342 replies to this topic

[SpaceRat]

[betacentauri]

And other images officially support it and have the source code public available?? No. For other images there are solutions and for OpenPLi I have also seen solutions...

[Pike_Bishop]

that's right for pli exists at least one working solution for many boxes especially for vu+

Edited by Pike_Bishop, 14 July 2019 - 00:49.

[mimisiku]

In fact, in the early days before the lawyers of the CI+ consortium began to thread OpenPli offered CI+ for the HD2400 and another box.. Later I believe for one Gigablue receiver. (Gigablue was fined by CI+ and lost their license subsequently)...

[MeanMachine]

Thanks for the replies people. I think I have figured out what I was looking for.

 

The question about the lack of opensource code for ciplushelper plugin stems from the comparison with softcams. I think there is a subtle but important difference between the two situations though. Softcams can (and are) used by many people to watch their pay-TV subscriptions in E2 receivers. Sharing over LAN using softcams is common too. Both of these activities are legal at least in some countries. The firmware in CI+ CAM on the other hand is made to be used with (a subset of) CI+ certified devices since its inception. Consequently, any code which will enable the usage of these CAMs in any other receiver will essentially be used for "illegal" activities in all the countries. It does not matter whether the opensource code contains the illegally acquired certificates or not.

 

As I understand it, the ciplushelper plugin and related code works in a symbiotic relationship with the drivers and other code provided by the box manufacturers. Given this, any code development to make CI+ CAMs work in their receivers will inevitably result in legal action against the manufacturers. Hence they won't be willing to overtly help with the development, and any traces of this help will be necessarily kept secret. Releasing the sources might mean that manufactures would have nowhere to hide.

 

It's a pity we are in this situation. This might very well be the beginning of end of the use of E2 receivers as we know it. I might be (and I hope I am) wrong though.

Edited by MeanMachine, 16 July 2019 - 09:15.

[betacentauri]

Not bad summary. The manufacturers will never support CI+ in total in an e2 box and we won't do it either.

 

But I think code which enables usage of CI+ CAMs is in general not illegal. At least parts of it. There is a public available CI+ specification. You can read it and implement it. That's not illegal. Afaik all needed cryptographic parameters are not included in this specification. So I don't know whether it's legal to make them public.

 

What the manufacturers quite easy can do is to add support for AES decryption. This is needed for CI+ and from my point of view totally legal to add. For the rest there are at the moment (bad and worser) solutions which work, but nobody knows how long.

 

Yes, it's a pity...

[Lost in Space]

Partly this summary is not correct, as there are multiple Open Source implementtions for CI+ available (I know at least 3 and all of these are easily findadble with a simple search with your favorite Search engine and/or following some hints in various boards).

 

Some of these are not even e2 related, but all of them share a good portion of code (some are C based, some C++,..) which means technically there is nothing to stop anybody from using it.

 

BUT all of these solutions are using more or less the same borrowed certificates to build a valdi key chain which produces a valid authentification certificate which will, when presented to the CI Module, be accepted and hence the Modules will 'descramble' by sending out the transponder stream re-encrypted with AES but the code will also get from the module valid keys to allow the Receiver to descramble it.

 

This means if the STB Manufactor includes the possibility to set their CPU into AES decryption mode and pass the output from the CI(+) Module together with these keys, then it will support not only to use CI Modules, but also CI+ Modules.

 

If the vendor keeps the ioctls for this 2 tasks non-public, then you have a non-public solution, if they are public (or easily reverse engineerable with a simple debug run of the e2 binaries so see the necessary ioctl arguments) THEN you have an Open Source Solution - still using illegally optained certificates, but this is another story and hence they summary in my opinion is ... bad ....

 

But I'll not defend the people who produced the code, or stole the certifcates, but the situation now is as described.

 

Finally oscam also needs certificates and hashing algos which were ... borrowed ... and the possibility to pass keys to the STB drivers, hence I don't really see the difference this summary would suggest.

[nick61]

Hi,

 

Recently I've bought a vu+ uno 4k as I've read in specs about cam module integration. I was very unpleasantly surprised to see that my cam module displays "your tv is not compatible with your module" message.

I came here after searching on google, I've tried v4.6r0 and v4.7r0 of the above described plugin, without success.

May I get some help, what am I doing wrong, or what I need to make that ci+ work?

