ChrisB

[quote]Originally posted by Team ZR-1:
<strong>For the $500 in the powerloader there was a grand total of THREE changes.

1. idle speed raised due to cam
2. Rev limiter raised 200 RPM
3. Two values changed in one RPM for spark.
<hr></blockquote></strong>

I think we are arguing different points - no doubt some tuners are crap, and your example and program seem to agree with that - but just because people may use the lock to hide crap programming does not mean the two are related.

[quote]
It still ends up with people stealing G.M's software, selling it for big bucks and people then defending those actions as if the tuners wrote some program. <hr></blockquote>

I still disagree with this analogy - they are not selling the source code - the users already own that and a license to it - they are selling their service in making changes to it - again, unless they were selling their own DFI setup I don't think the analogy is apt.


[quote]You cannot take ownership of operating values in a table that the functions were already designed to operate within and you cannot lock out the hardware for they do not own that and that is what this is about, with the lock the PCM locked to all but the tuner and if they eant to protect their changes fine, but only those changes, the PCM and the software is not their product and have no legal right to lock those out from the car owner or G.M.<hr></blockquote>

I would never *buy* a PCM that was locked, but if someone else has no problem doing it, then more power to them.

If the tuner has the right to change the spark tables - which could say stop your ability to run 89 octane - or remove emissions tests, etc. which make it illegal for you to drive on the street - then they surely have the "right" to modify the secury validator.

As for violating EPA, etc. rules - so do probably the other 100 things they do and end users to with LS1 Edit - so I don't think that's a valid argument for differentiating between the two.

I don't like the idea of purchasing a locked PCM and wouldn't - but I don't understand what you have against allowing someone who has no problem with this do it?

Chris

Black LS1 T/A

My programming from Superchips was nowhere as simplistic as yours.

There were many tables modified... Torque Mgmt removed, shift points changed, rev limiters, idle adjustments, Fuel Injection rates, tire height, rear-end ratio... the list goes on.

I defy anyone who says their tuning was crap.

Their changed calibrations made a car that would sit still (with the physical changes I made... SC and fuel system) run like a raped ape.

Sounds like you picked the wrong tuner. <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0">

Yep... the changes you made, and many of the ones Superchips made, I could figure out on my on in a... uh.. flash. <img src="graemlins/gr_barf.gif" border="0" alt="[barf]" /> (Sometimes I just kill myself. <img src="gr_grin.gif" border="0"> )

But, many of those changes I had to study, and am still studying.

The 'programming' you recieved is a poor example of a good tuner's data.

RJS

Hey, maybe we ought to take a look at the music industry, and see what they do with digital copyrighting. Someone told me once that it down to how many bytes of someones music you can borrow before a similar tune is an illegal one.

Then there are the classic hardware reverse engineers of copmponents like the 386. Company A designed it, then company B comes along looks at all the features, writes a spec for an identical part, sends the spec out and has a third party vendor, vendor copies (reverse engineers) part and submits to company B as a new design to meet their spec. Well you probably can not do that anymore but it did happen in the past.

like many of you are saying, this is all new territory!
Rick

Terry Burger

iTrader: (4)

I'm sure we can just fix the "lock". This is software afterall. Maybe he just changes your VIN in the PCM? How does the lock keep LS1EDIT from working? What error message does LS1EDIT display?

Camaroholic

iTrader: (1)

I still think all the crying about being an 'illegal lockout' is silly. <img src="gr_grin.gif" border="0"> I cannot think of a single instance where a dealer would read the image out of the PCM to do anything. The only application for this would be the aftermarket. Ed Wright won't lock Steve Cole out - Steve would simply burn his own image over the top of the Ed Wright tune. So, you can certainly move from tuner to tuner. <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0">

Anyhow, there are ID's in the binary image that can be modified so that your image is uninterpretable by the LS1_Edit program. If the software can't identify the image, it can't edit the file.

And modifying the .LS1 file to change these bytes of data isn't really an option, since .LS1 files are scrambled with encryption anyway. Take a look at a .LT1 file, you'll see 'English' text in there. Now take a look at a .LS1 file... It's completely garbaged out.

-Andrew

red53gmc

[quote]Originally posted by Camaroholic:
<strong>Ed Wright won't lock Steve Cole out - Steve would simply burn his own image over the top of the Ed Wright tune. So, you can certainly move from tuner to tuner.
-Andrew</strong><hr></blockquote>

He wouldn't?!?! That's like saying he doesn't care if you go to Steve Cole. He wants money so if he could lock out Steve Cole, I'm sure he'd do it.

Bottom line is when you get a custom tune, you are paying for changes to the pcm to make the car run better(hopefully), and no changes to anything else unless you agree to them.

