• Owon Pds5022s

Reverse Engineering The OWON SDS7102 Oscilloscope. And the software has one or two annoying bugs. Hack A Day, and the Skull and.

The car analogy: 'Owen says: July 28, 2014 at 8:09 am If you download the trial version of a piece of software you might also have to pay $500 to “de-cripple” features that are already present in the version you’ve got. If you download a crack for it to unlock those features because the company didn’t make it difficult enough for people to get around their protection, that still doesn’t make it right. I imagine Tektronix just rely on the fact that a lot of people that buy their expensive kit will be businesses and businesses generally have to do things by the book, so they won’t bother unlocking things they haven’t paid for, in the same way Adobe relies on business users to buy Photoshop and mostly overlooks all the home users not paying for it.' Woops, This is what I meant to post: 'MRE says: July 28, 2014 at 10:41 am I think it is more like this: You buy a new car, and to save money, you opt for the ‘no thrills’ package. No electric windows.

No heated seats. Upon receiving the car, you discover that the manufacturer did in fact install the radio.

Hack an Oscilloscope, Get a DMCA Take-Down Notice From. Get a DMCA Take-Down Notice From Tektronix More. And then released my software as free and open. Oscilloscope software free download - Oscilloscope, DS2200C Oscilloscope, Lissajous Oscilloscope, and many more programs.

Did in fact install the electric windows. And did install the seat heaters. However, none of them work. Upon further investigation you discover that to have the items enabled, you must pay the difference in price. But, you poke around and discover that in the fuse box (which required a special screw driver to open), three slots are empty: Radio, Windows, Seats. You pop fuses into each slot and everything comes alive. Was this theft, or did the factory simply give you the stuff at no cost, and hope you would pay them more money when you decided you wanted the options enabled after all?'

The G37 Sport package includes paddle shifters on the steering column. If you wanted them on a non-sport version though, there was an ebay seller who sold the paddles. All of the wiring and functionality was already there, just bolt on the paddles plug them in and you were done. Don't be so sure - if I want to add steering wheel audio controls to my truck, I have to take it to the dealership. to get it programmed (in addition to adding the proper parts), despite the fact that 'all the wiring and functionality is already there'. Or spend a few grand on a Tech II and GM software subscription.

An older example: Back in the day, IBM sold two card punch/readers, IIRC the 620 and 630. One was much faster and more expensive than the other. According to what I was told back then, the difference was that the slower cheaper one had an extra circuit board that slowed it down. Remove the extra, and voila! Faster - plus loss of warranty, no field service, etc. It's quite common on most cars to have a single wiring harness that includes all the plugs for the extra features, possibly for all mo. Actually, you, as an individual could enable all fo those things.

Same for the oscilloscope. You cannot, however, post online how to do it-at least not according to Tektronics. So, what Tektronics is saying is that the dissemination of knowledge is a crime? Do I even have to point out how slippery that slope is?

I agree it is a slippery slope, however, technically, they are correct in that the information being disseminated is from their copyrighted manuals. Posting their copyrighted information has led to the takedown notice.

I'm curious, though, if the process could be posted without referencing their specific content - such as 'look up the serial number for the feature you want to enable and enter it on such and such screen,' instead of 'Enter xyz1234 to enable this feature.' Technically, if you aren't reprodu.

Copyright doesn't give them control over a fact. 'The SKU for feature X isyyyyyyyy' is a fact, and therefore not protectable. If hackaday had copied and pasted paragraphs of prose from the manual, that would have been copyright infringement because copyright protects a unique expression. If the manual had a table of SKU numbers and the article had a list, there's no copyright infringement because it's a different, unique expression. IANAL, but based on what I have read elsewhere, I believe you are incorrect. In my company, one of our products comes with a useful database. The license clearly stipulates that the database and its updates are only allowed to be used with the product.

It is a kind of courtesy to make that product more user friendly. For integration into big central systems the database is available separately with different licensing schemes.

Predictably, in the end we had to encrypt the database to enforce compliance, as too many customers (it must be said: less so in western countries) would not care to follow the license. Just because you technically can do something, doesn't make it right, esp. If it is not allowed according to the license. In all fairness (and as a former Agilent employee), you would not believe the amount of work that goes into those things that you don't get with cheap PC-based scopes and low-end stand-along scopes.