 

Thanks,

[nick61]

My receiver is vu+ uno 4k DVB-C (cable) (cannot edit the previous message).

 

Thanks,

[WanWizard]

There is support for CI+ in OpenPLi, CI+ is explicitly created to block "open" access.

[mimisiku]

The only way to get CI+ working on a VU+ receiver (at least from a consumer's point of view) is to install VTi 9.03 >. At least the Neotion Chipset based CI+ modules will work. As stated many times, these certificates are obtained illegally hence absolutely no warranty that it will work 'forever' as the manufacturer may alter these certificated. CI+ works FOR NOW.. If you want to use a softcam as well you MUST use Common Interface Assignment for the channels you wish to decode via CI+.

[SpaceRat]

The only way to get CI+ working on a VU+ receiver (at least from a consumer's point of view) is to install VTi 9.03 >

 

Actually, OpenATV will work as well.

Dunno about other distros.

[mimisiku]

No.. OpenATV 6.x no longer support CI+. All OpenATV images from 2017 onwards had the CI+ removed. Last OpenATV 5.3 had build in CI+ support. There ARE CIPlushelper add-ons available though. But not all work as they seem to be Kernel version related. Also not working on all OpenATV based receivers... Some do, many don't..

[SpaceRat]

No.. OpenATV 6.x no longer support CI+. All OpenATV images from 2017 onwards had the CI+ removed. Last OpenATV 5.3 had build in CI+ support. There ARE CIPlushelper add-ons available though. But not all work as they seem to be Kernel version related. Also not working on all OpenATV based receivers... Some do, many don't..

 

Utter nonsense.

You obviously have no clue who I am.

 

Nothing about CI+ support in OpenATV has changed, except the source for its installation.

[mimisiku]

I don't know who you are. Should I?
Installed quite some boxes with OpenATV 6.x. No CI+ support as standard.... That's what I meant with 'no support'. Ziggo CI+ Module in box, error message. CIPlushelper sometimes works.. Mostly not..

[SpaceRat]

I don't know who you are. Should I?

I will survive if you don't know

 

Installed quite some boxes with OpenATV 6.x. No CI+ support as standard....

"not as standard" != "not at all".

The ciplus-helper contains exactly the same as was removed from the images when official CI+ support was removed.

[littlesat]

Openatv did remove the support from the sources as far I can see so do you something ‘secret’ on the build process when it is indeed suported? When not the point to the sources. There are boxes that need an e2 patch as far I know (not all).

Edited by littlesat, 14 December 2019 - 18:19.

[nick61]

The only way to get CI+ working on a VU+ receiver (at least from a consumer's point of view) is to install VTi 9.03 >.

What is this VTi 9.03 and where could be obtained?

 

Actually, OpenATV will work as well.

That means I could install openatv 6.3 and ciplushelper 4.7 and it should work? I'll try it (on openpli I had troubles with something named "boxbranding" that is missing, when trying to install ciplus)

 

Thank you everyone,

 

 

[SpaceRat]

The only way to get CI+ working on a VU+ receiver (at least from a consumer's point of view) is to install VTi 9.03 >.

What is this VTi 9.03 and where could be obtained?

A variant of E2, actually but not officially made by Vu+ and in violation of the GPL.
 

Actually, OpenATV will work as well.

That means I could install openatv 6.3 and ciplushelper 4.7 and it should work?

Yes.
Note: You need some addiitonal feed in order to be able to install ciplus-helper (Remember: Official support for CI+ was removed, so it's a 3rd party's feed).

Just run this command on your box (Telnet or ssh) after flashing OpenATV:

wget -O - -q http://updates.mynonpublic.com/oea/feed | bash

I'll try it (on openpli I had troubles with something named "boxbranding" that is missing, when trying to install ciplus)

The OpenPLi devs decided it would be a good idea to re-invent the wheel, so they wrote an implementation of what boxbranding does in a different way.
As there are far too many E2 devs in the world, it's always a good idea to add additional code drift and thus obstacles for other devs.

[WanWizard]

The OpenPLi devs decided it would be a good idea to re-invent the wheel, so they wrote an implementation of what boxbranding does in a different way.
As there are far too many E2 devs in the world, it's always a good idea to add additional code drift and thus obstacles for other devs.

 

May I remind you that that OpenPLi existed LONG before oe-a did? And that OpenPLi. like most other E2 implementations, does not use any boxbranding at all, but that it is an OE-A invention?