 |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bulut_01
Joined: 24 Feb 2024
Posts: 246
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 3:11 pm |
 |
|
| temtronic wrote: | They could have used ANYTHING for the encryption !
All they've said is 64 bits. Could be simple or complex.
64 bits is 4 words, 8 bytes, 16 nybbles so 1 of 1,000s of possible encryptions may have been used. While it 'might' be KEYLOQ, it could just as easlily be some custom, inhouse software.
There is no way to know just by 'looking at the data stream'.
You might search the web since you know the remote control make and model. Perhaps someone else has done it ? Just because they used a PIC does NOT mean they used KEYLOQ.
One of the 'classic DINOSAUR' ways to encrypt data years ago was to save the data as a Wordperfect text document, then have Wordperfect translate into another language, save that, then use that file as the 'real' data. Anyone looking at the data couldn't figure out what it was ! You had to open the file in Wordperfect and translate into the original language.
Some times I miss the 'good old days' !! |
Thank you very much for your help, you are treating me like a friend. I need to think about this a little bit. I can compare hundreds of data in Excel and maybe get a clue. This damn remote control really pisses me off. |
|
 |
PrinceNai
Joined: 31 Oct 2016
Posts: 534
Location: Montenegro
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 3:49 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | I need to control the load with the remote control data I shared above |
Why? Feel free to tell me it is none of my business, but what are you trying to control and what are those buttons supposed to do? Why can this be controlled only with those codes? From the outside it seems easier to reverse engineer the receiving part so it accepts the codes you decide it will accept.
I'd like to see you prove me wrong, but there is realistically a very small chance to break the code. The reason is simple. The whole algorithm was developed for one sole reason. To prevent people from breaking it. |
|
|
temtronic
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 9500
Location: Greensville,Ontario
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 4:01 pm |
|
|
aww.. but it's soooo much 'fun' staying up til 3 in the morning for 3-4 weeks, banging your head, saying THIS time it should work........
..then of course, it doesn't.
Not saying it can't be done BUT ... spend 3-4 days just surfing the web. A unit that old, odds are someone , somewhere might have hacked it.maybe....
Weird, sad thing is I'm thinking I'd like to replace a 1.44 FDD with a small flashdrive..how NUTS is that !!! |
|
|
bulut_01
Joined: 24 Feb 2024
Posts: 246
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 4:35 pm |
|
|
| PrinceNai wrote: | | Quote: | | I need to control the load with the remote control data I shared above |
Why? Feel free to tell me it is none of my business, but what are you trying to control and what are those buttons supposed to do? Why can this be controlled only with those codes? From the outside it seems easier to reverse engineer the receiving part so it accepts the codes you decide it will accept.
I'd like to see you prove me wrong, but there is realistically a very small chance to break the code. The reason is simple. The whole algorithm was developed for one sole reason. To prevent people from breaking it. |
There is actually no very valid reason. My passion is to break this remote control and make it a receiver unit and turn a light on and off or run an engine. My aim is the id and button data on the remote control and the rest is unnecessary data I have no business. I have researched on the net. Everyone is stuck at the point where they cannot decipher the 64 bit encrypted text. Nobody has been able to do this, maybe we could have done it and would have been the first. Or maybe there is someone who hacked this, or they did not share it, or there really is no one who hacked it. |
|
|
bulut_01
Joined: 24 Feb 2024
Posts: 246
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 4:36 pm |
|
|
| temtronic wrote: | aww.. but it's soooo much 'fun' staying up til 3 in the morning for 3-4 weeks, banging your head, saying THIS time it should work........
..then of course, it doesn't.
Not saying it can't be done BUT ... spend 3-4 days just surfing the web. A unit that old, odds are someone , somewhere might have hacked it.maybe....
Weird, sad thing is I'm thinking I'd like to replace a 1.44 FDD with a small flashdrive..how NUTS is that !!! |
I agree with you, let's do something crazy and go through this 64 bit code. |
|
|
temtronic
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 9500
Location: Greensville,Ontario
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2025 5:46 pm |
|
|
| maybe read microchips an663 ? |
|
|
bulut_01
Joined: 24 Feb 2024
Posts: 246
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2025 12:08 pm |
|
|
| temtronic wrote: | | maybe read microchips an663 ? |
This document is of no use to me. |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in