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: white53gmc ]

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: white53gmc ]

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: white53gmc ]</p>

Camaroholic

iTrader: (1)

I think you missed my point.

Steve would not start with Ed's tune and 'make changes on it'. Steve would start with a fresh tune. Flip the tables, Ed would start with his own tune as well, he would just overwrite Steve's without even looking at it.

Neither PCM would be 'locked out'. If you want to go somewhere else with your money, nothing is preventing it.

-Andrew

JimMueller

iTrader: (9)

I've only had two revisions of Ed's programming. One I received in ~July of 2000, and an update this past January when I visited his shop. I don't know if LS1-Edit was even a glimmer in someones eyes in early 2000, and I certainly couldn't have waited 18+ months for a tune.

I wasn't asked to sign any documents which mentioned anything about locking out the PCM via other methods. Only questions I were asked dealt with mods.

Obviously all this complaining wouldn't have come about without the advent of LS1-Edit. Had I known the later flash would have locked out my PCM, I wouldn't have visited his shop. I personally feel it's a little deceitful to not mention this 'feature', especially when I drove out of my way 600+ miles to visit his shop. I'm sure if there was a purely public domain software which did everything LS1-Edit may perform as well as disassembling the source code and not encrypting the tabes, we'd be screaming at LS1_Edit. After all, were we notified that we wouldn't be able to hex edit the downloaded images? Both methods are employing tactics to prevent you from using another product.

So far as EPA, I'm guessing any mods to the PCM are illegal, and we'd be hypocrites from a legal standpoint.

$0.02

ChrisB

[quote]Originally posted by JimMueller:
<strong>I'm sure if there was a purely public domain software which did everything LS1-Edit may perform as well as disassembling the source code and not encrypting the tabes, we'd be screaming at LS1_Edit. After all, were we notified that we wouldn't be able to hex edit the downloaded images? Both methods are employing tactics to prevent you from using another product.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

AFAIK it is not LS1 edit that encrypts the files, but the computer/protocol itself.


Chris

Team ZR-1

EPA had a security protocol added to OBD-II for the sole purpose to prevent people from hacking on the flash. If someone informs what that key was, then via the upload tool you have it send the key, then send it a new one and replace the key.

Both the PCM and upload tool talk back and forth, each must request and reply in a certain way and reply back within a certain timeframe.

This is all explained in the HS3000 OBD-II standard.

You'd have a problem if the VIN # was changed, and a smog station compared it to what is on the registration.

[quote]Originally posted by Terry Burger:
<strong>I'm sure we can just fix the "lock". This is software afterall. Maybe he just changes your VIN in the PCM? How does the lock keep LS1EDIT from working? What error message does LS1EDIT display?</strong><hr></blockquote>

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: Team ZR-1 ]</p>

Terry Burger

iTrader: (4)

Just talk to the LS1EDIT guys and ask them to fix their program so NO ONE can lock you out. I'm sure its not that hard.

ToplessTexan

Correct. You could even do it yourself if your were willing to lay out the cash. <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0"> Not that you would want to buy a tool to use just once, but here's a link to the relevant tool to give you some idea of what's available:

http://www.obd2.com/sps/data/sps.htm

I think the Carputing guys will do reflashes for a nominal fee as well.

iateyourcat

I think the answer is this, sell the tune with the knowledge that it cannot be edited and provide the customer with a backup of the original flash so that if he wants to go back to it he can just flash over the custom tune with LS1 Edit.

A little honesty up front will save tuners from a huge headache later. As it is, I see alot of customers who will be demanding free flashes back to stock... and rightly so.

I don't agree with Bugblndr's opinion that I should have to ask if can edit my tune at a later date. That's my car. I wouldn't expect you to lock me out of my own cars computer any more than I'd expect you to keep a set of my keys. That's just common sense.

Engine builders don't lock down the heads or weld on the manifold. I can pull my heads and look at the valves. I take out the cam and measure the lobes. I can examine my property and experiment with the changes that I've paid for.

I understand the concepts of protecting your investment and getting paid for your work. And I don't think a lock is a bad thing. I think not disclosing the fact that there's a lock is wrong.

Team ZR-1

You cannot just buy the G.M flash re-programmer.
I've sold a few of them and you have to fill out a form and prove your a valid auto repair business.

G.M has strict rules who can purchase the SPS.
You cannot even be a co-seller of the SPS without being approved to sell them.

As for just going to the dealer and getting re-flashed, is seems people are forgetting that means to remove the lock, you also just wiped out the $500 plus for the tuner flash. You eat it.

