Author Topic: iButton Security Feature Attention Developers (Read 17747 times)

Sprocket · « **on:** February 25, 2009, 05:38:27 pm »

I have been in the VEMS scene for just over two years now. When I bought my first Genboard I also purchased the iButton. After reading as much as I could on it, with my limited knowledge, I now realise that there needs to be some Firmware intervention for it to successfuly work, other than being a dead chip on the board.

I read up on this page http://www.vems.hu/wiki/index.php?page=ButtonImmobilizer but there is a lot of that I do not understand, especialy when we start to get to the programming side of things. However, the general basis, i can grasp. The fact is, as it states at the bottom of that page, there needs to be some 'simple' firmware intervention.

Recently there seams to be a lot of firmware releases with changes for various things as well as bug fixes. Is there any one who can look at the iButton and perhaps add something onto the end of these firmware releases to take advantage of this feature. After all, it is sold in the webshop but STILL not implemented.

I think its about time some one started to look at this, or, completely disregard the whole idea and remove it from sale in the webshop. as far as I am concerned if its still for sale in the shop, there should be some development happening, and there has been nothing for over two years.

I like the idea of this feture as it could be used for several things not just for security, other things I cannot think of at the moment but security is a very good one. Saves me having to unplug the ECU and take it with me when I leave the car for any length of time.

PeepPaadam · « **Reply #1 on:** February 25, 2009, 09:03:36 pm »

I'll second that, if it's simple why not add the support of the iButton to future firmware releases.

GintsK · « **Reply #2 on:** February 26, 2009, 02:23:51 am »

Because no one are interested in old school immobilizer feature: every time you turn ignition off-on (e.g. stalled, reset) you have to attach button to reader. Do you realy want it?
It is absolutely opposite what we need on race car and it is also embarrassing on everyday car...

Sprocket · « **Reply #3 on:** February 26, 2009, 06:07:45 am »

All valid reasons

which begs the question, Why sell it ? Nobody, at the point of sale, said anything to me.

I dont use the car every day, I also do not stall the engine that often, and its not quite a race car. Where do I fit into the scheme of things?

I did also say that there could be other uses for this, that doesnt always need the use of the iButton. maybe for what ever reason you wanted to lock the change of the config. You could use it to swap the dual configs over with out the need for an easily tripped mechanical switch? I dont know?

It appears that there is some negative thoughts surrounding this, so I will say no more other than, I wasted the small amount of money purchasing the chips expecting something in the future. I wonder how many other punters have done this, or am I the only nugget $:-\$

PeepPaadam · « **Reply #4 on:** February 26, 2009, 03:15:59 pm »

I bought it too, no use whatsoever so far since I'm not a firmware developer.

rob@vems.co.uk · « **Reply #5 on:** February 26, 2009, 06:20:40 pm »

I think the problem stems from the fact that theres been no commercial direction for any of this stuff.

v2 MS-AVR was an implementation of an early MegaSquirt board to use the newer and bigger Atmel AVR128Mega MCU.
It went well, the MS code was translated to the new MCU and then with the extra room people started to develop bits and peices that ended up needing new hardware to support it.
So v3 (Genboard) was developed as a clean-sheet implementation filling all the items on the wishlist, the idea was to have everything surface mounted in place, and have the "tall components" end-user solderable so that they could configure the board to their spec.

The idea was that the firmware would be open source which would allow developers and hobbyists to have great fun developing all manner of features and new ideas, but suddenly there was the suspicion that another company had helped themselves to the wideband controller code (which it turns out doesnt seem to be true) and that the stable door should be firmly bolted and the source became closed. All of us old timers had access to the source, but I got shut out about 2years ago - and I have no desire to have that access back.

The board does indeed have the one-wire interface hardware built-in so the wording in the webshop is technically correct, and if the source had remained open more than likely there would have been a small group of one-wire developers.

People can still access the source but they need to give the company that sells the thing, ACMV LLC, a valid project proposal and sign a very tight NDA.

Sprocket · « **Reply #6 on:** February 27, 2009, 12:05:04 am »

Rob, What is considered a valid proposal?

rob@vems.co.uk · « **Reply #7 on:** February 27, 2009, 12:16:43 am »

I don't know as I've never put one forward - I don't have access to the code myself.

Sprocket · « **Reply #8 on:** February 27, 2009, 02:08:55 am »

Fair enough, it was just that I asked for work to be done on Siamese code, which, as far as I was concerned was a valid proposal, but the proposal was refused on grounds that it could damage the engine, which the Megasquirt boys have already proved that to be nonsense with much reduced hardware capability

gunni · « **Reply #9 on:** February 27, 2009, 02:15:19 am »

Then you need to update your proposal with better detail and references to success from other manufacturers.

rob@vems.co.uk · « **Reply #10 on:** February 27, 2009, 02:41:19 am »

I spoke with them about this, because I saw a possibility of sales through companies that specialise in Mini parts - but there was no interest... The market was not seen as being big enough to warrant the development

Audi and BMW are the players on the continental market.

Sprocket · « **Reply #11 on:** February 27, 2009, 04:34:39 am »

Quote from: gunni on February 27, 2009, 02:15:19 am

Then you need to update your proposal with better detail and references to success from other manufacturers.

I will be back with a full strategy!

With the help of Bat, I will be setting up a boggo standard Rover MPi A series engine with two VEMS units, to base line the set up. I have access to an Engine dyno when its not being used for breaking in and setting up straight six, v8 and v12 Astin Martin engines. The mounting plates are already made!

Im not having a laugh, Im serious, I just need the firmware and the time. The latter is not so much a problem.

gunni · « **Reply #12 on:** February 27, 2009, 04:43:19 am »

This is to allow port fuel injection on the A-series?
And the whole problem is the charge robbing that occurs.

Why not design a manifold that blocks of the ports to eachother?
i.e it extends into the port to seal of the charge robing?
Then you can run the thing like any other 4cyl.

I´d rather work on fixing the problem then trying to work with the problem

Bat · « **Reply #13 on:** February 27, 2009, 05:50:31 am »

Hi,
The problem with splitting the port is it dramatically reduces the port size to each valve and therefore the airflow. The whole port is only just about big enough to support one valve.
Cheers,
Gavin

gunni · « **Reply #14 on:** February 27, 2009, 06:04:57 am »

To be honest.
Somebody should have developed a cross flow head the year after the A series came out.
And sold it since

This siamese port business is just horrible.

News: