Reasons for hacking DSOs

[sarepairman2]

because people like to have the best and no one is ever gonna accept the fact that they got sold something that they can make better and not do it.

its human nature.  no one will ever value something that can be copied for no cost. just look at how much people like to gossip.

you gotta fight every day to keep your property and feed yourself. until that changes, no one is going to ever respect some kind of "lock" put on something they bought when they need to worry about paying bills and shit, especially when the people putting the locks on things live large, eat 50 dollar meals daily and pay for their kids college + have a retirement setup for them etc

not to mention it provides a relatively harmless "rush", without the consequence of rape, stealing things that cannot be replicated instantly, bullying people, vandalism, etc.

its just like work, people steal/take credit for your ideas all the time. 

[Fungus]

Fine, I'll spell it out explicitly: what is the practical difference between a free market in which sellers are forced by law to be honest about the safety characteristics of their wares, and a "free market" in which manufacturers are forced by law to build their goods to a minimum safety standard

One requires the buyer to be educated/informed about every single thing they ever buy and places all the responsibility on them for failure to know enough math/physics/chemistry/statistics/history/biology/etc. Experience has shown that this doesn't work (buyers aren't educated, sellers aren't transparent, unfit wares are sold).

Remember: These are the same buyers who believe all that new age woo-woo crystal energy crap is "science". You're expecting them to understand building safety standards?

The other system places responsibility on the seller. The seller will produce a better ware simply to cover his ass when the lawyers turn up ("I demonstrably built it to code, so... ").

I dunno but option (b) seems more likely to produce safe goods for the general public.

(and the two things aren't equivalent at all, I don't how anybody could think they are...  )

[kcbrown]

Fine, I'll spell it out explicitly: what is the practical difference between a free market in which sellers are forced by law to be honest about the safety characteristics of their wares, and a "free market" in which manufacturers are forced by law to build their goods to a minimum safety standard

One requires the buyer to be educated/informed about every single thing they ever buy and places all the responsibility on them for failure to know enough math/physics/chemistry/statistics/history/biology/etc. Experience has shown that this doesn't work (buyers aren't educated, sellers aren't transparent, unfit wares are sold).

Then what prevents the person in question from buying something that meets the minimum safety standard, but doesn't meet his safety needs as a result of those needs exceeding the minimum that the standard targets?

Remember: These are the same buyers who believe all that new age woo-woo crystal energy crap is "science". You're expecting them to understand building safety standards?

Not necessarily, but I do expect them to realize when they're in over their heads and to seek help when they are.

When did the whole notion of personal responsibility (which clearly includes responsibility for one's family) go out the window like this?  I understand the notion of protecting people from the actions of others, but that seems really valid only when the people being protected have no responsibility relationship with the people they're being protected from.

If you go all the way down that road, then you effectively take away all responsibility one has for those that would otherwise be his responsibility, right?  After all, what's left to be responsible for when the state dictates everything you can and cannot do with respect to those things that can endanger those you would otherwise be responsible for?

The other system places responsibility on the seller. The seller will produce a better ware simply to cover his ass when the lawyers turn up ("I demonstrably built it to code, so... ").

Why would the lawyers show up in the case of an enforced minimum standard but not when there's the absence of one?  And remember that lawsuits are always decided case by case, on the basis of the facts presented in the case itself, which means that the actual standards that the product was built to will come up and be evaluated whether or not there's an enforced minimum standard involved.

I dunno but option (b) seems more likely to produce safe goods for the general public.

That is more likely than not to be the case, of course, if only because option B would set a safety floor.  But if the goal were to maximize safety, then there would be one allowed, enforced standard and it would be the maximum one possible, would it not?  After all, you can't guarantee that the product in question will be always used under conditions that some lower-than-maximum standard would be sufficient for, right?

(and the two things aren't equivalent at all, I don't how anybody could think they are...  )

Well, in the presence of only one safety standard covering the same thing, that the supplier could neither fall below nor exceed, then yeah, they wouldn't be.  But since we're talking about a situation where, when a minimum safety standard is mandated, suppliers can exceed those standards and advertise that fact (if only to differentiate their products from the ones that only meet the minimums), then the buyer is still faced with having to make safety-related choices.  And being faced with multiple choices introduces the possibility of making the wrong choice, at least if there exist conditions that exceed the protective abilities of the minimum safety standard (if there are no such conditions, then what's the point in building to any higher standard than the minimum?  In that case, the minimum and the maximum are the same in terms of necessity).

