I guess this dude learned a lesson the hard way LOL.. but this might explain the recent HPT crackdown. I'm all for them making efforts to stop hackers or other bad guys from spreading their work illegally, but when it crosses over to where someone, as a normal paying customer, is now very concerned that their expensive interface could get irreversibly "bricked" because, say, they imported some kid's tune that he used hacked software on, that's where I draw the line that their greed is overreaching.

Besides, IMO there should be some path for the garage mechanic who is just tinkering and would never ever actually pay $100 per car to tinker tune to be able to get into the hobby, like Microsoft has their student programs for their software. It could actually increase their userbase and increase sales in the professional arena overall. It's them being greedy hardasses that's driving this whole underground thing IMO

Go after all the hacker bad guys? YES
Make strong efforts to prevent hacked software from working? YES
Sink to the hacker level and make a bomb in your software that will brick any interface, legit or otherwise, that comes in contact with a tune that encountered such software? RECKLESS, HATEFUL and REPUTATION DESTROYING. I really hope this isn't what is happening, poison pill in the hacker tunes.

================================================== ======

Law 360, New York (September 21, 2017, 3:07 PM EDT) -- An Illinois- based maker of software designed to let car enthusiasts and repair shops tune vehicle computers went after a rival in Washington federal court Wednesday for allegedly hacking into the company's systems and making off with trade secrets.

HP Tuners LLC alleges in its complaint that Syked ECU Tuning Inc. and its president, Kevin Sykes-Bonnett, wormed their way into the plaintiff's VCM Suite software, stole its source code and misappropriated it in a number of ways, including by creating a “cracked” version of the software that lets users dodge licensing fees.

“Defendants, acting in concert with others, have wrongfully accessed, trespassed, engineered and/or hacked HPT’s software, systems and source code to remove licensing restrictions from HPT’s VCM Suite software to distribute it for their own profit as well as to cause harm to HPT, which defendants view as a competitor,” the complaint says.

The suit continues, “Defendants, acting in concert with others, accomplished this via various means including adding extra licenses to existing interfaces and reselling them, by logging in via remote desktop to customer machines to enter in a hacked license key and by selling a version of hacked software with licensing defeated.”

HP Tuners alleges that it invested significant time and resources into developing its tuning and data acquisition software, which lets users tune and calibrate the computers in automobiles, trucks and other vehicles, including all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles.

The company has taken substantial precautions to protect its proprietary products and source code, restricting access to HP Tuners' confidential information among employees and implementing security measures like hard-drive encryption and sophisticated firewalls, according to the complaint.

However, a little more than a year after purchasing software from HP Tuners in September 2015, Sykes-Bonnett started reaching out to company employees, hinting at having reverse engineered the product and threatening to make public a version that does not require licensing, the suit alleges.

In early 2017, Sykes-Bonnett started advertising hacked versions of HP Tuners products on Facebook and bashing HP Tuners and its owners in posts, according to the complaint.

The offerings ramped up as the year went on, with posts showing up on HP Tuners' forum under a username believed to be used by Sykes-Bonnett and other conspirators, offering help with generating VCM Suite licenses at discounted prices and advertising cracked versions of the software that do not require licenses at all, the suit says.

The email address associated with that username proceeded to send HP Tuners a number of messages threatening to publicly release cracked versions of its software, until the company obtained a temporary restraining order in connection with arbitration proceedings against a former employee, according to the complaint.

"As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ ongoing violations and the misconduct alleged herein, [HP Tuners] has suffered, and will continue to suffer substantial injuries, loss and damage to its business and goodwill in an amount to be proven at trial," the suit says. "If defendants are permitted to continue its conduct, [HP Tuners] will be irreparably harmed."

The suit accuses Sykes-Bonnett and his Washington-based company of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; federal, Washington and Illinois trade secrets statutes; and both states' consumer protection laws. The complaint also brings claims for breach of contract and tortious interference.

