[HN Gopher] I created an open-source Hardware Hacking Wiki - wit...
___________________________________________________________________
I created an open-source Hardware Hacking Wiki - with tutorials for
beginners
Author : hw-f3nter
Score : 685 points
Date : 2025-01-12 11:29 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.hardbreak.wiki)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.hardbreak.wiki)
| polalavik wrote:
| This is rad! I'll throw this in my embedded resources round up
| [1]
|
| https://hardwareteams.com/docs/embedded/embedded-resources/
| findyourexit wrote:
| Whoa! Very much appreciated!
|
| Fantastic round-up with loads of useful inclusions. Thanks for
| sharing!
| spidersouris wrote:
| Thanks for the wiki -- I have always been interested in hardware
| hacking but I have always felt overwhelmed as I didn't know where
| to start. I believe this kind of resource can greatly help with
| that, especially the case studies.
|
| However, I can't help but feel that a major part of the content
| is LLM-generated, or at least LLM-rewritten. It feels off and
| uninteresting to read, honestly. Is it the case? To support my
| case, I see that the case study page
| (https://www.hardbreak.wiki/introduction/case-study-led-to-a-...)
| has very similar paragraphs next to each other, the second one
| seemingly being the "genuine" one, and the first one being the
| LLM-rewritten version.
|
| I'm not against using LLMs to help fix typos or reformulate
| things, but you should definitely keep some of your style. The
| LLM that you used (if you used one) made the content super bland,
| and as a reader, I'm not really incentivized to browse more.
| raywu wrote:
| Case in point, under Case Study > Reconnaissance > OSINT, these
| two paragraphs follow one another - same content but different
| wording.
|
| > The first step in any hardware hacking project is research. I
| started by Googling the router model number, "ASUS RT-N12 D1",
| and came across an article about a similar model, the ASUS
| RT-N12+ B1. The article mentioned that the device had an open
| UART interface allowing unauthenticated root access. However,
| it provided no exact details on how to exploit this or where
| the UART interface might be located. Could my router model have
| the same vulnerability?
|
| > In the first step I googled the model number for my router
| "ASUS RT N12 D1" and I came accross this article. It shows that
| a similar model the "ASUS RT N12+ B1" appears to have an open
| UART interface, which gives unauthenticated root access. It
| does not show how to exacltly abuse this or any details where
| to find the UART interface. Let's see if our router model may
| have the same vulnerability!
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Get a ham radio technician license, and you may develop an
| intuitive perspective on most electrical engineering concepts.
|
| i.e. the physics lab derivation of the core EE tool set is
| unnecessary if you understand what the models are describing.
|
| AI is slop in and slop out... and dangerous to students... =3
|
| John Shive's Wave Machines is where every student should start:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DovunOxlY1k
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _dangerous to students_
|
| It's fatally dangerous to students who ignore it or dismiss
| it out of hand. That much is already certain.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| How so?
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Wait and see. You're not paying attention now, but it's
| not too late to start.
|
| Go to your favorite programming puzzle site and see how
| you do against the latest models, for instance. If you
| can beat o1-pro regularly, for instance, then you're
| right, you have nothing to worry about and can safely
| disregard it. Same proposition that was offered to John
| Henry.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Please reformulate your argument, and I will check back
| tomorrow:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNSHZG9blQQ
|
| LLMs are rules based search engines with higher dimension
| vector spaces encoding related topics. There is nothing
| intelligent about these algorithms, except the trick ones
| play on oneself interpreting well structured nonsense.
|
| It is stunting kids development, as students often lack
| the ability to intuitively reason when they are being
| misled. "How many R's in 'Strawberry'?" is a classic
| example exposing the underlying pattern recognition
| failures. =3
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| (Shrug) If you're retired or independently wealthy, you
| can afford that attitude. Hopefully one of those
| describes you.
|
| Otherwise, you're going to spend the rest of your career
| saying things like, "Well, OK, so the _last_ model couldn
| 't count the number of Rs in 'Strawberry' and the new one
| can, but..."
|
| Personally, I dislike being wrong. So I don't base
| arguments on points that have a built-in expiration date,
| or that are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of
| whatever I'm talking about.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Every model is deprecated in time if evidenced Science is
| done well, and hopefully replaced by something more
| accurate in time. There is no absolute right/correctness
| unless you are a naive child under 25 cheating on
| structured homework.
