MSO2000 Application module hack

[Stonent]

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.

Yeah the way it reads to me yes the software is copyrighted and installed on the device.  Since the module has no software just a string of text, then they can't say you're pilfering their software.

[firewalker]

I believe that a Judge (Europe) had ruled that hacking is allowed as long as the hacker doesn't make money (sell compatible Tek modules eg) or the company doesn't loose money. I think it was for software. I will try to find the details.

Alexander.

[janoc]

I believe that a Judge (Europe) had ruled that hacking is allowed as long as the hacker doesn't make money (sell compatible Tek modules eg) or the company doesn't loose money. I think it was for software. I will try to find the details.

Alexander.

Careful, there is no "Europe" in the sense of legal system or jurisdiction. EU has 28 member countries and 28 different legal systems. There are some EU directives that have to be implemented by the member states (like the recent "right to be forgotten" rule or RoHS), but the actual implementation is up to the member states and will be different in every country, depending on how the rule is transcribed into the local law.

So be very very careful about these statements - what may hold in one EU state may not be the case in another. E.g. UK is a common law country whereas the rest of EU is civil law. Rulings in Germany will not apply to cases in the UK and vice versa. So sweeping statements about shrinkwrap licenses being unenforceable or "hacking" for no commercial gain being legal could get someone in trouble if they don't check their local laws.

For example: Dashboard cameras in cars are legal in most of Europe. However, they are not legal in Belgium and Austria. If you get caught with one by police in Austria, you can get hit with up to 20 000€ fine - because their courts have ruled that recording someone without consent is a privacy violation and they lumped it with things like illegal surveillance. Similarly, if you are using a GPS (satnav) or Waze on your phone with a database of stationary speed radars you can get a massive fine here in France - there is law forbidding devices that display precise location of traffic enforcement activities. So most satnavs and Waze had to update their firmware and display only alerts that you are entering a "danger zone" a few kilometers ahead of the radar when you are in France. Etc.

[mamalala]

Careful, there is no "Europe" in the sense of legal system or jurisdiction. EU has 28 member countries and 28 different legal systems. There are some EU directives that have to be implemented by the member states (like the recent "right to be forgotten" rule or RoHS), but the actual implementation is up to the member states and will be different in every country, depending on how the rule is transcribed into the local law.

So be very very careful about these statements - what may hold in one EU state may not be the case in another. E.g. UK is a common law country whereas the rest of EU is civil law. Rulings in Germany will not apply to cases in the UK and vice versa. So sweeping statements about shrinkwrap licenses being unenforceable or "hacking" for no commercial gain being legal could get someone in trouble if they don't check their local laws.

While generally true, the EU laws that the member countries must implement have the advantage that they can be fought for in an EU court if a country did not properly implement it. Also, the consumer protection laws about issues like shrink-wrap stuff (basically an unfair contract) and hacking for private purposes are rather old, so that by now there has been plenty of time for the countries to implement it. Keep in mind that a failure to implement EU directed laws in a timely and sufficient manner can (and usually will) the have EU to impose sanctions against such a country. Just for that reason alone they are often implemented in local law, simply to avoid consequences.

Greetings,

Chris

[madires]

If you haven't noticed yet, Tektronix has sent a DMCA take-down notice to Hackaday because they posted an article about hacking MSO2000's application modules. You can read the story at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140806/07155928127/tektronix-uses-dmca-notice-to-try-to-stop-oscilliscope-hacking.shtml (includes the links to the post and the notice).

[janoc]

While generally true, the EU laws that the member countries must implement have the advantage that they can be fought for in an EU court if a country did not properly implement it. Also, the consumer protection laws about issues like shrink-wrap stuff (basically an unfair contract) and hacking for private purposes are rather old, so that by now there has been plenty of time for the countries to implement it. Keep in mind that a failure to implement EU directed laws in a timely and sufficient manner can (and usually will) the have EU to impose sanctions against such a country. Just for that reason alone they are often implemented in local law, simply to avoid consequences.

Greetings,

Chris

My point was less about the law not being implemented at all (that is indeed rare and there are consequences, as you are saying) but that the laws could be implemented slightly differently in every country. As always, devil is in the details - just look at the fights around the mandatory 2 year warranties for non-perishable goods (Apple ...). In Slovakia the warranty is 2 years, period, the seller has to honour it unless they can prove the that the fault is a consequence of the item being mishandled by the buyer. Here in France they have changed the law recently in a way where in the first 6 or so months (or the first year, not sure now) it is up to the seller to prove that the warranty is void because of the buyer mishandling the item, otherwise they have to honour it. After this period it is *up to the buyer to prove* that the fault is actually a consequence of a manufacturing problem and not a result of normal use - only then is the seller obliged to comply.  I think we agree that that is a massive difference for the consumer - and both laws conform to the same EU directive!