HP Tuners seeks disgorgement of the defendants’ profits and damages suffered by the plaintiff; exemplary, compensatory and other damages; injunctive relief; pre- and post-judgment interest; and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately return requests for comment Thursday.

HP Tuners is represented by Stephen G. Leatham of Heurlin Potter Jahn Leatham Holtmann & Stoker PS and Andrew P. Bleiman of Marks & Klein.

 

That's ashame....except HPT is 1 step away from being Livernois and their proprietary stuff that lock their customers out of accessing their own tunes or making changes.

 

So many people in here thinking they should get something for almost nothing and that a company isn't allowed to protect their property by any means necessary. If you don't like it, make something yourself and you'll find out what it really takes to offer something even half way competent to market. Complaining that you have to spend a whopping $100 to license and tune your garage built car, jesus christ that's the cheapest thing you have going for any build and to any professional tuner that's peanuts in the grand scheme of things and most have unlimited anyways. New vehicles are certainly more expensive to tune and for good reason, the level of work required to access and map the newer ECMs are light years ahead of a basic LS1 PCM. May as well get it while you can, the EPA has something in store for EVERYBODY coming up and don't think you are going to be immune. About the last thing I would be doing right now would be building another software package to edit vehicle computers as people/companies are starting to find out the hard way.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


literally no one said they should get something for "almost nothing"

 

I see a few people in this thread complaining about the credits required to tune their car and how it should be cheaper now because it's older. $100 in licensing is peanuts and insinuating that it should be even cheaper than that would be almost nothing when you look at what you are spending to build the damn thing in the first place. If you can't afford $100 to actually make your car run after spending WAY MORE money building it... get it yet?

 

Just ignore him. He used to be cool on here years ago, but has turned into a schumck. I guess he's just gotten beat down over the years, its a shame really.

 

Well I certainly have compassion for him. I myself am finding out that tuning for money can put you in touch with some people who do not value your time. It's exhausting.

But he does know his ****, and when he shares it---it's exceptionally valuable. And even when he's combative he's quite a bit less rude than most folks.

He has been there and done that.

He's made some money from HPT and they from him. I can respect his position of "don't rock the boat" but I don't have to agree with it.



The thread has gotten a bit off track. I just wanted to make the uninitiated aware they could inadvertently lock their interface. That's it.

I myself am guilty of the derail. My apologies.

 

Nah, I've always called out BS when I see it and it just so happens that there is a ton more on this forum than there used to be. The new low is when people complain about how it's too expensive to license and tune their car when it's half the price of a set of single coil beehive valve springs. LMFAO

 

I never said I didn't agree with a company making money....or they wouldn't be in business. I said myself and many others I have spoken with feel that paying grade A price is fine when it's new but over time things loose value and if nothing new is being added or done to keep something fresh then it's going to become less valuable over time.

And this is exactly what myself and number of people from this forum and a couple of others are doing. 100% free.... no strings attached.....working with multiple devices...solution for reading and writing the P01 and P59 pcm's. Tuning has always been avaible with free programs but with out a way to flash the altered tune back into the pcm there wasn't a whole lot of point in altering a bin file your never going to be able to use.

Some people will cry and complain about every thing...others will take action into their own hands and do something about it. If the cost of tuning older pcm's had been lowered over the years this likely wouldn't have ever been an issue that so many people felt the need to finally address.

 

We aren't talking about getting something for nothing, we are talking about charging customers an extra $100 for flashing their OS from a 2000 to a 2002 *156 OS to unlock needed tables when the ECM never left the car.

 

Any chance you could elaborate on this? I assume you are talking about FUTURE cars/tuning, not existing established ones, in which case it's not going to be EVERYBODY that is affected, unless you know something we don't?

 

No I'm not going to elaborate but it's already affecting established companies and tuner shops, look at SCT/Bully Dog and you will see what's coming down the pipe for others and it's not pretty. Things are already being removed and it's going to affect everybody.