|
| The point was there is nothing intelligent (or AI) about
| LLMs except the person fooling themselves.
|
| In general, most template libraries already implement the
| best possible algorithms from the 1960s, and tuned for
| architecture specific optimizations. Knowing when each
| finite option is appropriate takes a bit of
| understanding/study, but does give results far quicker
| than fitting a statistically salient nonsense answer.
| Several study datum from senior developers is already
| available, and it proves LLMs provide zero benefit to
| people that know what they are doing.
|
| Note, I am driven by having fun, rather than some bizarre
| irrational competitiveness. Prove your position, or I
| will assume you are just a silly person or chat bot. =3
| mindcrime wrote:
| I have no position on whether or not CamperBob is a chat-
| bot, but they are definitely not being silly. Their
| point, as I take it, is that it's dangerous to look at
| the state of "AI" as it is today and then _ignore the
| rate of change_. To their stated point from above:
|
| > Otherwise, you're going to spend the rest of your
| career saying things like, "Well, OK, so the last model
| couldn't count the number of Rs in 'Strawberry' and the
| new one can, but..."
|
| That's a very important point. I mean, it's not
| _guaranteed_ that any form of AI is going to advance to
| the point that it starts taking jobs from people like us,
| but when you fail to look forward and project a little
| bit and imagine what they could do with another year of
| progress... or two years of progress... or 5 years, etc?
| I posit that that kind of myopia could leave one very
| under-prepared for the world one lands in.
|
| > The point was there is nothing intelligent (or AI)
| about LLMs except the person fooling themselves.
|
| Sure. The "AI Effect". Irrelevant. It doesn't matter
| _how_ the machine can do your job, or whether or not it
| 's "really intelligent". It just matters that if it can
| create more value, more cheaply, than you or I, we are
| going to wind up like John Henry. Who, btw, for anybody
| not familiar with that particular bit of folklore "[won
| the race against the machine] only to die in victory with
| a hammer in hand as his heart gave out from stress."
| zxvkhkxvdvbdxz wrote:
| Both you and this chatbot Bob seem to be overly excited
| by the newfound LLM ability of correctly counting R's in
| "strawberry".
|
| For many, this is not a very exciting development.
|
| Mind you, we do follow the progress but your argument of
| "wait and see" is not deserving serious discussion as
| your stance has turned into faith.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| The limitations of tokenization does not stop with LLMs
| it seems for bob.
|
| Please don't down-vote the kids karma, as for me it is
| more important people feel comfortable having
| conversations (especially when they are almost 99% sure
| I'm a turnip connected to a USB port.) =3
| mindcrime wrote:
| Where do you see anything about "excitement" about
| anything? Quit making up bullshit strawman arguments and
| deal with the issue in a realistic way already. Sheesh.
|
| I'm not arguing for any specific outcome mind you. But a
| refusal to acknowledge "rate of change" effects and to
| assume that the future will be like today is incredibly
| short-sighted and myopic.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| "rate of change" effects on speculative fiction is
| meaningless.
|
| Try to remember to be kind, as we are still waiting to
| see bob's data =3
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Speculative fiction is entertaining, but not based in
| reality...
|
| "they are definitely not being silly", that sounds like
| something a silly person would say. =)
|
| " I posit that that kind of myopia could leave one very
| under-prepared for the world one lands in." The numerous
| study data analysis results says otherwise... Thus, still
| speculative hype until proven otherwise.
|
| Not worried... initially suckered into it as a kid too...
| then left the world of ML years later because it was
| always boring, lame, and slow to change. lol =3
| mindcrime wrote:
| _" they are definitely not being silly", that sounds like
| something a silly person would say. =)_
|
| Ya know, it's fine to disagree with something. But hand-
| wavy, shallow dismissals of what someone has to say, with
| no willingness to even attempt to engage with the content
| on a rational basis, is unbecoming.
| ycombiredd wrote:
| I can't help but have the thought that the Joel_McKay in
| this conversation is itself an LLM having been prompted
| to flippantly disregard and downplay mentions of a.i.,
| and LLMs specifically.
|
| I'm not saying it is true , but I am saying it made the
| tone and content of his messages in this thread seem a
| lot more self-consistent and explainable when I re-read
| them with that context in mind. :-)
|
| (@Joel_McKay: apologies for downplaying your sapience -
| human, LLM or otherwise.)