When you put all of that together, I don't see how those things aren't equivalent, at least as regards the problems the buyer will face.  The potential for harm is still there even with the minimum safety standard in place, right?

[Zero999]

I agree that this thread is, by now, impossible to unravel unless a large amount of fruitless time were to be spent.

Seconded! IMHO this thread could end up very high on the 'most useless thread on EEVblog' list. I tried to follow it but there seems to be no consensus at all. Perhaps someone could forward it to a forum frequented by lawyers.

I wouldn't say the thread is pointless, just because there's no consensus. In the first 22 or so pages, just about every ethical/moral and legal aspect of hacking an oscilloscope is debated quite well on both sides of the argument, along with a bit about why a higher bandwidth is useful.

Now it's gone off topic because the arguments, both for and against seem to have been exhausted.

There will never be a consensus on this kind of topic and if there was, it would be pretty boring.

[mnementh]

I wouldn't say the thread is pointless, just because there's no consensus. In the first 22 or so pages, just about every ethical/moral and legal aspect of hacking an oscilloscope is debated quite well on both sides of the argument, along with a bit about why a higher bandwidth is useful.

Now it's gone off topic because the arguments, both for and against seem to have been exhausted.

There will never be a consensus on this kind of topic and if there was, it would be pretty boring.

It started off well... but it does appear to have devolved a bit.




Carry on!



mnem
*Distracting-ily*

[Simon]

Lets face it in the specific case of Rigol I think the hackability has helped them become the success that they are. If they wanted to they could get the keygen site shut down but I suspect they quietly smile on it. They certainly aren't giving away the hardware that is being bought but unused, they still make a profit from people who would have not bought the top of the range anyway.

[Zero999]

If they wanted to they could get the keygen site shut down but I suspect they quietly smile on it.

I doubt they'd be able to do that, since the kegen site isn't actually distributing any of their copyrighted material.

[Fungus]

Lets face it in the specific case of Rigol I think the hackability has helped them become the success that they are. If they wanted to they could get the keygen site shut down but I suspect they quietly smile on it. They certainly aren't giving away the hardware that is being bought but unused, they still make a profit from people who would have not bought the top of the range anyway.

My $0.02:

I'm not sure how widespread the knowledge of the hack is. Around here it seems like everybody knows but in the real world there's probably a high percentage of people who have no idea they're hackable. There's probably also a lot of people who think that all the ones labelled "DS1054Z" are the ones that failed the 100Mhz bandwidth test at the factory, etc.

The fact that other manufacturers haven't responded with hackable scopes of their own suggests that Rigol hasn't completely taken the low end market away from them with this tactic.

Also: This is the second generation of hackable low-end 'scopes from Rigol. When they released the DS1054Z they already had some data on how much hacking happens and how it affects their sales. If they decided to release a hackable 'scope then it probably has a positive effect on sales (or at least, not a measurable negative effect).

[Simon]

If they decided to release a hackable 'scope then it probably has a positive effect on sales (or at least, not a measurable negative effect).

That's what I meant. Lets face it any business user will buy the correct model particularly if it's a company involving more than one person. Hobbyists will only buy what they can afford and if Rigol get to sell the same hardware and make a little less money then it's still money they would not have had anyway plus it increases the volume manufacturing and brings down prices.

[Teneyes]

Also: This is the second generation of hackable low-end 'scopes from Rigol. When they released the DS1054Z they already had some data on how much hacking happens and how it affects their sales. If they decided to release a hackable 'scope then it probably has a positive effect on sales (or at least, not a measurable negative effect).

Note the DS1054Z is the 3rd , 1st the DS1052,  2nd the DS2000,
And the Rigol hack transfered to the DG4000 and the DSA815, but those were shutdown by new firmware.

And Simon is correct many Hobbyist bought and Rigol benefits from the hobbyist reports of bugs.
I repeat , as a hobbyist I have reported bugs, then fixes came, and Rigol has sent me FW to beta test.
I like to think everyone benefits. .  My 2 cents (Canadian)

[Teneyes]

Somewhat related to this topic  is are Morals and feeling guilty.
Check out this research.
https://torrentfreak.com/scientists-discover-why-internet-pirates-dont-feel-guilty-160509/

[Zero999]

Somewhat related to this topic  is are Morals and feeling guilty.
Check out this research.
https://torrentfreak.com/scientists-discover-why-internet-pirates-dont-feel-guilty-160509/

That's not surprising, since although violating copyright may be illegal, it's not the same as stealing and certainly isn't as immoral as theft. The music, film software etc. industries my try to convince people otherwise but they can't beat human nature.

