Ok, please enlighten us as to how it's possible that some Rigol models have good protection and others don't.
Rigol obviously has the "expensive/slow/complicated" framework in place, and it's a system which has no "key" to leak!
I see, there is misunderstanding.
I'm not contesting an outcome. Some products are easier and some are harder to hack. Even from same manufacturer.
What is being discussed here is a motive.
What you propose is a deliberate plan to use hacking as a marketing strategy.
And I'm telling you it is much simpler than that.
First manufacturers would be VERY happy that nobody hack any scopes and if they would, pretty please, all pay full price for them. I assure you of that.
But products come with different target market in mind. There is hobby market where lowest price is 90% of decision.
And profit margins are tight. So if adding security will increase price even a little bit, they have a choice to make: not to secure it and risk that they will sell mostly the one they make least money from as people will hack it, or they do secure it, but price is a little bigger, and people buy less of least expensive ones (because starting price is more now) and maybe they will sell more of more expensive ones. So if design is such they lower cost as much so can afford to sell the cheapest model and still make money, that is what they do. And if someone also buy legally higher models that is the cream on top.
This long paragraph means: there are products where hacking can be tolerated. There is the whole market segment there. Securing it would mean more cost and disturbance is sales. So they leave it alone. But it is not some strategy that was devised upfront by Machiavelli. Just capitalism and consequences of that.
As you go up the food chain, there are products that are at the very margin what hobby users can buy, and also beginning of pro range.. There manufacturers still have same decision, and here we know companies won't hack anything and hobby users that would are few. So also no need to optimize.
As you go higher anti hacking makes even less sense because companies don't hack and average Joe won't buy it.
Securing devices makes more sense in pure security context than as an anti hacking measure. Namely, many companies, for security reasons might want a guarantee firmware is original and that no malware is loaded into it. Such stuff. So secure bootloaders, signed images etc. But devices like that come with price tag that can bear that cost.
I hope I explained it well enough.