New short methods (3.7 and 33.04)

I've looked around the forums, and tried reading the schematics but i want to be absolutely sure where "pin 19" is. Would it be possible for someone to post a png or something (perferably not a pdf i HATE pdfs) pointing out the exact location of the pin.. thanks I found these forums through Make and the progress I've seen has been amazing! Also, about those riteaid cameras. From what I hear if you can get the camera to be unlocked at the store station and get it back, and prevent it from powering down before you get it to your computer to unlock it with OPs, you have a perfect new shiney reusable video camera?

rite aid cam
...

I've looked around the forums, and tried reading the schematics but i want to be absolutely sure where "pin 19" is. Would it be possible for someone to post a png or something (perferably not a pdf i HATE pdfs) pointing out the exact location of the pin.. thanks Learn to live with pdfs - they will be around for a long time. And the one below is essential for serious hacking: forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=812" target="_blank">http://camerahacks.10.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=812 Pin 19 is on the left side of flash chip 6th up from the bottom. Besides myself only one other member reported a plan to lift this pin. I highly recommend lifting after taking a couple of videos to prevent any flash corruption during shorting or even software hack attempts. Credit Drmn4ea for original idea.

Each cam has a challenge (a lock) and a response (a key). Until you unlock the cam, it will not respond to any other useful commands. Pure Digital/CVS/Rite-Aid have the full set of master keys to match the lock to every cam out there. After all, they're the ones who installed the locks in the first place. We can see the locks, but we don't have the set of master keys. Hey everyone, I've been reading since almost July and writing since December - thanks for the all the info, it was fun while it lasted. Even in all my reading, haven't found out an answer to this: Why can't we get keys to the new ones? Surely there must be a way. I'm thinking we have to get our hands on one of those CVS machines and go at it. Anyone game for taking a job at CVS for a few weeks? well, first off, 'cose it is VERY illigal and is thus not allowed on thease forums. Second, it breaks most people code of ethics and morals, including mine. I see, just thought I'd ask. I'll drop it (and keep us all out of trouble). Just musing here: In some odd way, it reminds me of the front door analogy: What we've been doing with the 3.4 cams is turning the front door knob to find it unlocked by chance, then going in. But with the 3.7 and 33.04, we won't go in because the door is locked, and we won't go looking for the keys. Makes sense ethically, but is exploiting the weakness is the 3.4 cams morally superior?

Your analogy of the doors doesn't quite fit, because we've purchased the house. Therefore we're free to do anything with that house, including breaking into it if we can. It's our property. But legally speaking, we're not allowed to break into the locksmith's shop to borrow his masterkeys, just because they happen to fit the lock to our house.

Makes sense ethically, but is exploiting the weakness is the 3.4 cams morally superior? But legally speaking, we're not allowed to break into the locksmith's shop to borrow his masterkeys, just because they happen to fit the lock to our house. In answer to kagayaki1 - No the end result violates product usage intent of Pure Digital equally either way. Note BillW's use of "legally speaking". While breaking in certainly is against my knowledge of common law, asking Locksmith's wife to borrow a key to unlock ones own door is totally ethical in my book of natural law. Observing and reporting on processing machine activities IMO would not violate any laws unless one had signed a nondisclosure agreement; but I do consider it to be unethical for an employee. So far all we have is speculation and no professional legal opinions - sometimes I have felt BillW's interpretation of law might be correct, other times I think he is wrong. But as far as ethical and moral judgement goes I have always felt my key-catch and continuous power methods belong in the same sinful category as an individual using BillW's tools. However I feel that distributing an unlock tool/masterkeys (crossing State lines) both legally and morally is a slight notch above an individual unlocking a few camcorders. For those who have been around a while, It should be obvious that BillW and I will never see eye to eye on these issues (unless coerced by presense of Judge and Jury).

kagayaki1 suggested someone take a job at CVS, with the intention that "...we have to get our hands on one of those CVS machines and go at it." Perhaps that meant getting the station owner's permission to conduct experiments, or only using the station for it's intended purpose. If so, then I retract and apologize for comparing it to theft. If kagayaki1 meant clandestinely getting our hands on the CVS software to see how it ticks, which is what I assumed initially, then I stand by my statement that it's theft. (technically copyright infringement, though you'd recieve less penalty with petty theft) I wasn't referring to your methods with my analysis. If you feel they're equivalent to someone taking the CVS developing software home from work, then I yield to your judgement.