 

Since their licensing model works off of the OSID/VIN pairing wouldn't you in fact be requesting something for free at that point? You certainly didn't need to flash a new OS onto your PCM so it's nice that it was an option for you to do so. It's certainly cheaper than using a GM MDI box and a service subscription to do it. Hell back in the day flashing the 2/3 bar custom operating systems used to be 2 additional credits and then they started just including that for all at no additional charge later on. At least they added the ability to license a VIN/OS mismatch now and the new universal credits are much nicer than the manufacturer specific so I'm not locked into any particular brand when purchasing those credits which is helpful. They have adjusted their pricing to what the market dictates on several things over the years compared to when they were first offered. People are either just new to this game, don't pay attention to it, or turn a blind eye if it doesn't suit their argument.

 

The feds are basically coming down on all tuners who are disabling/removing emission controls via the tune. This mostly affects those in states that don't check smog periodically in order to keep a car registered, like we do in California.

 

I personally think the $100 per car is too high, but I agree they can charge what they want.

But if they put the normal Joe at risk of nuking his interface solely for the purpose of spiting the hackers, therefore depriving him of something he paid a lot of money for, then that's where they would cross a line. I don't care if it's in their EULA, if I pull down some kid's tune and it nukes my $600 investment, I'm suing and I bet I'd win.

If this were an understanding compassionate company I probably wouldn't even be posting right now. But we all know the cutthroat mentality this company has shown with mistaken credit purchases and lost devices with credits on them and the attitudes in their message forums etc. etc. This news that we might have to deal with poison pills in tunes is WAY over a line with me if it turns out to be true.

I'm not upgrading to V4 or reading any other cars than my own until this plays out and I understand it better. Isn't it a shame I have to do that?

 

That's not how it works and you have nothing to worry about. In the one case that I know of the interface was only locked until the issue was sorted, the only ones that are nuked are verified stolen cables and hacked cables. The tune itself nor the version used does not dictate anything. And remember, a great majority of those "lost" devices were resold later which is why you always check with them to make sure it's not stolen before buying it used. It's also the reason that if you have a lot of money tied up on the device it should be insured like anything else so if it truly does get stolen you aren't out too much, again like anything else in this world.

 

Thanks for replying, and I hope you're right but suspect there's more to it than that.

What you described is exactly what has been happening all along with the stolen/lost interfaces. This sounds different.

Even in the OP it was suspected that there is "something" in the tune file. That's different than their software hitting on a serial number in the stolen/lost interface and locking it.

I guess we're all speculating at this point. From reading here and other sites, my bet is that the "hacked" version that's floating around out there writes something in the tune that newest downloaded V4 software can detect, and will brick your interface stolen or otherwise. I don't know that to be true, but am preparing for that possibility until this plays out.

I'm a low-budget hobbyist who broke the bank building a $1800 junkyard LQ4 who burned $600 just to be able to tune it myself, so forgive me if I state my opinion that %33 of the cost to plop this engine in my car is too much for the tuning portion. I am entitled to my opinion after all.

 

Some guys getting all bent out of shape over $100 when i literally told you it doesnt have to cost that AND all new interfaces come with 8 credits. Yet theyll not blink at paying $600 for a dyno tune when they leave rhe car makes great peak power but cant drive for crap.
I literally had a guy tell me his friend dynos out of his garage (at his house) and charges $800 but "its worth it because his cars make the most power" then i proceeded, the rest of the phone call, to diagnose issues with his car that were all tune related.

If you are going to use a flex sensor and flash OS on a car and spend like $1k more for fuel system and injectors or hell even pay $800+ for ID injectors alone and pay even more for E85 then why even make a stink about $100 or less one time? Or same with the custom OS for boost. Youre going to spend however much on all the components (normally thousands) then an extra Benjamin isnt going to kill you. Thats being overly dramatic.

If you use your credits wisely then you may not have to worry about spending them twice on something. It isnt HPT fault that the user uses their credits how they do. There are many ways and many options.
If you plan on doing it for more than just your stuff then you should plan your credits/purchases accordingly also.

