342 replies to this topic

[athoik]

Use Duckbox-Developers approach?

[WanWizard]

Which is?

[Erik Slagter]

Duckbox sounds like DMM ;-)

[Lost in Space]

Wrong and No, but they use a libdvbci approach and C++ coding, but they still deliver some bugs solved long ago ...

 

https://github.com/D...master/libdvbci

Edited by gutemine, 8 April 2017 - 15:43.

[athoik]

There is no perfect solution gutemine, but there are solutions that work today! And duckbox-developers are doing great job...

Embedding the CIplus handling in Enigma2 would be much easier if "open" world uses "open" solutions.

Eg add support CIplus in en50221 and eventually all linux ecosystem will have less job to do.

Instead of that, today we have private patches, "unknown" objects that link to enigma2, binaries and binaries.

So many forks of Enigma2, all of them keeping low profile, keeping solutions private, it makes me sceptic, why nobody want's to release to the public the beast...

Edited by athoik, 8 April 2017 - 16:29.

[Lost in Space]

Look, you (or whoever) should maybe start to make up your mind - use the great ciplus socket interface you didn't invent, use the ciplus helper you didn't invent, use the libdcbci you didn't invent either, or come up with a great solution solving all problems and beeing fully legal ... which sounds to me like "42" beeing the answer to all questions. ...

[WanWizard]

@Athoik,

 

Nobody can release their solution, exactly because none of them are legal. So there are only two options: either "someone" comes up with something legal (and for that it would be handy to have access to the code of "other" solutions), or we will not have CI+ support.

 

We can and will not add anything illegal to our image, it is as simple as that. 

[Lost in Space]

That wish would already rule out all boxes which are using drivers which have the functionallity (illegally) embedded

[adri]

@Athoik,

 

Nobody can release their solution, exactly because none of them are legal. So there are only two options: either "someone" comes up with something legal (and for that it would be handy to have access to the code of "other" solutions), or we will not have CI+ support.

 

We can and will not add anything illegal to our image, it is as simple as that. 

I guess the only 'legal' CI+ solution would have to be 'certified' by the consortium......

Good luck

[mimisiku]

I think that battle is already over
CI+ only in certified TV's and embedded receivers imposing all kinds of restrictions that content providers love so much.
Home recording has been dealt the final blow and will be impossible unless the consumer wishes to pay (a lot) extra for content he/she already paid for...

I have called it a day and use a cable box. Satellite dish has been dismantled. Tired of all the fuss (channels changing, names changing etc)

[WanWizard]

That wish would already rule out all boxes which are using drivers which have the functionallity (illegally) embedded

 

Afaik no driver has an illegal CI+ certificate embedded.

 

I guess the only 'legal' CI+ solution would have to be 'certified' by the consortium......

 

Strickly speaking, perhaps.

 

The main issue with the current "solutions" is the embedding of an illegal CI+ certificate. You can see this as equivalent of a softcam with a build-in emu, and embedded keys. We don't have an issue with a softcam itself, we will not offer solutions in out feeds with embedded keys.

 

There is a generic CI+ interface present in Enigma. Currently it supports driver mapping for a few manufacturers, but with an abstraction layer in the BSP, this could easily be adapted to support all manufacturers that have CI+ support in their drivers, that is a matter of finding the correct IOctl's. In the past we implemented the same solution to support softcam's ((the capmt interface), which is now used in all Enigma's out there.

 

So with this interface, a generic binary can be made, like a softcam, to deal with the CI+ certificate. This can either be through a separate file (in which case we will add that binary to the feeds like we do with softcams, and you are on your own to find a certificate), or by some embedded solution (which we will not add to the feeds).

 

Anyway, the solution is there, what is lacking at the moment is someone who creates it.

[babsy98]

pli core members have a solution and all done for long time 95% use universal solution and only vu and mutant use own

[WanWizard]

You seem to know more than I do. So do tell...

[adri]

There is a generic CI+ interface present in Enigma. Currently it supports driver mapping for a few manufacturers, but with an abstraction layer in the BSP, this could easily be adapted to support all manufacturers that have CI+ support in their drivers, that is a matter of finding the correct IOctl's. In the past we implemented the same solution to support softcam's ((the capmt interface), which is now used in all Enigma's out there.

 

So with this interface, a generic binary can be made, like a softcam, to deal with the CI+ certificate. This can either be through a separate file (in which case we will add that binary to the feeds like we do with softcams, and you are on your own to find a certificate), or by some embedded solution (which we will not add to the feeds).

 

I would think the generic solution with an external certificate or configuration file would make all parties happy?

[Lost in Space]

No because then the job would be done in 2-3h - it were just cut and paste of the "missing" resource handlers from the Open Source DMM Solution into OpenPLi git

Edited by gutemine, 9 April 2017 - 14:12.

[littlesat]

No because then the job would be done in 2-3h - it were just cut and paste of the "missing" resource handlers from the Open Source DMM Solution into OpenPLi git 

Then show us with a merge request.... instead of trolling here....

[Lost in Space]

I'm not the one who is trolling here

 

And I will not revert all "your" ciplus message interface garbage either which adds no real value

Edited by gutemine, 9 April 2017 - 14:58.

[WanWizard]

Yada yada yada. If you have nothing to do, then don't do it here. As usual, your added value is zero.

 

DMM doesn't have an open and reusable solution, they have a binary with a ripped CI+ certificate. So that solution is useless.

[adri]

You could download the 'DMM' solution source from the NewNigma2 board and  modify it to excluded the 'ripped' certificate and use an external one?

[littlesat]

You could download the 'DMM' solution source from the NewNigma2 board

Where.... ?