[janoc]

If you haven't noticed yet, Tektronix has sent a DMCA take-down notice to Hackaday because they posted an article about hacking MSO2000's application modules. You can read the story at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140806/07155928127/tektronix-uses-dmca-notice-to-try-to-stop-oscilliscope-hacking.shtml (includes the links to the post and the notice).

Yes, reply #4 on the first page of this thread 

[nctnico]

just like you having a dvd with the windows install files does not entitle you to use that software. you need the key.

In the EU: if you have the disk then you have a valid license.

Regarding the EEPROM hack: I have seen that on many sites. Maybe Tektronix doesn't want it on hackaday but the trick is known for several years now.

[PA0PBZ]

If you haven't noticed yet, Tektronix has sent a DMCA take-down notice to Hackaday because they posted an article about hacking MSO2000's application modules. You can read the story at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140806/07155928127/tektronix-uses-dmca-notice-to-try-to-stop-oscilliscope-hacking.shtml (includes the links to the post and the notice).

Yes, reply #4 on the first page of this thread 

Just to defend madires: He posted this in a separate thread, then I posted a link to this thread to make him aware that there already was a discussion going on, then a moderator took his and my post and moved it over here. When I found out I deleted my post...

His post still has the other thread's title: "Tektronix isn't happy about hackers"

[kilohercas]

Just wondering, they say DPO2COM is copyrighted code, ok, if i switch to hex, like 44 50 4f 32 43 4f 4d 50, does that is still under copyright, since is not the same code, but from information point of view, is. So they should include that to copyright law, but did they ( so all code should be translated to U8 S8 U16,S16, U32,S32 and copyrighted )?

[David Hess]

This form of DRM reminds me of how Sega implemented their DRM and the resulting lawsuit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade

I think there was another video game console case where the copyright was an on raster graphics image stored in the ROM which was checked to make sure the cartridge was "official" but I was not able to find it and I believe it become irrelevant with the DMCA anyway.  The way I remember it, the court ruled that while the image was legitimately copyrighted, since it was needed to make the system operational, copying it was fair use.

[allikat]

It's simple data in an (e)eprom, not even particularly complex data either.  The hardest part of the hack is to make the eprom talk to the scope.

[kilohercas]

It's simple data in an (e)eprom, not even particularly complex data either.  The hardest part of the hack is to make the eprom talk to the scope.

where is no hard part. I made that module without going to shop, some foam, eeprom from old TV, and sim holder from siemens c25. After that only simple programming is needed to load data to eeprom. Also if you have original app module, you simply can put second eeprom on top of original, and program it with new code. but you have to disconnect address pins, and set them manually, and i2c line will be shared between  two eeproms.

Oscilloscope does the reading automatically, if you have good contacts, and correct code, it works without a problem

[Tothwolf]

Dear Tektronix,

Because of your legal goons' blatant misuse of Section 1201* of the DMCA to bully hobbyists and Hackaday, I will no longer purchase or recommend your test equipment to potential customers.

*Section 1201 most certainly does -not- apply to the material Hackaday discussed. cf. Lexmark v. Static Control Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

[janoc]

Dear Tektronix,

Because of your legal goons' blatant misuse of Section 1201* of the DMCA to bully hobbyists and Hackaday, I will no longer purchase or recommend your test equipment to potential customers.

*Section 1201 most certainly does -not- apply to the material Hackaday discussed. cf. Lexmark v. Static Control Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

  That was the Lexmark lawsuit. Tek should be really ashamed of themselves.

[free_electron]

you simply can put second eeprom on top of original, and program it with new code.

not even needed. if you buy a quad size one the pages sit on consecutive i2c addresses...

essentially a 24c16 is eight 24c02's on consecutive addresses.
simply program the strings on the page offsets. probably will work perfectly fine.

there is a page adressing change once you hit the 24c32

[kilohercas]

not even needed. if you buy a quad size one the pages sit on consecutive i2c addresses...

essentially a 24c16 is eight 24c02's on consecutive addresses.
simply program the strings on the page offsets. probably will work perfectly fine.

there is a page addressing change once you hit the 24c32

I don't think this would work. Also, with MSO2024B, oscilloscope will read EEPROM only two times, but where is 3 functions to unlock.

[miguelvp]

I just have to LOL at using the sku string to unlock the feature what where they thinking? 

[Tothwolf]

After speaking with one of my clients, I'm expanding my boycott to all test gear and tools made by companies currently owned by Danaher.

Some of these include (not yet a complete list):

Fluke
Fluke Networks (which is mostly just made up of what used to be Harris test gear and tools...well, what's left of them anyway.)
Pomona
Tektronix
Keithley
Amprobe
Raytek
Hart Scientific
Datapaq
DH Instruments (DHI)
Ircon
Matco Tools

Another pro tip for Danaher / Tektronix... Do NOT piss off those who -sell- potential clients on using your crap in their labs and factories.



