MSO2000 Application module hack

[Stonent]

https://sites.google.com/site/blinkyoontz/hacktek

Looks like you can add features with a small board and an eeprom.

[Berni]

Wow you would think tek would use something more advanced that a off the shelf I2c EEPROM programmed with just a bit of data.

[T3sl4co1l]

Of course, the contents of that EEPROM are subject to copyright law, so... 

[tinhead]

Of course, the contents of that EEPROM are subject to copyright law, so... 

really? all one need are these strings, in cleartext: "DPO2COMP", "DPO2AUTO" "DPO2EMBD".

I doubt that Tektronix have copyright on these 3 words.

[Stonent]

Tek Strikes Back
http://hackaday.com/2014/08/05/hardware-security-and-a-dmca-takedown-notice/

[janoc]

Of course, the contents of that EEPROM are subject to copyright law, so... 

really? all one need are these strings, in cleartext: "DPO2COMP", "DPO2AUTO" "DPO2EMBD".

I doubt that Tektronix have copyright on these 3 words.

Well, the obviously think they do, according to the DMCA notice they sent  . They are not the first ones trying to abuse the copyright law to lock out potential competitors. Companies designing crap DRM to milk customers and then trying to fix their poor engineering by unleashing the lawyer hordes should be really publicly shunned.

It the same as what Lexmark tried to pull off with their "copyrighted code" in the chips inhibiting refilling their ueber expensive ink cartridges. However, I believe they have lost that one, so Tek could be risking a lot should someone stand up to them and bring it to court.

They should have learned from Rigol - if anything, Rigol sold many more scopes to hobbyists because of their hackability. And pros will not bother voiding their warranties to save $500 anyway.

[PA0PBZ]

The original site has been taken down too now, but of course it is still here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20140729081735/https://sites.google.com/site/blinkyoontz/hacktek

[janoc]

The original site has been taken down too now, but of course it is still here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20140729081735/https://sites.google.com/site/blinkyoontz/hacktek

The best part? That guy wasn't even the first one to find this, by his own words:

After scraping the internet (and Google Translate) for information about this scope, I was able to produce my own Application Modules. It was a whole lot easier than I expected it to be.

Here is a post - from 2002, no less, describing the same thing for a different model scope:
http://www.edaboard.com/thread2506.html And that was just quick googling in English.

So the info is likely widely available for over 12 years already, Tek uses the same stupid technique in their new scopes and wonders that it gets hacked? I think they should lose any lawsuit resulting from this simply based on the fact that the measure doesn't satisfy the "effectiveness" criteria in DMCA. 

[mikeselectricstuff]

And now on Slashdot
Way to invoke the Striesand effect Tektronix!

[Stonent]

Funny thing. I downloaded the files last night because I anticipated this. I don't even have the scope.

[kilohercas]

So the info is likely widely available for over 12 years already, Tek uses the same stupid technique in their new scopes and wonders that it gets hacked? I think they should lose any lawsuit resulting from this simply based on the fact that the measure doesn't satisfy the "effectiveness" criteria in DMCA. 

i think from MDO4000, MDO3000, and MSO3000 series, they use secure eeprom, so it is impossible to hack tektronix oscilloscopes by applications key. It works only with old scopes. But even with new security, they still do mistakes by leaving information for hackers , so they can generate keygen to unlock scope. Few more years and tektronix will be just like Agilent, with very advanced security.

[firewalker]

Funny thing. I downloaded the files last night because I anticipated this. I don't even have the scope.

Would you like to share? 

Alexander.

[salfter]

Funny thing. I downloaded the files last night because I anticipated this. I don't even have the scope.

As someone else posted, the Internet Archive had already stored a pre-takedown version of the page.  The download links within (for the firmware files) are still good (as of right now, at least).  The EAGLE board file is downloadable from OSH Park.  I don't have the scope in question (used to have a 545A and an RM585A until the last move), but it seemed like a good idea to grab everything and zip it up before it finds its way to the memory hole.