[nctnico]

Somewhat related to this topic  is are Morals and feeling guilty.
Check out this research.
https://torrentfreak.com/scientists-discover-why-internet-pirates-dont-feel-guilty-160509/

That's not surprising, since although violating copyright may be illegal, it's not the same as stealing and certainly isn't as immoral as theft. The music, film software etc. industries my try to convince people otherwise but they can't beat human nature.

Actually their comparison using downloading music/films/tv series is fundamentally flawed. You can receive everything on your TV and radio because you are already paying for it. How on earth can you steal something you are paying for?

[borjam]

I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine. Nobody can tell me what I can or cannot do with it. If I want to add parts, remove parts, improve it, change software, it is mine to do so. There is nothing anyone can say or do that should be able to prevent me from doing what I want with my property, with the possible exception below.

My DS1074Z is hacked.

But what you are doing is not modifying your oscilloscope with, say, your own implementation of some feature, but violating a software license. The first thing would clearly be within your rights. The second, well, no.

Conversely, I don't think that the "hacked" excuse will hold in an European court if they refuse warranty. If the hack required swapping a component maybe they could refuse it, and even in that case it could be proven that a manufacturing defect was unrelated to the "modification".

[kcbrown]

I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine. Nobody can tell me what I can or cannot do with it. If I want to add parts, remove parts, improve it, change software, it is mine to do so. There is nothing anyone can say or do that should be able to prevent me from doing what I want with my property, with the possible exception below.

My DS1074Z is hacked.

But what you are doing is not modifying your oscilloscope with, say, your own implementation of some feature, but violating a software license. The first thing would clearly be within your rights. The second, well, no.

A software license is a license agreement, and is something that has to exist in the first place, and when it exists, it has to be agreed to in order to have force (I know of no copyright law which says that a license agreement is automatically in force by its mere existence.  Certainly there is no such thing in the United States).  There are lots of mechanisms that accomplish that latter (opening the shrinkwrap being one of them in the United States), but the mechanism that signals agreement is something that is stipulated in the license agreement.  It is not specified in law.

As such, Lightages' message is absolutely correct.  He already mentioned the case of an agreement such as the above, but there is no such agreement with the Rigol scopes.

Now, when such a license is not in play, copyright law takes over, and one is thus limited in what one can lawfully do on that basis.

In the case of many pieces of test equipment, there is no license agreement in the first place (certainly there isn't with Rigol scopes).  So copyright law takes effect as regards the firmware.

Conversely, I don't think that the "hacked" excuse will hold in an European court if they refuse warranty. If the hack required swapping a component maybe they could refuse it, and even in that case it could be proven that a manufacturing defect was unrelated to the "modification".

That might be the case.  It'll depend entirely on what the law in that jurisdiction specifies as to what must be offered in a warranty, what may be excluded in the warranty, etc.  If the manufacturer explicitly specifies that the warranty coverage is void if the product is altered by anyone other than an explicitly authorized entity, and the law allows such an exemption, then the court would have no basis to decide against the manufacturer.  That said, we're talking about courts here, and nothing stops the courts from ruling as they please regardless of what the law actually says.

[R005T3r]

In the US there's the DMCA act, Title 17,  § 1201: read that and you can make your conclusion. Note that there's no point into playing with words: there are mostly two things that are considered:
1. the willingness of the legislator
2. the semantic of the statements

Fortunately, in the US if you are ignorant to a law can be used as a defence. (it's impossible to do so in most of other countries)...
The laws tell also the rules about reverse engineering and all that stuff. So, definitely implementing a software license is a way to circumvent a software protection and as a result that hacking is illegal in the US, without the owner's approval.
The "license agreement" is given by default whenever you buy a product.

Anyway am I going to hack my next oscilloscope? No, because I don't have the confidence and the skills needed to hack a $3K oscilloscope. Then another thing: hacking is like playing with fire, especially for those who don't know what they are doing: if something goes wrong you get yourself burned and  the oscilloscope is bricked. This means that the hack is probably going to be used on < 3% of the forum members. So, definitely not that deal...

Im my opinion everyone has the right to do what the hell he want with anything he bought (software or hardware both are products), provided it is not meant to cause harm or any kind of revenue about it. We haven't been paid to post on these threads, nor who made the hack did it with the intention to cause harm to the manufacturer: if he want to re-sell it, is like selling something non genuine  and if found, this is a scam and so you are liable about it. But there's no problem if you want to increase your bandwidth on your oscilloscope... Also, I hardly doubt that if you are a hobbyist you actually NEED a 500Mhz oscilloscope...  this is my personal point of view

[nctnico]

You are from Italy and quoting US laws? 

