342 replies to this topic

[littlesat]

Maybe the makers of the plugin that needs the branding stuff of Oe-a can also consider to change the code that it also works on openpli... for checking on which box or platform the plugin is running does not require the branding stuff at al...

Edited by littlesat, 4 March 2018 - 11:33.

[Dream1975]

Indeed that's why this was the first of 2 possible solutions and would be the cleanest (and then OpenPLi wouldn't have to do anything while PLi-powered boxes would also be able to use CI+ modules just by installing a plugin).

 

In order to ask them if they would be willing to do that I need to contact the makers. Maybe somebody on this forum knows how I can contact them (or could pass this request to them if the makers would like to remain anonymous).

[Persian Prince]

Ask Open ATV for the sources then I can adapt it for PLi

[Erik Slagter]

Correct and also true. Sources are the basis for everything. Without sources nothing is possible.

[Lost in Space]

Why ask - the license is clear ?

 

https://github.com/o...branding-module

[littlesat]

We are not discussing the branding stuff license here...

[WTE]

Indeed that's why this was the first of 2 possible solutions and would be the cleanest (and then OpenPLi wouldn't have to do anything while PLi-powered boxes would also be able to use CI+ modules just by installing a plugin).

 

In order to ask them if they would be willing to do that I need to contact the makers. Maybe somebody on this forum knows how I can contact them (or could pass this request to them if the makers would like to remain anonymous).

 

What is your request? 

The plugin you use is probably the latest ciplus helper.

I think your confused as there are two different plugins:

enigma2-plugin-systemplugins-ciplus-helper_1.1-r0_all.ipk

enigma2-plugin-systemplugins-ciplushelper_4.4-r0_all.ipk

The first one will install on all platform and the second plugin is made for exclusive oe-alliance community. This plugin needs every time an update when a new model comes so that's why it's already on 4.4.

As Openpli doesn't support (the strange) boxmodel branding you can't install it however you can manually unpack the IPK and install it or just use your working (universal) plugin which works on all platforms

Edited by WTE, 4 March 2018 - 20:23.

[Dream1975]

Ask Open ATV for the sources then I can adapt it for PLi

 
I have made an attempt to try to contact the developers here.
 
However when I extract the ipk using 7-zip, I am able to see the installation code in some files (with the boxbranding call in it). So maybe it is possible to adapt the plugin from the IPK (but I don't know anything about software development, so I might say stupid things now).
 
But I still hope the plugin can be made and maintained "centrally" as in the spirit of Open Source, so I'm hoping for a response from the developers.
 
 

I think your confused as there are two different plugins:
enigma2-plugin-systemplugins-ciplus-helper_1.1-r0_all.ipk
enigma2-plugin-systemplugins-ciplushelper_4.4-r0_all.ipk
The first one will install on all platform and the second plugin is made for exclusive oe-alliance community. This plugin needs every time an update when a new model comes so that's why it's already on 4.4.
As Openpli doesn't support (the strange) boxmodel branding you can't install it however you can manually unpack the IPK and install it or just use your working (universal) plugin which works on all platforms

Isn't the first one only for (specific) mipsel boxes and the second one a continuation of the first one with support for more boxes (otherwise why would there be new versions if the first one also does the trick)?

 

Ps. I personally have no need for CI+ support myself (yet) as I have 2 smartcards (Ziggo and Canal Digitaal) that work fine in OScam. I am just putting some effort in it for others who are forced to use a CI+ module, as I would like everybody to be able to use tha advantages of Open Source receivers if they want to. Especially as it seems most of the work has already been done by the plugin creators, and it would seem we are very close to having a general solution that would help all enigma2 users / image builders.

Edited by Dream1975, 4 March 2018 - 20:32.

[WTE]

 

Ps. I personally have no need for CI+ support myself (yet) as I have 2 smartcards (Ziggo and Canal Digitaal) that work fine in OScam. I am just putting some effort in it for others who are forced to use a CI+ module, as I would like everybody to be able to use tha advantages of Open Source receivers if they want to. Especially as it seems most of the work has already been done by the plugin creators, and it would seem we are very close to having a general solution that would help all enigma2 users / image builders.

