't > | > | > This lock makes it impossible to back out an upgrade if there are
> | > | > application compatibility problems. > | > |
They
> | > | Why would they do something that idiotic? > | > > | > I don't know. They have now responded with two different explanations > | > (one about different "factory calibration" and another about a new > | > firmware format that has the property that if you were to be able to > | > downgrade to the previous version it could "damage" the hardware). > | > also said that there are two classes and it's just that you can't
> | downgrade
> | > between classes. But that doesn't seem to agree with a message from a
> | user
> | > who couldn't downgrade from a beta to the previous real release, both
> | > well into the second "class." The user is unable to make recordings > | longer
> | > than 38-40 minutes.
> |
> | Two different explanations? > > Yeah, I would have been happier with one. :( Now I gotta wipe coffee spit off my screen. (-: > You can read the thread here:
> > http://www.silicondust.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4223 At least Nick has promised to help you should their promise of the new FW not breaking anything turn out to be more hope than fact. "You are welcome to continue using the firmware already in the unit." How very nice of them. It's those kind of replies that give tech support a bad name. That almost implies that they're being nice to you and could demand you stop using the unit if you didn't upgrade. Worse yet, their "phone home" plan could contain elements of MS's Genuine Windows anti-piracy bushwa where they can knock out your machine remotely if they suspect you of criminal malfeasance. My favorite part of the thread? "Wow; what other product do we own where we get direct answers from the actual Designers/Developers within an hour of posting!!! Thanks guys, good to know!!!" The answers to your questions happened to be some of the most INdirect I've ever seen. > | The "damage the hardware" theory sounds just like the BS Apple is
they
> | spreading about hacks to the I-phone rendering the phones useless after > | issue a SW upgrade.
combinations).
> > I have seen cases where embedded flash updaters failed in bad ways for > certain combinations of file size, leaving the device in an unbootable > state. But in each of those cases the solution was to fix the bug in > the next release and to warn users about the bad ones (or bad > And of course, if you know about the problem in advance you could just as
downgrade
> well fix the bug (which has to be in the _new_ firmware) as add the > lockout...
That's pretty much the way it is with PC BIOS firmware. I've never known any PC BIOS's creators to engage in downgrade lockouts, though. There's something happening here, as the Buffalo Springfield used to sing, and what it is, ain't exactly clear. And as you noted before, it probably isn't good for the end user. SD's answers left more questions than not as to what exactly happened with the lockout other than the vague threat of damaging your unit in some unspecified way. > | > |Are the DRM police after them?
> | > > | > I asked that and they said no. What are the odds that they'd confess they had a visit from the DRM law dogs? > | > They have been adding various phone-home
but
> | > "features" which are supposed to be off unless explicitly turned on, > | > one user reported that the device was hitting his firewall with
outgoing
> | > requests 300(?) times per day even though he had never enabled it to
phone
> | > home. The firmware also got a lot bigger recently with no obvious
> | significant
> | > increase in user-visible functionality.
> |
internet,
> | I'm amazed at how quickly HW and SW makers have assumed everyone has an > | Internet connection and will gleefully let both talk to whomever they > | choose. When I worked in a classified lab, hooking a PC to the > | even for a FW bump, would invalidate the unit's security and it would
have
> | to be completely recertified under the assumption that once it's
connected
> | to the WWW, all bets are off in terms of data security. What do the
"home
> | phone" features do for the end user? Or is this just more of nosey
collection
> | manufacturers wanting to know everything about their customers, even if > | those customers don't want to participate knowingly in their data > | efforts?
> > My understanding is that they are trying to create a channel lineup > database by combining information on what channels are available > in each area where an HDHR is operating. I think this is used by > some software on the PC for PVR/guide functionality. (I use my own > software so I'm not sure exactly what's supposed to happen.) I suppose that's a fairly legitimate reason for it to want to phone home fairly often. The state of HD broadcasts around here is pretty "iffy" so I'd imagine anyone making HDTV hardware would want to know as much about the environment as they could. But from what you describe, it doesn't sound like it's as voluntary a process as it should be. > | > I find it hard to believe that they do not understand the debugging
101
> | > rule that says that if a change breaks something the first thing you
test
> | > is undoing the change. They claim that all firmware releases are
> | completely
> | > backwards-compatible so you never need to back out an upgrade, but
this
> | was
> | > certainly not true in the past. I think they must have a really good
(for
> | > them) reason for doing this and I'm concerned that it will turn out to
be
> | > a bad reason for users (beyond the debugging issue).
