Re: HDHomeRun firmware downgrades

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Dan Lanciani" <ddl@danlan.*com> wrote in message
news:1341986@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <Q_2dnYZauKzHXmbbnZ2dnUVZ_rqlnZ2d@xxxxxxx>,
ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx (Robert Green) writes:
> | "Dan Lanciani" <ddl@danlan.*com> wrote in message
> | news:1341975@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > Sometime after the version of firmware that I'm currently running
> | > (20070131) SiliconDust has apparently added a lock to the HDHomeRun
> | > to prevent the loading of firmware older than the current version.
> | > Can anyone who has been following the versions tell me the latest
> | > version I can load without being locked in?  SiliconDust won't say.
> | > This lock makes it impossible to back out an upgrade if there are
> | > application compatibility problems.
> |
> | Why would they do something that idiotic?
>
> I don't know.  They have now responded with two different explanations
> (one about different "factory calibration" and another about a new
> firmware format that has the property that if you were to be able to
> downgrade to the previous version it could "damage" the hardware).  They
> also said that there are two classes and it's just that you can't
downgrade
> between classes.  But that doesn't seem to agree with a message from a
user
> who couldn't downgrade from a beta to the previous real release, both
> well into the second "class."  The user is unable to make recordings
longer
> than 38-40 minutes.

Two different explanations?  They're beginning to sound like Phil Spector's
attorneys offering any possible theory of the crime other than he killed the
victim.  The "damage the hardware" theory sounds just like the BS Apple is
spreading about hacks to the I-phone rendering the phones useless after they
issue a SW upgrade.  AP reported that as gospel without even bothering to
talk to a single person who actually did the hacking.  AP obviously means
"Apple Propagandists" and not Associated Press.  The only time I've heard of
firmware changes damaging hardware was in PCs, where a firmware change
prevented CPU cooling fans from operating at the proper speed.  I'm sure it
happens, but it sounds like BS in a device like the HDHomeRun.

> |Are the DRM police after them?
>
> I asked that and they said no.  They have been adding various phone-home
> "features" which are supposed to be off unless explicitly turned on, but
> one user reported that the device was hitting his firewall with outgoing
> requests 300(?) times per day even though he had never enabled it to phone
> home.  The firmware also got a lot bigger recently with no obvious
significant
> increase in user-visible functionality.

I'm amazed at how quickly HW and SW makers have assumed everyone has an
Internet connection and will gleefully let both talk to whomever they
choose.  When I worked in a classified lab, hooking a PC to the internet,
even for a FW bump, would invalidate the unit's security and it would have
to be completely recertified under the assumption that once it's connected
to the WWW, all bets are off in terms of data security.  What do the "home
phone" features do for the end user?  Or is this just more of nosey
manufacturers wanting to know everything about their customers, even if
those customers don't want to participate knowingly in their data collection
efforts?

> I find it hard to believe that they do not understand the debugging 101
> rule that says that if a change breaks something the first thing you test
> is undoing the change.  They claim that all firmware releases are
completely
> backwards-compatible so you never need to back out an upgrade, but this
was
> certainly not true in the past.  I think they must have a really good (for
> them) reason for doing this and I'm concerned that it will turn out to be
> a bad reason for users (beyond the debugging issue).

I suspect you're entirely correct.  I would suspect they've added something
to prevent recording of material broadcast with the "no copy" flag set, but
they're not a recording device, per se, although it's obvious that HDHR
owners will likely be recording programs as VCR owners have been doing for
decades.  Hollywood always hated that idea, even though it turned out to be
immensely profitable for them in the long run.

> I was never really comfortable with the encrypted firmware (preventing a
> quick "strings" from showing the latest command changes) but I understood
> they want to protect their intellectual property from reverse engineering.
> Taking that in combination with this new change, though, I must
regretfully
> withdraw my recommendation of the product...

Perhaps someone figured out how to break their encryption so they've moved
to a stronger protection algorithm.  I think that would explain the sudden
code growth and maybe even the lack of backwards compatibility.  I guess
they never heard the old saying "for every tall wall, someone's building a
taller ladder, somewhere."   Too bad.  I sounded like a nice device.  I just
got a hi-rez LCD TV only to discover that nearly every HDTV signal I get on
my Comcast connection is 720, not 1080, so I've got black bars everywhere!

I'm beginning to wonder if the real effect of the forced marched to digital
TV won't really be the end of network TV as we know it.  Despite all the MTV
tricks broadcasters are using like screen crawls to attract younger viewers,
the average age of TV watchers is much, much older than the advertisers
would like.  Some studies are showing that all the screen clutter not only
doesn't attract younger viewers, but it actually causes their largest
demographic, the 24+ year old viewers, to go to Netflix or just read a book.
Someday, probably when it's too late, they'll realize that older people have
the most disposable income to spend.  Another reason people are leaving TV
(the Emmys got the lowest ratings ever) is the paucity of good programs on
these days.  Hi-rez garbage is still garbage.  If a show's any good, it will
make it to DVD eventually.  Then I can watch it without the ever-growing
number of commercials.

I'm going to forward this thread to someone at CNet.  Maybe *they* can
elicit the truth from SiliconDust in the face of potential bad publicity.
It sounds an awful like they're embedded some sort of spyware in the new
code.  I just can't imagine to what end other than pissing off enough loyal
customers like you to drive them out of business because no one will refer
friends to them any more.

--
Bobby G.