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| I assure you I am 100% turnip. =3
| mindcrime wrote:
| It hasn't said anything intelligent yet, so there is
| that...
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| I asked for bobs proof, and was given marketing.
|
| Then provided instructions on how to present facts, and
| still await the data.
|
| Then immature folks showed up to try to cow people with
| troll content.
|
| I don't have to prove anything, as the evidence was
| already collected and reported in peer-reviewed journals.
| People just prefer to ignore the cited evidence that
| proves they are full of steaming piles of fictional hype.
| =3
| mindcrime wrote:
| Proof of _what_ exactly are you asking for?
|
| Certainly there is zero question that today's "AI"
| systems are making progress on a wide array of
| benchmarks. You can see that here:
|
| https://aiindex.stanford.edu/wp-
| content/uploads/2024/05/HAI_...
|
| Look in the section starting on page 73. Or just examine
| this image:
|
| https://aiindex.stanford.edu/wp-
| content/uploads/2024/04/fig_...
|
| There's your "speculative fiction" you seem so fond of.
|
| Now, if your argument is no more than "who cares about
| benchmarks, 'AI' still isn't 'Real AI'" then all you're
| doing is repeating the 'AI Effect'[1] thing over and over
| again and refusing to acknowledge the obvious reality
| around you.
|
| The AI's we have today, whether "real AI" or not, are
| highly capable in many important areas (and yes, far from
| perfect in others). But there _is_ a starting point to
| talk about, and yes there is reason to think in terms of
| "rate of change" unless you have some evidence to support
| a belief that AI progress has reached a maximum and will
| progress no further.
|
| _I don 't have to prove anything, as the evidence was
| already collected and reported in peer-reviewed
| journals._
|
| Again, evidence for _what_ exactly? What are you even
| claiming? All I see Bob claiming, and what I support
| him(?) in is the idea that there is legit reason to worry
| about the economic impact of AI in the near( 'ish?)
| future.
|
| [1]; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Indeed, I gather you did not comprehend the threads
| topics, and instead introduced a straw-man arguing at
| some point in the future LLM proponents will be less full
| of steaming piles of fictional hype.
|
| Assertion:
|
| 1.) LLMs mislabeled "AI" is dangerous to students due to
| biasing them with subtle nonsense, and a VR girlfriend
| convincing a kid to kill themselves. Again the self
| referential nature of arguing the trends will continue
| toward AGI is nonscientific reasoning (a.k.a. moving the
| goal post because the "AI" buzzword lost its meaning due
| to marketing hype), but this is economically reasonable
| nonsense rhetoric.
|
| 2.) Software developers can be improved or replaced with
| LLMs. This was proven to be demonstrably false for
| experienced people.
|
| 3.) LLMs are intelligent or will become intelligent. This
| set of arguments show a fundamental misunderstanding of
| what LLMs are, and how they function.
|
| 4.) Joel may be a USB connected turnip. While I can't
| disprove this self presented insight, it may be true at
| some point in the future.
|
| I still like you, even if at some point you were
| reprogrammed to fear your imagination. =3
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Failure to back up the assertion about "AI" existing in
| LLMs means there is no meaningful conversation to be had,
| but I offered to wait for a coherent argument in a time-
| bound manner. =3
| numpad0 wrote:
| > it's dangerous to look at the state of "AI" as it is
| today and then _ignore the rate of change_.
|
| It's self driving all over again!
| Lerc wrote:
| I have never understood why the failure to answer the
| strawberry question has seen as a compelling argument as
| to the limits of AI. The AIs that suffer from this
| problem have difficulty counting. That has never been
| denied. Those AI's also do not see the letters of the
| words they are processing. Counting the letters in a word
| is a task that it is quite unsurprising that it fails. I
| Would say it is more surprising that that they can
| perform spelling tasks at all. More importantly the
| models where such weaknesses became apparent are all from
| the same timeframe where the models advanced so much that
| those weaknesses were visible only after so many other
| greater weaknesses had been overcome.