> |
something
> | I suspect you're entirely correct. I would suspect they've added > | to prevent recording of material broadcast with the "no copy" flag set,
but
> | they're not a recording device, per se, although it's obvious that HDHR
for
> | owners will likely be recording programs as VCR owners have been doing > | decades.
> > The primary use of the HDHR is as a tuner for various recording software, > so yes, I'd say it is likely that owners will be recording programs. :) As if there's anything I've seen yet worth recording. (-: I would think they'd have a better chance of evading draconian DRM concerns because there's no recording device built into their box, but I suppose that realistically, lots of people will record stuff. I read an article in the NYT about the second life many TV shows are getting via Netflix and DVD. Apparently scripted shows fare much better in the second life market because once you know who won "Survivor" or "Hell's Kitchen" the thrill on seeing re-runs diminishes. On the other hand, I can watch L&O episodes three or four times and not remember who done it. Senility, mostly, but it does cause me to rent the disks from Netflix. I never realized how many commercials we're bombarded with until I began watching TV via Netflix. The "suspense before cut to commercial" sticks out like a sore thumb when there aren't any commercials to cut to. > | > I was never really comfortable with the encrypted firmware (preventing
a
> | > quick "strings" from showing the latest command changes) but I
understood
> | > they want to protect their intellectual property from reverse
engineering.
> | > Taking that in combination with this new change, though, I must
> | regretfully
> | > withdraw my recommendation of the product...
> |
moved
> | Perhaps someone figured out how to break their encryption so they've > | to a stronger protection algorithm.
firmware
> > That's a good possibility that did not occur to me, though I'm not sure > why anyone would care about breaking the encryption as long as the > wasn't creating DRM problems.
No yet, anyway. They may be planning to include DRM, though. I know a lawyer who works for the MPAA and when they come knocking, they come in battalions. They especially like to lean on the little guys because they know they don't have the resources to challenge them. You've no doubt heard this joke: What are the three branches of the Federal Government? Hollywood, Big Business and Microsoft. > | I just
on
> | got a hi-rez LCD TV only to discover that nearly every HDTV signal I get > | my Comcast connection is 720, not 1080, so I've got black bars
everywhere!
>
of
> The black bars aren't there because of a resolution mismatch but because > the horrible mishandling of aspect ratios. A number of my OTA ATSC
stations
> broadcast always claiming 16:9. When they have 4:3 material (which is a
way
> lot of the time) they pillar-box it. When displaying this "16:9" content > on my 4:3 TV the default is to letter-box. So I get black bars all the > around a little 4:3 picture on a big 4:3 screen. Fortunately, some
devices
> have an option to expand the 4:3 picture-in-a-picture to full screen. The
pillar-boxed
> other night I was confused that none of the usual selection of options was > giving me the expected result. It turned out that they were broadcasting > actual 16:9 content letter-boxed in a 4:3 window which was then > in their standard 16:9 format!
We were watching Ken Burns' new doco in 720 HD the other night when my wife uttered the words no man ever wants to hear: "But it's so small!" I can change the way the TV displays lower resolution program material but I can really see the difference in upconverting to 1080. We'll probably end up running the TV from a PC because the PC's video card provides more flexibility in adapting various formats to the screen. PowerDVD is, in fact, a lot easier to use than my various DVD players and recorders. I am going to have to dig out my old X-10 PC mouse unit so I can operate the PC's controls remotely. All in all, HDTV is nowhere as great a leap as CD's were from cassette tapes or vinyl records (ducks as audiophiles throw brickbats at me). I haven't been very impressed by all the different formats, the lip synch issues and the strange way fast motion is rendered compared to old NTSC or movie film. I was expected more of the experience I get from my Wii console that this is something totally new and way cool instead of HDTV's endless stream of compromises, disappointments and over-all weirdness. I do like being able to receive OTA HDTV much more clearly that I ever could NTSC TV broadcasts. -- Bobby G. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| HDHomeRun firmware downgrades | September 26, 2007, 3:29 am |
| CM15A Firmware versions | March 12, 2005, 3:24 pm |
> (20070131) SiliconDust has apparently added a lock to the HDHomeRun
> to prevent the loading of firmware older than the current version.
> Can anyone who has been following the versions tell me the latest
> version I can load without being locked in? SiliconDust won't say.
> This lock makes it impossible to back out an upgrade if there are
> application compatibility problems.