They do a LOT of work making sure that the front end (analog stuff between BNC and A/D converters) is correct. Also, lots of DSP-ish type stuff right after the A/D too. I am a digital designer, and I worked on some of the oscilloscope chips, and I don't even understand a lot of that of that stuff.

For a hobbyist working with bandwidth-limited signals, and everything is 5V or less, the cheaper brands are probably fine. However, how do you tell if your scope is lying to you? Do you know aliasing when you see it? I have seen some PC-based scopes do the voltage offset (where you twist the little knob to move the waveform up and down) all in software, and seen the clipping in the A/D - nasty stuff.

You really need do to that in the analog front end You also have how many waveforms per second that you can display. If you have a glitch that happens only rarely, if you are capturing only 30 or 100 waveforms per seconds, you might not see the glitch.

On the other hand, if your scope is capturing 50,000 waveform/second, you stand a MUCH greater chance of seeing it. I do admit that scopes are a pricey purchase, and part of that is due to the low volumes involved and the high amount of R&D. But, if you need something that you can trust (you make your living off design work and are not just a hobbyist), you really need to get something professional from a reputable company. You could say that offering all options at a discount costs them nothing. You could also argue that it does deprive them of revenues.

There are arguments both ways. It is sort of like Windows 7 home vs Windows 7 pro vs. WIndows Server. They all pretty much share the same code base (maybe less so for the Server version). The only difference is a switch or two. If you argue that turning on the FFT and serial protocols costs them nothing, you are right! Once the scope is in your hands, it costs Agilent and Tek next to nothing to enable that feature.

For Agilent, it is an unlock code. For Tek, it is a module that costs them only a buck or two to make. On the other hand, it actually DID cost something to include those features. A lot of serial decode stuff is done hardware and software. The software costs a lot of money to develop and test. The hardware part adds some cost to every single unit sold, plus the cost to develop that test that. So, imagine that all of these extra features (FFT, serial decode, etc.) were included standard with every scope.

Owon Pds5022s

This means that the price would have to be raised to cover all of the NRE costs. So, the price of the scope rises for everybody. For those that need the extra features, they are getting a great bargain. For everybody else, they are paying more for something that they don't need. So, by locking features that need to be unlocked, you piss off the people who feel like the features are already there, and they are being artificially prevented from doing something that they ought to be able to do. If you unlock everything, you raise the price for the very budget-conscious customers. There is no perfect answer.

I'm not sure that the letter published qualifies as a DMCA takedown request, as it doesn't actually mention any part of the DMCA or any other copyright act that has been broken. I'm not sure that a short keyphrase constitutes copyright-protected matter, for one thing. And it's not like publishing the information violates the noncircumvention part of the Act, because they aren't circumventing an anticopying mechanism. They're circumventing a different mechanism entirely I suspect they're just trying their luck.

A mechanism doesn't need to prevent copying in order to qualify for DMCA's anticircumvention protections; it only needs to control access to a work. That's why you specifically need an exception for phones, among other things, even if phone unlocking does not let you copy the phone or its software. 'No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under the Copyright Law'. You would be right that this does not qualify as a DMCA takedown request. Whether the access is gained by the same way or a different way from how a copyright owner would do it is not material to the law; the authorization of the copyright owner is the defining criterion.

The law defines circumvention thus: to 'circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner' For example, most non-authorized decryp. Well, the lawsuit is something new, but Tek has been using software-unlockable features since the 80s as far as I'm aware. It doesn't make sense for them to have 14 different front-end designs and software designs to allow for different feature sets. On the other hand, the cost to develop the high-end features is higher than developing a cheap scope, so they don't want to just give that stuff away for free.

From what I understand there is some really good design in the high-end gear. So, if you want compani.

An anonymous reader writes with the news that Hackaday published an article on the poor security of the add-on modules that Tektronix sells as expensive add-ons to unlock features in certain of its oscilloscopes. The add-on modules are expensive because you pay for the features they unlock, not for the components of the unlock device itself. It's a dongle. This guy is essentially trying to cheat. It's like you could unlock some cool DLC content for a game, but instead just went cracking the encrypted data files and getting that content without paying the game company. Hey, if you don't like a scope which has this kind of feature unlock capability, just don't buy it.