Perhaps that meant getting the station owner's permission to conduct experiments, or only using the station for it's intended purpose. If so, then I retract and apologize for comparing it to theft. If kagayaki1 meant clandestinely getting our hands on the CVS software to see how it ticks, which is what I assumed initially, then I stand by my statement that it's theft. (technically copyright infringement, though you'd recieve less penalty with petty theft) my thoughts aswell. and if the first, my apologizes

I wasn't referring to your methods with my analysis. If you feel they're equivalent to someone taking the CVS developing software home from work, then I yield to your judgement. Then Yield you must because I think an employee should feel free to take software home from work for study. I've done it many times. However I would strongly caution publishing anything an employee thinks is a trade secret. If I were a CVS employee, unless I'd seen documentation otherwise, I would assume a partnership relation with Pure Digital and not even think of publishing any details. If I knew no formal partnership existed, I had not signed a non disclosure and I was young with no financial worries, then I would consider sharing my discoveries. Consider me an idealist that believes contrary to today's reality that any corporate vs individual court case should always favor the individual. That means a signed non disclosure agreement and a clear indication that individual understood what was signed.

We really have to seperate legalities from moralities. Arguing the latter is pointless, as it eventually boils down to "I think X is right" vs. "You think Y is right". While legalities are often grey, it is at least possible to sometimes argue and eventually agree whether or not a particular course is legal or not. Even when this isn't possible, a conclusion of "this may or may not be legal" is of value too. So I suggest that we keep the discussion to legalities, rather than bantering about how our notions of wrong and right differ. Back to the matter at hand... If I were to borrow my work's copy of Microsoft Word, with my boss' consent, and install it at home for the purposes of studying it, I would be breaking copyright law. Do you argue that the PD case is somehow different than the one above? Do you dispute that it is a violation of copyright law?

Back to the matter at hand... If I were to borrow my work's copy of Microsoft Word, with my boss' consent, and install it at home for the purposes of studying it, I would be breaking copyright law. Do you argue that the PD case is somehow different than the one above? Do you dispute that it is a violation of copyright law? What about if one just took an offsite backup copy home, did not install it, but viewed it occasionally to make sure it was still a viable copy? BillW - please don't respond to that, but instead take this thread back to topic by giving us a new legal method.

Plead as you may, I will attempt to have the last word. :) Copyright law has a specific exemption for archiving of programs. ( http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html#backup ) Archiving of programs is not reverse engineering or studying of operation. There are no explicit exemptions for reverse engineering in copyright law, and IMO taking home a copy of the software for that purpose fails the 4 factor fair-use -*test*-('"). Additionally, to my eye it runs afoul of trade secret law, but that's another fish to fry in a more on-topic thread. I would love to bring a new legal hack to the masses. I've been unsuccesful at abusing any of the remaining USB commands that work in locked mode (0x92, 0x9d, and f8 ) even after analysis of the assembly code. Similarly, I've failed at abusing other general USB commands (though the cam does respond to a USB reset command) and couldn't coax anything original and useful out of the interesting commands that daBass documented. I'll continue trying this weekend, with my sdram cooking efforts. Hopefully other people will continue on with their work too.

Plead as you may, I will attempt to have the last word. :) .... There are no explicit exemptions for reverse engineering in copyright law :P Huh? Haven't you read SuperHack morcheeba's DMCA analysis? From: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html (f) Reverse Engineering. - (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

Glad I could inspire thoughtful debate; that's what I like to see on these boards. You guys are pretty smart, but alas, we're no lawyers :D BillW, yeah, I didn't mean to suggest we break in and steal a machine; just more musing about how fun it would be to have access to one for a few hours (days) to play around with it, learn a thing or two, etc.

I was referring to traditional copyright law and should have been more precise with my language, but the point is moot - in this case reverse engineering under the DMCA doesn't apply. The DMCA does not supplant existing copyright law, it's additional law regarding the bypass of electronic controls intended to enforce copyright. ... a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program... Translation: exemptions granted by the DMCA are only valid if you legally obtained your copy of the software. If you have broken copyright law (or any other law) to get the software, you are not entitled to DMCA exemptions. So the reverse engineering exemption applies to us when we purchase a camcorder with software on it. We have legally obtained the firmware. The reverse engineering exemption does not apply to us when we have copied software from a licensee without permission of the copyright holder, since this is a violation of existing copyright law.

View Full Version: New short methods (3.7 and 33.04)