|
| People didn't think that planes flying so high that
| pilots couldn't breathe exposed a fundamental limitation
| of flight, just that their success had revealed the next
| hurdle.
|
| The assertion that an LLM is X and therefore not
| intelligent is not a useful claim to make without either
| proof that it is X and proof that X is insufficient. You
| could say brains are interconnected cells that send
| pulses at intervals dictated by a combination of the
| pulses they sense, and there is nothing intelligent about
| that. The premises must be true and you have to
| demonstrate that the conclusion follows from those
| premises. For the record I think your premises are false
| _and_ your conclusion doesn 't follow.
|
| Without a proof you could hypothesise reasons why such a
| system might not be intelligent and come up with an
| example of a task that no system that satisfies the
| premises could accomplish. While that example is unsolved
| the hypothesis remains unrefuted. What would you suggest
| as a test that shows a problem that could not be solved
| by such a machine? It must be solvable by at least one
| intelligent entity to show that it is solvable by
| intelligence. It must be undeniable when the problem is
| solved.
| tecleandor wrote:
| The AIs that suffer from this problem have difficulty
| counting.
|
| Nope, its not a counting problem. It's a reasoning
| problem. Thing is, no matter how much hype they get, the
| AIs have no reasoning capabilities at all, and they can
| fail in the silliest ways. Same as with Larry Ellison:
| Don't fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing the AI.
| Lerc wrote:
| Ok, give me an example of what you would consider
| reasoning.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Is that like 80% LLM slop? the allusion for failures to
| improve productivity in competent developers was cited in
| the initial response.
|
| The Strawberry test exposes one of the many subtle
| problems LLMs inherently offer in the Tokenization
| approach.
|
| The clown car of Phds may be able to entertain the
| venture capital folks for awhile, but eventually a VR
| girlfriend chat-bot convinces a kid to kill themselves
| like last year.
|
| Again, cognitive development like ethics development is
| currently impossible for LLM as they are lacking any form
| of intelligence (artificial or otherwise.) People have
| patched directives into the model, but these weights are
| likely fundamentally statistically insignificant due to
| cultural sarcasm in the data sets.
|
| Please write your own responses, =3
| Lerc wrote:
| You suspect my words of being AI generated while at the
| same time arguing that AI cannot possibly reason.
|
| It seems like you see AI where there is not, this
| compromises your ability to assess the limitations of AI.
|
| You say that LLMs cannot have any form of intelligence
| but for some definitions of intelligence it is obvious
| they do. Existing models are not capable in all areas but
| they have some abilities. You are asserting that they
| cannot be intelligent which implies that you have a
| different definition of intelligence and that LLMs will
| never satisfy that definition.
|
| What is that definition for intelligence? How would you
| prove something does not have it?
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| "What is that definition for intelligence?"
|
| That is a very open-ended detractor question, and is
| philosophically loaded with taboo violations of human
| neurology. i.e. It could seriously harm people to hear my
| opinion on the matter... so I will insist I am a USB
| connected turnip for now ... =)
|
| "How would you prove something does not have it?"
|
| A Receiver operating characteristic no better than
| chance, within a truly randomized data set. i.e. a system
| incapable of knowing how many Rs in Strawberry at the
| token level... is also inherently incapable of
| understanding what a Strawberry means in the context of
| perception (currently not possible for LLM.)
|
| Have a great day =3
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _Get a ham radio technician license, and you may develop an
| intuitive perspective on most electrical engineering
| concepts._
|
| May. I managed to get one without developing much intuition
| for most EE concepts, unfortunately.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Did you mean you don't understand the equations/theory, or
| are having difficulty applying the concepts to design
| circuits?
|
| In the first case, install LTSpice (free from Analog
| Devices), and head here to run down the basics:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/@FesZElectronics/videos
|
| And in the latter, go though common basic designs analyzing
| how they work:
|
| https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofelectroniccircuit
| s...
|
| https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofel02graf
|
| https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780070110779
|
| https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofel0006graf
|
| Then try your own designs combining properties of several
| designs. Start with simple blinkers and buzzers at first...
| Try to avoid Arduino designs until you've done a few 555,
| transistor, and opamp circuits first. =3
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Most of my issues seem to be about power - I have no feel
| for the relevant math, so even as I remember the basic
| equations and methods, I never feel certain I'm
| calculating it right. So in terms of hands-on experience,
| I pretty much jumped straight from burning through-hole
| resistors with 12V battery to ignite rocket motors made
| of PVC and caramel fuel, to Arduinos and RPIs and
| NodeMCUs -- basically, stuff that comes with an USB port
| it can draw power from...
|
| Thanks for the links, I'll work through them and
| hopefully come out with some understanding at the end of
| this process :).