 

 

As you probably don't know is that most boxes need additional e2 patches. So not like your box which needs only the helper.
At the moment ciplus works as everyone uses a non-licensed key which is still active.

If this key will been block then your out of luck as an license key probably wouldn't been certified on opensource receivers.

[Dream1975]

 

As you probably don't know is that most boxes need additional e2 patches.

 

This indeed would seem to be the case, but these patches seem to also be done by the plugin if needed for that specific box (that's probably why it needs to determine the box information, now being done by the boxbranding). If I look into the extracted ipk of version 4.4 I see box specific patches for some, but not all, boxes supported by the plugin (so probably the other boxes don't need extra patches).

 

It is in the interest of the manufacturers for their boxes be able to use CI+. Although they can't officially provide it (due to legal reasons) I don't think they will try to block any workarounds. It wouldn't surprise me if in the background they are even advising the plugin developers on how to support their boxes. This way they aren't providing anything illegal while (after some user action) their boxes can be made to use CI+.

 

As for the key. If it would be blocked it would also probably be just a matter of time before another key is "leaked" and put into a new version of the plugin. The ever continuing cat and mouse game of which DRM is known for.

Edited by Dream1975, 4 March 2018 - 22:32.

[Dream1975]

I changed one of my HD2400's to a HD51, did a little testing and found out the plugin "enigma2-plugin-systemplugins-ciplus-helper_1.1-r0_all.ipk" (if you need it you can find it through Google) works on both the Mut@nt HD2400 (Mipsel) as HD51 (ARM) on the latest OpenPLi (6.2). Confirmed working on both receivers after installing the plugin with a Ziggo Irdeto CI+ module/smartcard

[Dream1975]

I changed one of my HD2400's to a HD51, did a little testing and found out the plugin "enigma2-plugin-systemplugins-ciplus-helper_1.1-r0_all.ipk" (if you need it you can find it through Google) works on both the Mut@nt HD2400 (Mipsel) as HD51 (ARM) on the latest OpenPLi (6.2). Confirmed working on both receivers after installing the plugin with a Ziggo Irdeto CI+ module/smartcard

 

Small addition, I have both a Quantis Ziggo Irdeto CI+ 1.3 module as well as a @Smit Ziggo Irdeto CI+ 1.3 module. Strangely enough the Quantis gives error 129 (module not supported) while the @Smit authenticates and then works like a charm.

Edited by Dream1975, 5 May 2018 - 18:23.

[Dream1975]

I talked to somebody who lives in the former UPC (NL) region and uses a HD51 with OpenPLi for a long time now. He had cancelled his Canal Digitaal subscription and ordered a Ziggo Nagra CI+ module, just to try if it would work (like the @smit Irdeto CI+ module does on OpenPLi 6.2, with ciplushelper 1.1 predating the boxbranding dependancy).

 

When installing ciplushelper 1.1-r0 on OpenPLi 6.2 and inputting the module he got error 'Ziggo, your TV is not compatible with your module'. He then installed OpenATV 6.1 with Ciplushelper 4.6_r0 and the module worked right away. As also the Quantis Irdeto module doesn't work with version 1.1 of the plugin (but does work on OpenATV with version 4.6) I would suspect some improvements have been put in the plugin to support more/newer modules.

 

As he would rather use OpenPLi isn't there a possibility to think of a solution to install the 4.6 version of the plugin? I know the missing boxbranding module is now preventing the plugin to install (and for OpenPLi there is no further use for boxbranding which is why it isn't in the image), but can't a trick or something be thought of (maybe making the boxbranding module optional or something) so the latest version of the plugin can still be installed?

 

I understand best would be if the plugin wouldn't use the boxbranding module at all, and retrieved the system information from he operating system. Which is why I have tried in the past to contact the makers of the plugin, see my post of March 4th, but unfortunately I haven't been able to reach them (maybe someone on the forum knows how the makers can be contacted)?

