chunghuihuang / firmware-mod-kit

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/firmware-mod-kit
0 stars 0 forks source link

Can't extract v24 sp2 web gui #52

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
It unpacks firmware ok, but when i try to extract web gui i get:

Firmware Mod Kit (ddwrt-gui-extract) 0.73 beta, (c)2011 Craig Heffner, Jeremy 
Collake
http://www.bitsum.com

Failed to parse ELF header!
Failed to process Web files!

Original issue reported on code.google.com by lijadol...@gmail.com on 26 Jan 2012 at 11:13

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
I have not heard of troubles before unless Brainslayer updated his images 
without changing the version number, something not unusual for him.

Original comment by jeremy.collake@gmail.com on 26 Jan 2012 at 4:59

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Can you provide the exact firmware image you were running against? I'll take a 
look.

Original comment by heffne...@gmail.com on 26 Jan 2012 at 7:58

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
It looks like he changed the websRomPageIndexType structure. Looks like he 
might have also lzma compressed all the web files too. Should be easy to add 
support for the new format, when I can find the time. :P

Original comment by heffne...@gmail.com on 26 Jan 2012 at 8:11

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Thanks for fast replys!
The image is 
ftp://ftp.dd-wrt.com/others/eko/BrainSlayer-V24-preSP2/2011/12-20-11-r18024/voda
fone_easybox_803/vodafone_easybox_803-webflash-firmware.bin

I hope you will find it soon :)

Original comment by lijadol...@gmail.com on 26 Jan 2012 at 9:43

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
We must invent some sort of new licensing model to define whatever hybrid 
DD-WRT is. I once commented that 99% of DD-WRT is written by others, which is 
true since about 99% is the linux kernel, drivers, and applications/packages. 
Brainslayer was not happy with this, publicly asking me to 'learn to read 
code'. However, it is true, and something I think he should remember when he 
takes his 0.1% and protects it, then changes the protection to avoid it being 
'hacked'. To add insult to injury, this seems to be the area where he puts the 
most work into the firmware, lol.

Original comment by jeremy.collake@gmail.com on 28 Jan 2012 at 10:23

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
I agree.
I just want to manualy apply changes from http://svn.dd-wrt.com/changeset/18025 
and http://svn.dd-wrt.com/changeset/18026 but without building from source.
But maybe for r18025 i wont be able because changes are made in httpd and 
kromo. Or i could make them and compile just httpd binary?
My "problem" is explained here: 
http://www.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=150188

Original comment by lijadol...@gmail.com on 28 Jan 2012 at 3:09

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
You *could* consider using an older DD-WRT httpd in the interim. It is most 
likely 100% compatible and unchanged, except for the new protections. Just take 
it out of the previous firmware before he made this change, slap it in the new 
one. Now, it is *possible* there will be complications, so you should proceed 
with extreme caution and make sure you can recover from a brick, etc.. etc... 
usual warnings.

The legal questions here are confusing. I believe he is violating the GPL 
license of httpd, as that is not his creation. It came down from Sveasoft, who 
got it from Linksys, who got it from Broadcom. ALL changes to the source code 
must be published. The web pages themselves are partly or fully his creation in 
some cases though, so he may hold a valid copyright on *some* of them. Many, if 
not most, have substantial contributions from others though. So... I dunno. 
This is why I never bothered cracking his httpd myself, though others did. 
Whether or not we continue is a matter to be debated. It might be that *if* we 
find he actually has a full legal claim to anything (I don't think he does 
really), these tools need to be isolated from the FMK to make sure it is 100% 
legal.

Original comment by jeremy.collake@gmail.com on 31 Jan 2012 at 10:43

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Hello, I have another httpd, which I can't even extract. It dies with:

Failed to parse ELF header
Failed to process Web files!

I have it from one of the most recent builds for the Buffalo WHR-G300N v2.

I cannot just use an older httpd - because of MSB vs LSB it seems. Tried it, no 
GUI.

I'll attach the file:

/usr/sbin/httpd: ELF 32-bit MSB executable, MIPS, MIPS32 rel2 version 1, 
dynamically linked (uses shared libs), corrupted section header size

Original comment by chain.sh...@gmail.com on 12 Mar 2012 at 5:30

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
I had luck with one of his older builds - from June 2011. Maybe this helps 
someone. I just took the httpd binary out of it and it works like a charm!

Original comment by chain.sh...@gmail.com on 12 Mar 2012 at 9:41

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Yea, since he hasn't really changed much (afaik), the older httpd's are good 
until the cat and mouse game catches up to his latest attempt to 'protect' his 
F/OSS from people modifying. It's a darn good thing people didn't do that to 
the 99% of DD-WRT that is the linux kernel, drivers, and F/OSS packages.

Original comment by jeremy.collake@gmail.com on 12 Mar 2012 at 10:17

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
These two things appear to be fully true:

1. DD-WRT did not author webcomp (the compressor for webdecomp). They have 
amended it, and under GPL licensing, should be required to release the source 
code changes. That said, we can derive their changes pretty easily, but the 
point is one of licensing. They SHOULD be releasing these modifications upon 
ANY request.

2. AFAIK, DD-WRT's httpd is not built from scratch itself. Being a fork of 
Sveasoft, who forked it from Linksys, who forked it from Broadcom reference 
firmware. So, it is covered by a GPL license and any modifications to it should 
be required to be published upon ANY request.

These violations in the GPL licensing allow and permit us to continue 
extraction of the firmware, as it is fully open source code, and should never 
have been 'protected' to start with.

Original comment by jeremy.collake@gmail.com on 13 Mar 2012 at 8:44

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
has there been any progress on this? I am running into same problem. Thanks for 
the hard work :D

Original comment by travisra...@gmail.com on 28 Apr 2012 at 1:48

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
The latest webdecomp tool in the trunk supports both the older and newer 
formats (tested on older v24 sp2 firmware, and recent build 18946), and will 
auto-detect which format is required for extraction/reconstruction.

Original comment by heffne...@gmail.com on 9 Jul 2012 at 4:00

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Nice! Will test it as soon as get back home!

Original comment by lijadol...@gmail.com on 9 Jul 2012 at 9:19