But stop messing with other people's legitimate busi. The add-on modules are expensive because you pay for the features they unlock, not for the components of the unlock device itself.

It's a dongle. This guy is essentially trying to cheat. To me, they've sold you a fully functional product, and only for extra money will they 'license' you to use all of the features. So, imagine you've bought a car, it's got an awesome radio and a turbo charger and a backup camera.

They're hooked up and working, just not active unless you shell out a bunch more money. This is saying we'll give you the rest of the functionality of the device we've sold you if you'll hand over more money. This is intentionally making a crippled product, and then gouging your consumers to get the full version. I see this as just rent seeking, and a business model based on upgrades. I don't see this as legitimate business, I see it as gouging the consumer and getting found out that your 'upgrades' are doing nothing more than unlocking functionality you already have.

Breaching unpaid-for features is theft. You are so full of bullshit that it is leaking out of your nose. reference.com: the wrongful removal of personal property. You have to deprive some owner of the benefits of his ownership.

Never mind bullshit like 'presumed profits now unrealized'. Nobody is taking away anything that belongs to anybody else here. This is simple reverse engineering (a rather trivial form of same) which has been a natural right since time immemorial. Not until governments were com.

All of the manufacturers now ship devices fully kitted and use licenses to unlock/enable additional features. It's less expensive to manufacture one SKU, and then differentiate models by selectively enabling features. At least one of the Chinese manufacturers has know about these hacks for quite a while and apparently isn't doing much about it. I expect that they are allowing this to obtain more market share from the hobbyists as I doubt most commercial operators would void warranties. Tek is essentially selling a software package as a value add, and they'll charge what they can until Agilent/Keysight one ups them with less expansive software. Back in the day, a lot of manufacturers sold different types of VHS recorders, some with more 'features' than others.

It turned out that all the 'buttons' were there behind the plastic faceplate, and it was just the faceplate itself that determined which were the cheap/feature-less models and which were the more expensive models. And of course, simply prying off the plastic revealed the extra features.

So, back in the day, would that be a DMCA violation? Would that be theft? Would the IP police be busting down my door and holding a gun to my head for removing a piece of plastic???

'Cause that's what we're headed towards, boys and girls. Normally that's done to let them turn defective merchandise into a functional product.

Those disabled features probably didn't all pass QA testing, whether because they just plain didn't work or were out of tolerance. Later in an item's production, there might just not be enough of a market for the expensive model and they'll start shipping perfectly good inventory as the lower-spec model too, just because the increased cost loss per unit is smaller than retooling the assembly line. This goes on to this day. Yesterday we had a couple of modules come in for our MDO3K series scopes, and a co-worker and I were hypothesizing about what's in the modules. We concluded they were probably using smartcard IC's, because after all you're selling these things to engineers - people who would be smart enough to break the system if you did something cheap like a TWI EEPROM. Thanks to this DMCA takedown, and the attention it brought, we'll be breaking out the Bus Pirate. You won't need a smartcard connector or custom.

This is unfortunately an old practice that has been going on for decades. I bought a US made digital scope over a decade ago the TDS220. With it I bought the communications module providing serial RS232, Parallel centronics, and HPGIB interfaces. With it I could connect an HP Laser printer, or Epson Dot Matrix printer and produce hard copies with a limited library of printers.

Ths goal was to print to my PC. Then I found out that capibility was bundled in an expensive software package which was extra. Due to my low volume, I could not justify the expense, so to post documentation online, I used an HP 1100 laser printer and a Cannon flatbed scanner. Tecktronics did not offer a simple driver just to capture the image on a PC. Needless to say, that was the last Tektronics scope I purchased.

Any future purchases would include a built in USB interface, with nessarry software as part of the TCO when shopping. I won't be burned twice by the batteries not included sales games. As a scope, the scope works fine as long as you don't want a screenshot directly transferred to a PC. For what I paid to obtain the communications module without any communicaitons software was a huge letdown. The printer module was only a little cheaper.

Without the software, that is all this module can be used for. Let the buyer beware. If you want to buy Made in America, the Americans need to knock off selling cripple ware. It is a bad model and is a huge customer turn off. On one hand, some people might say they paid a huge amount of money for a product that had this (locked) functionality built in, and they have the right to hack it. On another, it's not a trivial amount of effort to write the software that does the analysis, so I could see why a company wants to protect its intellectual property. Otherwise, why would they bother?