[hans]

From a hobbyist-community perspective I see Tek pushing their scopes to many video blogs all over the place (can easily count  5 serious channels) - and all of them are treating it like it was a gift.

And now a hackaday article exists on their fancy new scope about a hack, and all of sudden its a "hot item". As far as I can see, there isn't really nothing new to see here.. just a confirmation it works on this series of scopes too.

http://forum.tsebi.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=113
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/reviews/hacking-tektronix-feature-modules/msg166162/#msg166162
http://hackaday.com/2010/03/10/50mhz-to-100mhz-scope-conversion/#comment-129124

I am not sure it's good or bad that other sites are blogging about hackaday vs Tek now.

On one side, my impression of Tek has sunk even lower to a "we make expensive enterprise products"-brand.
On the other side, I am now aware that Tektronix scopes software options can easily be added and the price is basically an "all-in" price.
Just like so many people to my impression do with their Rigol gear - would it have been so popular / often recommended if that wasn't case? (although I guess the community has many smart & dedicated people that will eventually figure this stuff out)

I think the best thing that could now happen if any of those blogger's that had their scope "given" to them from Tektronix is to step up and blog about the hackaday article, discuss the take down, maybe even demonstrate the hack in 3 easy steps, and let the community watch whether Tektronix are real dickheads or not (and just fix their broken licensing system if they are really serious about their stuff)

[free_electron]

first : i don't condone stealing stuff. pay for the stuff you use. especially if you make money off of it.
Second : you do not have a licence to use that software, even if it came pre-installed . just like you having a dvd with the windows install files does not entitle you to use that software. you need the key.

but, if the valid keys were listed in plain sight ... and  the strings are in plain text on Teks own website ....   cat- >milk...

Then again , if i post a picture of my house key on the internet and someone files a blank in that shape that does not give him the right to get into my house with it and make off with a bunch of stuff. However .. the judge may throw it out because i did not use caution protecting my key. leaving stuff in plain sight in a car .. don't cry if it gets burglarized. you could actually get sued because you are enticing ...

[iRad]

Then again , if i post a picture of my house key on the internet and someone files a blank in that shape that does not give him the right to get into my house with it and make off with a bunch of stuff. However .. the judge may throw it out because i did not use caution protecting my key. leaving stuff in plain sight in a car .. don't cry if it gets burglarized. you could actually get sued because you are enticing ...

As stories go...
But you put the stuff from your house into a box, and you had a garage sale and sold the box with the stuff inside to someone. You also put inside the box another hidden but locked box with other stuff inside it. And you made a feeble effort to hide the key to that hidden box, but in a public place. Now the person who bought your box figures out how to open that hidden box because they found the key you failed to hide well, in a public place. They did not have to trespass into your house to take that key. And they certainly took nothing from your house that you did not sell them...

[firewalker]

I could use the key I made to enter your house, watch tv etc. Without messing or stealing anything. I considered the photo of the key as an invitation to your house.

The machine I buy is mine to play with. The sharing of the trick I learned is something different.

Alexander.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Second : you do not have a licence to use that software, even if it came pre-installed

<assuming I'd bought this scope>
Unlike most PC software, where there is a license agreement shown at install,
I did not agree to any terms that stated I needed a license to use the software.
Nowhere did it explicitly say I was not allowed to use it.
Therefore I do not need a license. If I can make it work, I can use it.
 If, for example, there was extra memory fitted that could be enabled by removing a jumper, I don't think anyone could argue that doing so, or telling others how to, was in any way wrong.
It's a scope, not a general purpose computer. The fact that certain functions are implemented in software is irrelevant.

[free_electron]

Second : you do not have a licence to use that software, even if it came pre-installed

<assuming I'd bought this scope>
Unlike most PC software, where there is a license agreement shown at install,
I did not agree to any terms that stated I needed a license to use the software.
Nowhere did it explicitly say I was not allowed to use it.
Therefore I do not need a license. If I can make it work, I can use it.
 If, for example, there was extra memory fitted that could be enabled by removing a jumper, I don't think anyone could argue that doing so, or telling others how to, was in any way wrong.
It's a scope, not a general purpose computer. The fact that certain functions are implemented in software is irrelevant.

you may want to read the users manual of the machine... i'm willing to bet there is a software licencing agreement in it in the terms of 'if you power it up , you agree to it ...' and 'you will not reverse engineer , yadda yadda ...'

[Stonent]

It's not much different than what IBM does on their mainframes.  They send a much better one than you order but the software is configured to ignore all the extra hardware.  Then when you need it, you call them up and they unlock the extra functionality with no need to take the system down.

[Stonent]

As far as the blogs, I think that's the MDO3000 that everyone has.

[free_electron]

from the mdo2000 users manual page 4 :

"Copyright © Tektronix. All rights reserved. Licensed software products are owned by Tektronix or its subsidiaries or suppliers, and are
protected by national copyright laws and international treaty provisions.
Tektronix products are covered by U.S. and foreign patents, issued and pending. Information in this publication supersedes that in all
previously published material. Speci?cations and price change privileges reserved."

[mamalala]

from the mdo2000 users manual page 4 :

"Copyright © Tektronix. All rights reserved. Licensed software products are owned by Tektronix or its subsidiaries or suppliers, and are
protected by national copyright laws and international treaty provisions.
Tektronix products are covered by U.S. and foreign patents, issued and pending. Information in this publication supersedes that in all
previously published material. Speci?cations and price change privileges reserved."

So what? They have a copyright on their software, which is to be expected. IWhat you quoted is not a license agreement. Someone who buys the scope already got a copy of the code, pre-installed on the scope.

Here in Europe any "agreements" that are bascially shrink-wrapped are null and void. Agreements can only come valid if the buyer is made aware of, and agreed to, them at the point of sale. Any agreement that is inside the box, or has the form of "by opening this, you agree to that" simple has no relevance here.

And then, unless someone in Europe would buy the scope directly from Textronix, and they made the buyer aware of any terms and conditions before the sale went through, any T&C's or license agreements will be between the seller and buyer. The seller can decide to re-use Tek's stuff 1:1 if he wants to. But that only means that at that point they just become _his_ T&C's or license agreement. Tek would still have no further say in the matter.

So, again, because it is really important that people not living in Europe understand this: Any T&C's or license agreements that a buery is not made aware of at the point of sale, before the sale happened, are nothing more than justt a waste of paper and ink.

Greetings,

Chris

[mikeselectricstuff]

Second : you do not have a licence to use that software, even if it came pre-installed

<assuming I'd bought this scope>
Unlike most PC software, where there is a license agreement shown at install,
I did not agree to any terms that stated I needed a license to use the software.
Nowhere did it explicitly say I was not allowed to use it.
Therefore I do not need a license. If I can make it work, I can use it.
 If, for example, there was extra memory fitted that could be enabled by removing a jumper, I don't think anyone could argue that doing so, or telling others how to, was in any way wrong.
It's a scope, not a general purpose computer. The fact that certain functions are implemented in software is irrelevant.

you may want to read the users manual of the machine... i'm willing to bet there is a software licencing agreement in it in the terms of 'if you power it up , you agree to it ...' and 'you will not reverse engineer , yadda yadda ...'

No way would a statement like that in a user manual hold up legally - not worth the paper it's printed on.
Who reads manuals anyway?

[mikeselectricstuff]

from the mdo2000 users manual page 4 :

"Copyright © Tektronix. All rights reserved. Licensed software products are owned by Tektronix or its subsidiaries or suppliers, and are
protected by national copyright laws and international treaty provisions.
Tektronix products are covered by U.S. and foreign patents, issued and pending. Information in this publication supersedes that in all
previously published material. Speci?cations and price change privileges reserved."

So nothing about any restriction on use then.