[tautech]

I am curious. What does it cost to unlock a DS1054Z legally?

The cost of a DS1104Z

[rstofer]

I am curious. What does it cost to unlock a DS1054Z legally?

The cost of a DS1104Z

That gets the bandwidth (buying a 100 MHz scope) but it might not get the decoding - add $480 to price of DS1054Z because the DS1104Z Plus lists at $879.  At TEquipment decoding option sells for $174  The expanded memory option is another $195 and there may still be a couple of options missing.  So, scope is $900 and options are $370 (and there may still be options I have forgotten about) so, $1300 versus $400.

Pretty clear choice...

[rstofer]

Anyway am I going to hack my next oscilloscope? No, because I don't have the confidence and the skills needed to hack a $3K oscilloscope. Then another thing: hacking is like playing with fire, especially for those who don't know what they are doing: if something goes wrong you get yourself burned and  the oscilloscope is bricked. This means that the hack is probably going to be used on < 3% of the forum members. So, definitely not that deal...

So, I eventually brick a $400 scope.  Who cares?  Chump change in the bigger scheme of things.  In fact, I can brick 2 units and buy a 3rd for the cost of a competitive scope.  Even with my limited skills, I don't see bricking TWO of them!

I would venture the guess that far more than 3% of DS1054Z owners have unlocked their scopes.  I wouldn't be surprised if it is close to 100%.  Run a poll and find out!
I'm pretty sure Rigol knows what is going on and has decided to dominate the low end scope market.  If they were concerned about it, the next firmware upgrade would change the encryption scheme.  That might no re-lock the scopes already in the field but they could certainly prevent it from happening on new units.

TEquipment sells about 1000 of these scopes a week.  We were looking at their inventory a couple of weeks back and I calculated they shipped 1000 scopes in the subsequent 7 days.  In fact, they have added another couple of thousand to the inventory in the last few days.  These things are selling like hotcakes!

And, no, I wouldn't mess around with a $3k scope either!  But $400 just isn't a big deal...

[rstofer]

Im my opinion everyone has the right to do what the hell he want with anything he bought (software or hardware both are products), provided it is not meant to cause harm or any kind of revenue about it. We haven't been paid to post on these threads, nor who made the hack did it with the intention to cause harm to the manufacturer: if he want to re-sell it, is like selling something non genuine  and if found, this is a scam and so you are liable about it. But there's no problem if you want to increase your bandwidth on your oscilloscope... Also, I hardly doubt that if you are a hobbyist you actually NEED a 500Mhz oscilloscope...  this is my personal point of view

Although I can't afford a 500 MHz scope, that doesn't mean I don't need it.  If I want to show the 5th harmonic of a 100 MHz square wave (FPGA projects), 500 MHz is just about right.  The thing is, only displaying up to the fifth harmonic doesn't show a very nice waveform.  It's better to get up to the 11th or so and, for the 500 MHz scope, that would limit the input to a little under 50 MHz.

So, I have a 350 MHz Tek 485 for the high end stuff and the DS1054Z for the decoding and measurement stuff (plus, of course, the 'gee whiz' stuff).

Alas, I can't afford a 500 MHz scope for a hobby.

[rstofer]

That gets the bandwidth (buying a 100 MHz scope) but it might not get the decoding - add $480 to price of DS1054Z because the DS1104Z Plus lists at $879.  At TEquipment decoding option sells for $174  The expanded memory option is another $195 and there may still be a couple of options missing.  So, scope is $900 and options are $370 (and there may still be options I have forgotten about) so, $1300 versus $400.

Pretty clear choice...

So to get what I have right now on a trial basis, an extra $900 on top of the $400 cost of the scope? Maybe I should send this thing back and get a used Tektronix.

Yup!

I had been using that Tek 485 for a dozen years before buying the DS1054Z.  I wanted more channels and I have come to appreciate the serial decoding but, for quite a long time, the 485 worked just fine.

When you look at other $1200 scopes, you will certainly be able to match the bandwidth but they may not include decoding or expanded memory either.  Every manufacturer has some kind of gimmick.  I see that some of the manufacturers are having 'sales' where you can get some of the options for free.

The thing about buying used scopes is that you have no idea how well they work.  It shows up in a box and that's about all you know.  Maybe you got a good one, maybe not...  Maybe you have the skills to fix an old analog scope, I don't.  Or, rather, I don't have the interest.