They would have to ship the device at a higher price to cover the cost of developing the features. I think the solution here is for the companies to implement reasonable security. Cisco is famous (at least lately) for shipping crippled hardware that is fully capable of performing the functions that are unlocked by various licenses. They implement it as a soft key that ties in with the device serial number (i.e. Pay your money, go online to Cisco, give them the license code and your serial number, and they give back another code to enter into the device.

And presto, instant feature. Another example I have right here at work is an IBM DS3500 disk array. There are feature keys for everything - volume snapshots, remote copy, SSD support, increased number of hosts, and a very mysterious, strangely named 'Turbo Performance' option 1. So this is nothing new - my disk array is running the base configuration and I'm fully aware the controllers in it are shipped with these capabilities. It's weird having to buy $10K pieces of paper, but I see why they do it. It seems like Tektronix was relying on security through obscurity and they assumed no one would try to build hardware keys to work around their feature protection. HP recently did something similar with the ProLiant and Integrity server line that Oracle/Sun did a while back - they simply stated that no firmware upgrades would be available on their machines without a warranty or service contract.

As someone why buys old hardware for fun, it makes it difficult to get it to the last firmware that HP released for it. But, fixing firmware isn't free, so there's that angle as well. I think the HP/Sun/Oracle stuff is aimed more at forcing you to buy service from them, so it's a little different. 1 Side note - even the reseller who sold us the device couldn't tell us what Turbo Performance did.

After a lot of digging, I figured out that this option is used when you add tons of disk shelves to the array, and it lifts an artificial performance cap on the controllers. However, the information is itself a DMCA violation, in that it explains how to circumvent a technical protection scheme.

This doesn't look like a DMCA takedown notice to me, but an invocation of what I consider one of the really bad parts of the DMCA. The DMCA takedown system is not well understood, and is controversial, but it's by far the best part of the act. Note: I'm not a lawyer.

Anybody relying on what I say without consulting a real lawyer is a doo-doo head, and deserves what he or she gets. There are plenty of lawyers that would take this on Pro Bono or Counter Suit Contingency.

And it is perfectly acceptable to simply say, 'Go Ahead! Have you never heard of the Streisand Effect' and then sit back and grab a bucket of popcorn as the exact opposite of what they want happens. The point being, it is easy to be a coward, until everyone is a coward, then bullies win. The hardest thing to do, is to stand up to bullies, but those that do, aren't going to see much in the way of bullying. Personally, if.

There are plenty of lawyers that would take this on Pro Bono or Counter Suit Contingency. And it is perfectly acceptable to simply say, 'Go Ahead! Have you never heard of the Streisand Effect' and then sit back and grab a bucket of popcorn as the exact opposite of what they want happens. The problem with this idea is that based on the evidence, this DMCA takedown is perfectly legal. Which means if HAD ignored it, they could be taken to court and raked over the coals. It's one thing to thumb your nose at baseless cyber-bullying, and saying 'You're a fool.' It's quite another to be a victim of a bad law, and not really have that option.

Sadly, it looks like HAD's situation is the latter one. That exists for indie sites, HAD was one of those once. It now has corporate backers, who did not mind the original Tektronic article but who seem wary to expend that much defending a suit. Were they still a small indie LLC, with little to no resources, they could probably get a Pro Bono lawyer and have fun with it. What would be the worst Tektronics could win?

The domain, if things were structured well; but not even the content (posts owned by poster, sub-license to a new LLC to set up a clone site, blah bl. Also, for it to be a DCMA, doesn't the requested takedown have to have something to do with DRM? The DMCA doesn't mention DRM. It mentions somethign along the lines of mechanisms that prevent access to protected works (software can be a mechanism for the purposes of the act). Personally I don't think this should qualify as infringement since it prevents use - which should not be a copyright violation - rather than duplication, but that's my opinion on what the law should be rather than what it would be when interpreted by the courts.