Also it is not assured it will not cost you more.
I know of 3 cases where in doing a total reflash to remove the locked tuner flash, the flash memory got corrupted and since flash memory is soldered in the PCM had to be replaced and even though car was in warranty, G.M would not warranty the repair costing the customers another $400.
Now your out about $1,000 just because of some greedy tuner.

Rumor mill is G.M has received complaints about these locks put in their software and the Sh*t will be hitting the fan and EPA might add a test to I/M 240 testing to see if a valid nameplate security code is in the PCM, if not, reject the car from smog test.

So in the end due to a few greedy tuners,
we all will pay the price one way or another. <img src="gr_sad.gif" border="0">

So no matter what the talking heads for those tuners say it still ends up the tuners taking copyrighted software, claiming ownership and that is then a thief calling the kettle black, but I doubt the claim of stealing some tuners flash is true until they prove otherwise, a red herring and I'd say let them show us the source code proving it was stolen, but either way if the story was true, it was another tuner doing it, not us single version owners, again showing the class of those type of tuners making hugh profits. My gut feeling is tuner shops are PO'd and are trying to discredit LS1-Edit owners.

Consider $500 a pop,
IF only doing 200 flashes a year, that's 100,000 plus.
Overhead, cost of a hex editor ( freebies on internet) or programmer and a SPS which is about $1500.
That's a ton of profit and if people think the flash their getting is a one of a kind, well I guess they should be locked out...

As to the tuners spending blood, sweat, tears and a ton of knowledge, how come in the 1st day of getting LS1-Edit I was able to learn how to use it, make the calibration changes, flash PCM and gained 35 HP over the powerloader that was in the PCM, hmm, well they are not really that smart are they ?

Issue is locking owners of of their PCMs,
IMHO, stupid move tuners.

Black LS1 T/A

iateyourcat again makes my argument. Logical guy... <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0">

Live long and prosper. <img src="gr_images/icons/cool.gif" border="0">

EFILive

iTrader: (2)

Has anyone ever wondered if the DMCA applies to PCM re-flashing/hacking?
I've often been concerned about the implications of this law regarding PCM security.

[quote]EPA had a security protocol added to OBD-II for the sole purpose to prevent people from hacking on the flash<hr></blockquote>

It seems to me that one needs to circumvent "...technological measure that effectively controls access..." (the seed/key security) to gain access to the protected "work".

The kicker is - "...technological measure that effectively controls access..." does not need to be sophisticated.

Here's an excerpt from the DMCA
More here DMCA - slashdot

"§ 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
"(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES.-
"(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
...
"(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that-
"(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
"(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
"(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
"(3) As used in this subsection?
"(A) to 'circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
"(B) a technological measure 'effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

Camaroholic

iTrader: (1)

[quote]Originally posted by ChrisB:
<strong>

AFAIK it is not LS1 edit that encrypts the files, but the computer/protocol itself.

Chris</strong><hr></blockquote>

Chris,

LS1_Edit DOES encrypt the .LS1 file. They (Carputing) do this for all OBDII programs (both LT1_Edit for OBDII and LS1_Edit). This makes it difficult for someone to find where the tables are and create a competing product based on their work.

You'll notice that a .LS1 file is 513k in size - the LS1 image is only 512k in size. That extra 1k has something (I don't know what, and I really don't care... <img src="gr_grin.gif" border="0"> ) in it. <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0">

-Andrew

Bugblndr

Let's look at this from another angle. Is your PCM "LOCKED"? Obviously not, as you can still have it reprogrammed by the tuner. You can also have it reflashed by the dealer. That isn't "LOCKED" to me.

Just because LS1Edit doesn't know how to interpret the data that's stored in a PCM doesn't mean that its locked down. It just means that the tuner took measures to ensure that their tune could not be copied.

iateyourcat

[quote]Originally posted by Black LS1 T/A:
<strong>iateyourcat again makes my argument. Logical guy... <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0">

Live long and prosper. <img src="gr_images/icons/cool.gif" border="0">

</strong><hr></blockquote>

LOL!! Thanks.. err... I mean, it is the only logical conclusion.

Godspeed

[quote]You'll notice that a .LS1 file is 513k in size - the LS1 image is only 512k in size. That extra 1k has something (I don't know what, and I really don't care... ) in it. <hr></blockquote>

Actually the file is not 513k, that is just what Windows reports (it rounds up.)

The files are actually 524,311 bytes. 512k = 524,288 bytes (1k = 1024 bytes.) So actually the file has 23 more bytes than a 512k file. <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0">

http://204.0.73.225/Godspeed/ls1/ls1.jpg

-Jeremy

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Godspeed ]</p>