Btw, for those with older unsupported Tektronix gear who aren't already aware that they can freely copy and redistribute manuals...

Tektronix Policy on Copying of Out-of-date Materials (pdf) [tek.com]
Release of copyright (pdf) [ko4bb.com]

[mikeselectricstuff]

After speaking with one of my clients, I'm expanding my boycott to all test gear and tools made by companies currently owned by Danaher.

A bit of an overreaction perhaps....
Given a choice between a bit of test gear that is known to be hackable and one that isn't, the former has to be preferable.
I don't think a bogus DMCA notice  from a legal dept to a site publishing info that was widely known  is reason to influence a purchasing decision.
Compared to things like patent trolling to stifle competition, or adding cumbersome DRM to products, this is really nothing to get upset about. All it has done is make the info more widely known.

[artag]

So what are the possibilities here ?

1. Tek are dumb, don't understand 'security', and are run by beancounters and idiot lawyers.

Sadly, this could be the case. But even though it's not run by engineers any more, it still employs some good ones. I can't believe they thought this would go unhacked (though they might possibly object
to hacking keys coming from china rather than requiring that you do dangerous firmware mods to your expensive instrument).

2. Tek have seen the sales wins achieved by HP and Rigol etc. as the result of their hacks. They don't need the upgrade sales to pay for the features, because they're making a healthy profit selling an unenhanced model and don't need the high-end buyers to subsidise it. And they want some of the action, so after making it an easy mod and seeing it get reported, they're out to make the most of it by harnessing Streisand-effect publicity.

My money's on 2.

[Tothwolf]

A bit of an overreaction perhaps....

Au contraire...

Tektronix has no right to tell people what they can or cannot do with something that they've purchased. If Tektronix chose to sell a product with a feature "switched off" via a configuration option to lower their production costs, and a consumer subsequently figures this out and enables it, they have absolutely no right to then threaten hobbyists and Hackaday for discussing it. You Bought It, You Own It

If money is the reason Tektronix / Danaher are going to issue a bogus DMCA notice and threaten a hobbyist site like Hackaday, then I can do my "small" part to protest their response and take away some of their bottom line. This doesn't mean I'm going to get rid of any of my own existing Tek gear, but I certainly won't be buying any new gear from Tektronix / Danaher any time soon.

For Tektronix / Danaher's sake, hopefully none of my clients will call me up asking me to spec a lab full of gear between now and when they eventually decide to offer a public apology. There /are/ alternatives to pretty much everything they offer, but perhaps Tektronix forgot that?

[mikeselectricstuff]

A bit of an overreaction perhaps....

Au contraire...

Tektronix has no right to tell people what they can or cannot do with something

True but the fact is that everyone does it nowadays. Tek, Agilent, Flir, Rigol....
If anything Tek have the advantage that it's trivially easy (though the later scopes apparently have better protection.
These companies have to at least make it look like they're protecting stuff to please their shareholders. An occasional bit of lawyer bluster has no real effect, and certainly no reason to boycott anything.

[janoc]

2. Tek have seen the sales wins achieved by HP and Rigol etc. as the result of their hacks. They don't need the upgrade sales to pay for the features, because they're making a healthy profit selling an unenhanced model and don't need the high-end buyers to subsidise it. And they want some of the action, so after making it an easy mod and seeing it get reported, they're out to make the most of it by harnessing Streisand-effect publicity.

My money's on 2.

Except that by slapping publicly a site like Hackaday with DMCA notice is not going to bring you a lot of good will among their audience - exactly the people who would be buying the hackable gear otherwise. The Joe Littleguy is a lot more susceptible to going all gaga over crap like this and taking their dollars elsewhere than a big corp that is buying 100 of those scopes for their labs.

So yeah, they will get publicity, but probably not the one they hoped for ...

[Tothwolf]

Except that by slapping publicly a site like Hackaday with DMCA notice is not going to bring you a lot of good will among their audience - exactly the people who would be buying the hackable gear otherwise. The Joe Littleguy is a lot more susceptible to going all gaga over crap like this and taking their dollars elsewhere than a big corp that is buying 100 of those scopes for their labs.

So yeah, they will get publicity, but probably not the one they hoped for ...

Tektronix also seemed to forget that a "Joe Littleguy" can make or break a large sale when they also happen to be an independent sales consultant. A large company is likely to have no interest in tinkering with their gear to enable hidden features anyway (and is more likely to buy the more expensive model). In bullying hobbyists though, Tektronix is only harming themselves.

Not that things have been going all that well for Danaher...

Tektronix, five years after sale to Danaher, continues to shed jobs and struggle
Danaher, Tektronix's takeover-minded owner, now can't make a deal