21 replies to this topic

[Gman2oo6]

Well don't know if its treu but this came from a cccam forum
Also i don't know if anybody here can check this info but for now
I think we have to be carefull with the new 2.3.0 off Cccam

CCCAM 2.3.0 is taking the backdoor crap even a step further.

The lowest scum of the earth, UVADI TEAM, have done it even better this time. Making sure sharing will die for sure if they keep this crap up.

Before I continue, I would urge people with BRAINS and PROGRAMMING SKILLS, to download IDA PRO (torrent) and decompile it for themselfs to find the fucking remotely triggered backdoor.

How it works.

When you install CCcam 2.3.0 , nothing special is happening at first, and cccam will check for input activity on the pc or box to make sure nobody is watching. When it finds itself comfortably alone, it will start sending your ENTIRE CCCAM.CFG info to this IP 176.9.242.159 (a rented root server in germany).
Now I recompiled a version so I could trigger the backdoor myself, and TADA, some fucking ITALIAN dialup asswipe connected to the server I just set up , IP : 2.32.190.9. So traffic on my card started. THIS THEY CAN NOT HIDE in Cccam, it shows as a CONNECTED CLIENT from one of your clients in cccam.cfg where the dyndns has been removed (still lack of cccam, if dyndns is non-existing) the security feature doesn't work anymore and everybody can connect on that user.

I have 2 words for UVADI TEAM -> YOU SUCK !!!!!!

The future of CCcam is dead thanks to these low life asswipes , just after free sharing and making their own "spidernetwork" on your card.

BLOCK ALL CLIENTS that have 2.3.0 connected to your server as it will still read all connected clients from the server, trough the client !!

latest original CCcam 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 which are secure and don't have this backdoor code.

[littlesat]

Your own firewall at home could check this... Nice Hoax... or not?!?!?

Edited by littlesat, 7 January 2012 - 18:51.

[Carl]

Probably frustated user

If there was something inside then it should be easy to see, as nobody see anything....

[theparasol]

lan to wan traffic is seldom restricted

[DjFoxy]

I've enabled my log on my firewall and I'm logging all my traffic going in and going out.
Till now there are no weird connections.
There is no connection to 176.9.242.159.
This doesn't mean that CCcam 2.3.0 hasn't a backdoor but I doubt it
If you have some proof please neter yout logfile here.

[DjFoxy]

After a whole night of logging still no outgoing traffic from my CCcam devices

[littlesat]

I suggest the 1st of April is earlier this year

[theparasol]

The quote says something about triggering, after a disassemble and activating of the trigger code CCcam enabled the backdoorcode.
So the backdoor has to be triggered in a special way or perhaps goes active after the first of april.
We will never know at this moment without doing a disassemble en reassemble as the quoted author did.

[DjFoxy]

Well maybe he should tell us how he triggered the backdoor so we test if it's real

[theparasol]

He did it by disassemble, manually enabling backdoorcode and reassemble it again.
He never interpreted the backdoor trigger, he simple overruled it.
He should post the disassembled backdoor and triggercode.
The way he did it still could be a hoax to flame UVADI team.

Any1 knows that team and their reputation?

[satdvb]

Good story and then he woke up.

[blzr]

a little OT /?/
I don't know (almost) nothing about CCcam team but one thing I'm pretty sure - UVADI is not its name,
a famous first sentence:

# CCcam team uvadi CCcam v2.1.4

is in Czech language and it means:

# CCcam team presents CCcam v2.1.4

//don't know if the team has(had) something common with Czechs /?/, maybe it's just disinformation...

and regarding possible implementation of a backdoor, who knows?
anybody remember this 'trick 256' that accidentaly leaked 'public' one time?
it's just 'Discreet Charm of the Closed Source'

[littlesat]

The 256 trick was a bug.... same bugs could be in Oscam... even when it is open source there could be leaking stuff....even easier to find by hackers...

Just remember for example how many safety issues were fixed in the VLC player.

I suggest all of this news about CCcam is a hoax,,,

Edited by littlesat, 8 January 2012 - 16:28.

[malakudi]

and regarding possible implementation of a backdoor, who knows?
anybody remember this 'trick 256' that accidentaly leaked 'public' one time?
it's just 'Discreet Charm of the Closed Source'

This was no trick, just really bad coding (range check error).
Bad coding can be seen all over the place of cccam, in my opinion they are average level programmers.

You can never know if there is a backdoor in a closed source project, unless you dissassemble it and inspect it thouroughly. So, better prefer open source projects (oscam).

Edited by malakudi, 8 January 2012 - 16:28.

[Pedro_Newbie]

What I'm reading on this board is that Oscam is a bitch to get it working properly where Cccam works out of the box (well almost)

[ims]

somewhere i saw video with cccer long time ago. But it could be hoax too...

[HPPli]

+1

For me, I'll have the Oscam-bitch under control. But still some black screens with a good ECM during zapping with my VU+DUO.
But important @malakudi, your Oscam seems to be skip this special problem despite all the questions in this case.

So CCcam, with their average level programmers, works as @Pedro_Newbie says: "it working properly"

[theparasol]

What I'm reading on this board is that Oscam is a bitch to get it working properly where Cccam works out of the box (well almost)

True, but its a very interessting journey to accomplish and will for certain enhence your skills and knowledge of softcams

[malakudi]

+1

For me, I'll have the Oscam-bitch under control. But still some black screens with a good ECM during zapping with my VU+DUO.
But important @malakudi, your Oscam seems to be skip this special problem despite all the questions in this case.

So CCcam, with their average level programmers, works as @Pedro_Newbie says: "it working properly"

cccam does not work properly. It's just easy to setup.
the disconnected client issue of cccam shows very bad multi-threading programming.

oscam has bugs, but it is an active project and it is open source, like OpenPLI. You can be sure for what it does, by looking the code. And you can extend it and improve as you will, since the source is available.

[HPPli]

1) cccam does not work properly. It's just easy to setup.
2) the disconnected client issue of cccam shows very bad multi-threading programming.

3) oscam has bugs, but it is an active project and it is open source, like OpenPLI. You can be sure for what it does, by looking the code.
4) And you can extend it and improve as you will, since the source is available.

1) For me, its work quick and properly ! And yes, easily to set up
2) Could you explain and how we can see the troubles of bad multi-threading programming ?
3) I could not programm this, I could only as a dummy improve the config files and look to the webif of Oscam.
4) I could not extend or improve Oscam, I could detect only that the problem of Oscam in combination with VU+DUO always results in blackscreens (with ECM OK) after 10x-12x times zapping.

Edited by HPPli, 8 January 2012 - 18:24.