Subject:
|
Re: RIS version 1.5 coming this fall
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:45:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1329 times
|
| |
|
|
John A. Tamplin <jat@liveonthenet.com> wrote:
> > I think so too, but I think it's important to be as prepared as
> > possible for any possible "countermeasures" which might get introduced
> > in 1.5. (Again, I'm just speculating based upon what -could- be done
> > -- and I hope I'm quite wrong.)
>
> I doubt they made the RCX flexible because they wanted people to download
> replacement firmware. I think they did so because it made it easier for
> them to do things in the future that they didn't think of when it was
> designed. I see no reason that motivation will disappear. Any sort of
> security to prevent download of other code is easily defeated, because the
> PC is an insecure platform. You can always decipher the code used to
> communicate with the RCX, so you can always duplicate that functionality.
> There is simply no way around allowing others access to downloading
> replacement firmware if they wish to do it for themselves. (I am speaking
> only of technical considerations, obviously they could try to restrain it
> legally).
Certainly they chose to allow firmware downloads to allow for future
upgrades.
For a new RCX, if they really wanted to prevent us from writing new
firmware, the best solution, and one we could not defeat without
extraordinary means, would be to include a firmware checksum somewhere in
the object code data file that only the ROM and people at Lego know how to
compute. The software on the PC would not have to be involved.
Hence previous statements that if Lego really wanted to make things
difficult for us in the undoubtedly eventually forthcoming replacement to
the RCX, they can.
I personally do not expect to care one way or the other if they decide to
do make the successor to the RCX impossible to crack - it certainly is
their right to do so. Moreover, I do not expect to spend any more time
reverse engineering another RCX-like device from Lego. Reverse engineering
something like the RCX is only fun once. In some ways, RCX 1.0 is golden
in my eyes, both because it is a reasonable platform to develop for (as far
as RCX-like devices go) and because it is the only such product I expect to
know so much about.
-Kekoa
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | RE: RIS version 1.5 coming this fall
|
| (...) Well, let me put in my nickle's worth as a grizzled veteran of embedded systems. I'm 37 years old and have hacked the following... 1. A Commodore PET (my first FORTH) at age 20 or so 2. An HP48 calculator. The PPC ROM and synthetic programming (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: RIS version 1.5 coming this fall
|
| (...) [Revisiting and older thread] it's interesting to note what Apple has done recently... If you bought an original G3, then you can use it with a G4 CPU. But: If you've downloaded and installed the recent ROM update from Apple, you can no longer (...) (25 years ago, 5-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: RIS version 1.5 coming this fall
|
| (...) That is true except for removing the firmware by removing the batteries. Since the only alterable storage is powered by the batteries, there can never be permanent changes to the brick that survive a hard power-off. (...) The ROM is in the CPU (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