 

As CI+ is being used/turned on more and more, it would be a waste if a large part of the userbase might be forced to leave OpenPLi and use another image just because of the necesity for CI+ handling (which none of the images support out of the box, but is possible if you install the external plugin). Maybe the smart people here can think of a solution or might now how to contact the makers to ask about the necesity of the boxbranding module dependancy in the plugin.

[WanWizard]

These binary helpers need modifications in Enigma to make them work, and we have removed those, together with the helpers, on request of the manufacturers, under thread of legal action by the CI+ consortium.

 

As long as there is no external and open source solution for this, we can have this discussion time and time again, but nothing is going to change. This needs someone to make it, and someone to convince the manufacturers to add the corresponding support in the drivers (as currently some manufacturers have no support whatsoever, others have their own solution left over from when those helpers were made).

[MeanMachine]

I'm bumping an old thread, but the issue seems to be still alive. I went through this thread twice to understand the background, but still not getting a few things.

 

I'm in a similar situation to the one mentioned in post #253. The CAM works in the officially recommended TVs and (surprisingly) Edision Piccollo box. But gives an error at the time of initialization in E2/Linux receivers. After unpacking the ipk of ciplushelper plugin, the "illegal" certificates are found there in open. Which confuses me since these certificates are the ones which keep the ciplushelper code from getting incorporated in mainstream enigma2/PLi.

 

Also, if the certificates are the secrets here, then why is the plugin released as a "binary blob" instead of making the code public?

 

What am I missing?

Edited by MeanMachine, 13 July 2019 - 06:06.

[WanWizard]

People not willing to cooperate, or scared, or not willing to make public who is behind it?

 

A working CI+ solution requires four components:

1. A working and accessable API in the drivers (manufacturer needs to do this)
2. A working implementation of that API in enigma2
3. Exposure of that API to external programmes
4. An external programme that deals with the CI+ requests

Currently, there are a few "ciplushelpers" floating around for specific brands (that have implemented 1 but didn't publish any API info) that somehow have gotten hold of that API info to make the binary, together with some patched enigma2 code that deals with 2 and 3 (which maybe based on our old enigma2 code that had this, but was removed on request of some manufacturers).

 

To me, 1, 2 and 3 can not be considered illegal, by themselfs they don't do anything. Like the API enigma exposes for softcams. And I see no issue with implementing it.

 

But it requires cooperation of the manufacturers / driver development teams, and it requires someone to make it. When that is done, 4 will pop up in the wild automatically, I have no doubt.

 

Nothing we can do about that though, we don't advocate you downloading it, installing it, and using it. And we will never include it in the image.

[MeanMachine]

-- but was removed on request of some manufacturers

 

-- 1, 2 and 3 can not be considered illegal

 

These two statements sound like contradicting each other. If it was not illegal, why was the request honored?

 

Also, are you referring to two different manufacturers? In the first case, the manufacturers of E2/Linux receivers. And in the second, CI+ host manufacturers (the ones who requested the code removal)?

Edited by MeanMachine, 13 July 2019 - 16:24.

[WanWizard]

I am refering to the hardware manufacturers, which also supply the drivers. They asked for removal, probably because at the time it was them that supplied the ciplushelper binary, and it was a panic reaction (assumption, I was not involved).

 

And opinions seem to vary, it happens some time ago, and the developer busy with it at the time felt he should honour the request.

[betacentauri]

We don’t have the source code of the binaries, which add ci+ support on some boxes!
There is some source code available in the web, but from unknown author and out of the box it’s not working as separate binary. It was not released under GPL. Maybe the author don’t care, but also maybe it is copyright on it. Nobody knows.

[mimisiku]

Whining and moaning........

If you want/demand CI+ support simply abandon OpenPli as they will never implement it as long as no Open Source is available!!
They have stated this time and time again. So why bother asking for it?