Personally I don't think this should qualify as infringement since it prevents use - which should not be a copyright violation - rather than duplication I agree with you, but the law has more or less been written to allow corporations to maximize profits. In truth, I think the DMCA is so broadly written that if they had a default password of 'password', their level of incompetence at security is irrelevant. What matters is they had a pretense of security. In this case, they've locked out functionality which is already there, and are charging for access to it - or it sounds like that. I agree that it's your device and you should be able to do anything with it, but apparently publishing it so allow other people to not pay for already there features is a bad thing - because it interferes with a shitty business model and involves a digital lock. I think in general, people should just start posting reviews of Techtronix saying they're greedy bastards who sell crippled hardware and then charge ransom to unlock it.

You may be able to guess the password, but based on the 'reasonable man' test, I think most people would assume that you weren't meant to guess it. I don't have a problem with this in principle. I do have a problem that it seems to allow companies to extend the reach of copyright. My way of seeing it is that anyone who buys the oscilloscope has a legally acquired copy of the software. They just can't access it. Actually accessing legally acquired software should not be illegal.

It's not like there's a business model that would be unsustainable without the protection. If they don't want people to use the software, then don't give them the software. If they pay extra then provide the software. I agree with your desscription of it being 'crippled'. This is essentially a law criminalising repair. In the physical world, if I were to sell off faulty stock (which is legitimate as long as I was honest about the fact that it was faulty), I would not be able to use the law to prevent them from repairing it, even if the buyer was competing with my repair business. My way of seeing it is that anyone who buys the oscilloscope has a legally acquired copy of the software.

They just can't access it. Actually accessing legally acquired software should not be illegal.

It's not like there's a business model that would be unsustainable without the protection. If they don't want people to use the software, then don't give them the software. If they pay extra then provide the software. Exactly this! I have personally used the MSO series of 'scopes.

And I am certain that there wasn't a EULA that I had to click-through when the scope first powered-up. I'm sure there is one along with the Warranty and other info; but, I am pretty certain that, under the 'Shrink Wrap' Licensing precedents, I would have not 'signed' anything simply by using the 'scope, anymore than I agree to licensing of the applications that are embedded in my TV set, simply by turning it on. So long as you are not creating a 'Derivative Work', nor 'Reselling' that firmware, there simply is no Copyright issue here. Tek is DEFINITELY abusing the DMCA here, as well as simply trying to cover-up for a sloppy attempt at what is nothing more than a cost-saving measure. In fact, they would have had a much more defensible position if they took Hackaday to court for 'circumventing security measures of a computing device' (or however that bit is worded in 18 USC.?). But DMCA 'Takedown Notices' are hardly EVER challenged, and take only a lawyer-letter with scary language.

Yeah, this is basically the same deal from the early 2000's where people could use a pencil to allow overclocking on a few AMD chips. I don't recall AMD issuing take-downs, or suing anyone for distributing said trick. If you decide as a company to intentionally gimp products to create price differentiation, expect people to find workarounds. You are creating 'value' out of thin air at the expense of the customer. They are simply taking it back. In short; whine less, figure out better ways to increase reven. So if Chrysler sold a car without working air-con and without a working stereo, but if you pay $3000 they will enable them, and then someone discovers that the technological measure is they don't put a fuse in the fuse box, and then you stick a fuse in there, is that a technological measure protected by the DMCA?

I think it has to be something covered by copyright law like computer code. I don't think that particular use case would apply here since it involves nothing that is affected by copyright law.

Also, for it to be a DCMA, doesn't the requested takedown have to have something to do with DRM? DMCA is a 'big' law with several parts. Part of it is to outlaw DRM compatibility and another part is about takedown notices. There's even a part specific to boat hull designs, though I don't know if it's as controversial as the crazier stuff. The reason it's so confusing is that when someone makes something that works with DRM, whoever's interests are negatively impacted by people buying the DRMed item (e.

Also, for it to be a DCMA, doesn't the requested takedown have to have something to do with DRM? It looks like it has. It seems that you pay different prices for oscilloscopes with different feature sets (which is common sense).

And it seems that these oscilloscopes have different feature sets because features are produced by software, and access to the software is locked. That's what's called DRM - you didn't pay for the feature, you don't have access to it. And a hack that gives you access to the feature without paying is circumventing the DRM to give you access to the software, exactly what the DMCA.

It is something of a rite of passage for an electronics enthusiast, the acquisition of a first oscilloscope. In decades past that usually meant a relatively modest instrument, maybe a 20MHz bandwidth and dual trace if you were lucky. Higher spec devices were eye-wateringly expensive monsters, not for the Common People. We are fortunate that like most other areas of technology the world of test equipment has benefited in the last few years both from developments in digital technology and from the growth in Chinese manufacturing.