Holley dominator systems are well over 2k and they are selling like crazy. The actual crazy part is, most of the people buying them will NEVER use 90% of the potential of the unit. And you can swap any engine into a stock harness just like you can on a Holley or similar setup.

And i highly doubt you spent $600 just to tune your one jy swap. If you bought HPT then its either 499 or 650 respectively. If you bought it used for less thats on you, but it takes 2 credits for na stuff like what you are saying. If you got a box with 0 credits and had to buy more...again on you. Not HPT fault you feel salty about that.

 

We're losing focus again. If anyone has any additional info on this trend of interfaces getting locked with the new software please post as I am quite concerned about that and that's what this thread is supposed to be about, and try to skip the HPT pricing complaints. I'm subscribing and am hoping to understand this better.

 

Interesting reading apparently on the background behind the hack:

https://globaldatareview.com/article...en-source-code

Apparently this dude made a youtube video showcasing one of his products, and one of the popup windows had verbage that exactly matched some HPT verbage or something LOL... doesn't sound like a very thorough hacker. In this case I'm all for HPT, sounds like pretty damning evidence.

EDIT: when I click the link I guess the referrer mechanism doesn't show the whole text, here is what I see when I manually enter it:

Car tuning company asks for injunction over stolen source code

• A Nevada car tuning company has asked a US federal court to stop a competitor from selling products it claims were built using stolen source code, a year after it tried and failed to file a similar request.

HP Tuners on 16 August asked the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to block Syked ECU Tuning, a Washington-based company, from selling products that allegedly use source code and software HP Tuners built. HP Tuners uses proprietary hardware and software to tune and calibrate its customers’ engines.

HP Tuners had filed the same request in October 2017, but the court denied the request after finding a lack of evidence. The company says it has now gathered evidence from an anonymous source which it believes supports its case enough to warrant intervention.

HP Tuners alleges that Ken Cannata, one of its former owners, passed confidential proprietary information to competitor Syked ECU Tuning around three months after he left the company. HP Tuners says that this information is of significant commercial value to the company, and that Cannata had signed confidentiality agreements preventing its disclosure.

The company’s motion alleges Syked has wrongful possession of source code and a key generation tool, and that it would suffer irreparable harm if Syked can continue selling and developing products built with the help of the proprietary code.

Though HP Tuners was not able to show the court sufficient evidence for this allegation last year, the company’s counsel say they were recently provided with email evidence from an anonymous source in exchange for a reward paid in Bitcoin. They state that they do not know who the source is, but confirmed the legitimacy of their claims before paying them.

The evidence shows screenshots of computer systems and files in use by Syked, with names and descriptions that HP Tuners say exactly matches those of their proprietary information. It also shows screenshots of defendant Kevin Sykes-Bonnett, Syked’s president, sharing a proprietary General Motors algorithm on Facebook.

HP Tuners says other Facebook posts made by Sykes-Bonnett and shared by the anonymous source contain a number of threats to publicise code, which it argues should be taken seriously given his decision to share General Motors information.

HP Tuners also asserts that it took the necessary precautions to protect its confidential and proprietary information, including passwords, firewalls, restricted access, and a requirement for its employees to relinquish confidential information when they left the company.

The Nevada-based company has asked the court to stop Syked from from releasing HP Tuners’ source code, and selling, producing or releasing any further products built using HP Tuners’ proprietary information; and ordering Syked to disclose further information.

Lane Powell shareholder John Whitaker, counsel to Syked, told GDR: “What you see is an abuse of the legal system perpetrated by a company (HP Tuners) terrified of legitimate competition. HP Tuners has admitted that it does not honestly believe any of its software code has been used in Syked ECU Tuning's products.”

“Instead, HP Tuners is attempting to secure a dishonest advantage in the marketplace by dragging out protracted and unreasonably delayed litigation in an attempt to divert all of Syked ECU Tuning's resources away from legitimate business and to this litigation,” Powell said. “In the end, HP Tuner's deceptive and anti-competitive conduct will be revealed and the true bad guy will be made known.”

HP Tuners’ counsel did not respond to a request for comment.