HDHomeRun firmware downgrades

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.

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

Two different explanations? They're beginning to sound like Phil Spector's attorneys offering any possible theory of the crime other than he killed the victim. 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. AP reported that as gospel without even bothering to talk to a single person who actually did the hacking. AP obviously means "Apple Propagandists" and not Associated Press. The only time I've heard of firmware changes damaging hardware was in PCs, where a firmware change prevented CPU cooling fans from operating at the proper speed. I'm sure it happens, but it sounds like BS in a device like the HDHomeRun.

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?

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. Hollywood always hated that idea, even though it turned out to be immensely profitable for them in the long run.

regretfully

Perhaps someone figured out how to break their encryption so they've moved to a stronger protection algorithm. I think that would explain the sudden code growth and maybe even the lack of backwards compatibility. I guess they never heard the old saying "for every tall wall, someone's building a taller ladder, somewhere." Too bad. I sounded like a nice device. 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!

I'm beginning to wonder if the real effect of the forced marched to digital TV won't really be the end of network TV as we know it. Despite all the MTV tricks broadcasters are using like screen crawls to attract younger viewers, the average age of TV watchers is much, much older than the advertisers would like. Some studies are showing that all the screen clutter not only doesn't attract younger viewers, but it actually causes their largest demographic, the 24+ year old viewers, to go to Netflix or just read a book. Someday, probably when it's too late, they'll realize that older people have the most disposable income to spend. Another reason people are leaving TV (the Emmys got the lowest ratings ever) is the paucity of good programs on these days. Hi-rez garbage is still garbage. If a show's any good, it will make it to DVD eventually. Then I can watch it without the ever-growing number of commercials.

I'm going to forward this thread to someone at CNet. Maybe *they* can elicit the truth from SiliconDust in the face of potential bad publicity. It sounds an awful like they're embedded some sort of spyware in the new code. I just can't imagine to what end other than pissing off enough loyal customers like you to drive them out of business because no one will refer friends to them any more.

-- Bobby G.

| > 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. | | Two different explanations?

Yeah, I would have been happier with one. :(

You can read the thread here:

| 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? | >

| > 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'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 | > 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 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 | > 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... | | 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

Now I gotta wipe coffee spit off my screen. (-:

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.

combinations).

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.

What are the odds that they'd confess they had a visit from the DRM law dogs?

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.

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.

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.

pillar-boxed

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.

| 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.

It may be the case that, due to the firmware image becoming larger, that the old firmware format was insufficient for anticipated future firware. So perhaps what they have done is inserted a new firmware loader in the last release under the old format, and committed to using the new format thereafter.

The above is just a plausible guess. In this case you could also detect if that scenario might be the case. If they require this firmware version to be a step taken to upgrade beyond it from versions before it, that could very well be the case.

| > You can read the thread here: | >

| >

| | 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.

Yes, unfortunately, based on past experience I suspect the nature of his help would be to admonish me to use the "supported" software rather than my own. Back when I first bought the HDHRs and had not yet written any software for them I was testing with the supplied Windows GUI configuration tool (no source supplied, of course). It is a .NET 2.0 application and I had installed it (along with the .NET 2.0 framework) on Windows/98SE (which is indeed supported by .NET 2.0). It mostly worked but could not launch the VideoLAN Client. I asked them how they were trying to spawn the VLC executable. Rather than answer the question in a useful way he first told me that my computer would be too slow to display the video (in spite of the fact that I had initially pointed out that if I started VLC manually it worked fine to display the video). Then when I told him that the machine was a 2.8GHz P4 he said I shouldn't be running Windows/98SE on such a machine and should immediately upgrade to XP which would be fully compatible with anything I might want to run. When I pointed out that XP would not run any of the VxDs I load on 98SE and that in any case I did not want to upgrade, the conversation ended.

Analysis of the Windows GUI configuration tool revealed that they were using the UNICODE version of the CreateProcess call and were not including the necessary thunk layer to work on non-UNICODE operating systems. I was able to patch it well enough for my initial test purposes...

| "You are welcome to continue using the firmware already in the unit." | | How very nice of them.

Yes, that gave me a warm fuzzy feeling. It's good to know I'm allowed to use the hardware I bought.

| 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.

I have the default gateway on the HDHRs set to a machine that does not exist, but if they are clever I suppose they could snoop on other traffic and find a way to the Internet.

| 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!!!"

Yeah, at first I thought he was a shill considering that the initial non-answer took 4 days and was (I suspect) finally prompted by my inserting the question in a few other threads...

| The answers to your questions happened to be some of the most INdirect I've | ever seen.

So it goes...

| What are the odds that they'd confess they had a visit from the DRM law | dogs?

Well, I'd expect that if they were really on our side (as they sort of implied in the past) and there was no explicit gag order they would make the information public to gain support.

| > 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,

I don't think so. The broadcast flag proposals have always been about preventing receivers from producing an unencrypted representation of the "protected" material that they receive (even though the material is broadcast in the clear). The conventional channels of concern are Firewire (for stand-alone set top boxes) and the PC bus itself (for tuner cards). Ethernet is just another transport medium. Making the recording devices secure is an afterthought to enable the selective recording of some material once the recording device has established that it will not let the material out of the DRM cage. Receivers with integrated recording devices are far less of a concern since they do not need to expose the digital video outside the box.

Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com

In article , snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net writes: | In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Dan Lanciani wrote: | | | 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. | | It may be the case that, due to the firmware image becoming larger, that | the old firmware format was insufficient for anticipated future firware. | So perhaps what they have done is inserted a new firmware loader in the | last release under the old format, and committed to using the new format | thereafter. | | The above is just a plausible guess.

Their second explanation makes it sound something like that; however, it doesn't quite fit.

| In this case you could also detect | if that scenario might be the case. If they require this firmware version | to be a step taken to upgrade beyond it from versions before it, that could | very well be the case.

They don't require that, so any of the new, larger, can't-be-backed-out images must be loadable by the original loader. I suppose all the newer images could be part of a transitional process and include a new loader, especially if the loader provides necessary services to the image beyond loading it (i.e., it's more a BIOS than just a loader). Of course, if they had just explained this it would be a lot easier to believe.

Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com

I was considering buying one of these units. This thread has me thinking otherwise now.

Bob

Why?

They have a perfectly logical explanation of this issue on their support forum. AFAIK there have been no reports of lost functionality when upgrading the firmware in the unit. I upgraded the firmware in mine and I experienced no compatibility problems of any kind.

What, pray tell, is the big deal?