If your first ‘scope is that second-hand 20MHz CRT you will probably secure it for pennies, and the first ‘scope you buy new will probably have a spec closer to those unattainable super-scopes of yesteryear. Gone is the CRT and timebase generator, in its place a TFT, system-on-chip, and super-fast A to D converter. Christer Weinigel has just such an entry-level modern digital ‘scope, an OWON SDS7102. He comments that it’s got an impressive spec for its price, though the input is noisier than you’d expect on a more expensive device, and the software has one or two annoying bugs. Having owned it for a while, he’s now subjected it to a lengthy teardown and reverse engineer, and. Christer’s interest lay mainly in the OWON’s digital section, it seems there is already a substantial community paying attention to its analog front end. He’s deduced how its internals are connected, ported Linux to its Samsung SoC in the scope, succeeded in getting its peripherals working, and set to work programming the Xilinx FPGA that’s responsible for signal processing. The series of posts is a fascinating read as a run through the process of reverse engineering, but he points out that it’s quite a lot of information. If you are just interested in how a cheap modern oscilloscope works, he says, he suggests reading.

He also makes a plea for help, he’s no slouch on the ‘scope’s software but admits he’s a bit out of his depth on some aspects of the FPGA. If you’re an FPGA wizard with an interest in ‘scopes, he’d like to hear from you. This isn’t the first time we’ve featured ‘scope reverse engineering here at Hackaday, though it may be more in-depth than others. In the past we’ve seen a laid bare, and an investigation of a. Posted in Tagged, Post navigation.

The reverse engineering from the software and FPGA bitstream sides is stunning. I really want to see all the gory details of the analog signal path including all the bits driving the ADC, clocking etc. But, I have a particular reason for this as part of my current project research. The FPGA stuff is not so hard(for me) but I admit, using the DDR2 interface on the SoC for the FPGA interconnect is pretty hardcore – I suspect the bandwidth through the simpler interfaces was not sufficient.

It’s not like the Chinese to take the hard route just for the fun of it:D. I’m not really sure why they went with the DDR2 interface. As you say, it has higher bandwidth (133MHz. 16 bits for the DDR bus instead of 67MHz. 16 bits for the peripheral bus) on the other hand the FPGA has to compete with the DDR memory for bandwidth. The DDR memory interface is also much more complex: instead of a read being a simple “here’s the address, give me the data” the CPU now has to do a precharge to open a memory row, read from the row and close the row; all this costs latency.

I could imagine some the Owon having tricks in mind like letting the display controller in the SoC render graphics from the virtual DDR memory in the FPGA. That would probably not work if the FPGA is connected to the peripheral bus. Displaying data directly from the FPGA that might allow some really nice “virtual phosphor” effects that would not be possible otherwise. On the other hand, the peripheral bus could be used to do DMA directly from the FPGA to the SoC main memory and that ought to be enough to let the FPGA update the display at 60Hz. It might be that the Owon engeineers having done a virtual DDR2 memory before and that is is a case of “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. Who knows.:-).

Doing a 100MHz analog frontend is pretty much a solved issue today. Throw money at it and use a one chip variable gain amplifier with enough bandwidth, or cost optimize and do it with discrete component as the Rigol 1054Z. What actually differentiates most 100MHz/1Gsample/s scopes today is the signal processing and software.

And my goal is to see what the existing SDS7102 hardware can do. For me the AFE isn’t that interesting, I’ll have to make do with whatever is in the scope already, I don’t care if they use a Chebyshev filter or a Butterworth filter, I care if changing an I/O pin on the SoC changes the attenuation and by how much. Yes, reverse engineering the analog circuits of the AFE is one way of figuring out what an I/O pin does, another way is to treat the AFE as a black box and just switch the I/O pin and see how it affects the signal seen at the ADC.

I’ve seen a few posts by people who can no longer boot their SDS7102 scopes but most of them seem to be due to a failed firmware update. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone who has had a scope fail just by doing nothing.

There are probably lots of other products based on Samsung SoC that have crappy bootloaders and don’t use error correction. I would personally not feel comfortable about having a product in the field which doesn’t use error correction for the NAND flash, but I might be overly paranoid.:-).