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Note, part of the fun is the forensic analysis to figure
| out why stuff didn't work the first time... Maybe a LDO
| Voron 3d printer kit would be a fun project too =3
| otteromkram wrote:
| I mean I'm a dummy who just wanted to listen to ISS
| static and trucker jargon.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Indeed, we also end up learning about our sun in levels
| of detail no person should find enthralling... lol =3
| 0xEF wrote:
| Were you also completely turned off by the community?
|
| I ask because I got into it about 15+ years ago for the
| purposes of helping with emergency comms and learning more
| about electronics, but found the community extremely
| hostile toward new comers that did not have money to burn
| on expensive gear. I ended up just giving up on it after a
| few years after investing in a bunch of Arduino stuff and
| learned far more about EE than I ever did playing at radio.
| The concept of the Elmer seemed dead, leaving nobody who
| wanted to show the new guys the ropes.
|
| From what I understand, maybe that has changed in recent
| years?
|
| Weirdly, I did take something away from my experience with
| ham radio; I know an awful lot about the weather and
| atmosphere now, which has turned into a lasting interest.
| cushychicken wrote:
| Ham radio's decline is more than explainable as a
| cultural issue.
|
| The culture of every internet forum I've ever visited for
| it is absolutely deplorable. It seems like each one has a
| handful of really grouchy old gatekeepers who lie in wait
| to absolutely dunk on newcomers.
| 0xEF wrote:
| We agree, but I suppose my next question would be why?
| What happened to turn these guys (or ham radio culture at
| large) into grouchy old gatekeepers? I'm generalizing, of
| course, but they were like that when I arrived. I can't
| imagine the hobby was always like that, especially seeing
| some of the old literature from the 50's and 60's in the
| US, which was very encouraging of mentoring and sharing
| info.
|
| If it's still the same today as it was back when I tried
| it out, that's a shame, because ham radio is absolutely
| full of hardware hacking opportunities. Heck, you can
| make an antenna out of a retractable tape measure.
| btreecat wrote:
| Lead paint probably
| cushychicken wrote:
| HAHA that got me good
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _What happened to turn these guys (or ham radio culture
| at large) into grouchy old gatekeepers? I 'm
| generalizing, of course, but they were like that when I
| arrived._
|
| My bet would be, the Internet. Mailing lists and then
| discussion boards (and then group IMs) allowed for
| deeper, topical conversations, with much lower barrier to
| entry, so everyone left the radio spectrum - everyone
| except those already used to spending time on it, and not
| interested in moving on to the new thing.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Maybe, but the problem I see with HAM is that no
| interesting discussion is allowed to happen in the first
| place. Between the legal rules, cultural rules, and the
| expectation to avoid niche topics that would bore out 90%
| of participants, there's hardly anything left to talk
| about.
| doubleg72 wrote:
| The overlap of hams and preppers is pretty large.. Most
| of those guys are of a particular mindset that only
| meshes with other like minded individuals.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _Were you also completely turned off by the community?_
|
| I was never turned on :). I got my license partly because
| other people at our local Hackerspace were getting it,
| and partly because I imagined it'll be useful to have the
| knowledge and ability to build and legally operate my own
| radio hardware.
|
| I never got the whole HAM talking over radio thing.
| Between the legal and cultural restrictions on the
| topics, and the expectations of not taking up the
| airwaves too much, I can't see how you could discuss
| _anything_ interesting or worthwhile this way. It 's no
| surprise that there seems to be nothing going on other
| than boring and obnoxious rag chewing - interesting
| conversations aren't allowed to occur in the first place.
|
| I mean, the intersection between "non-commercial", "non-
| religious", "non-controversial/non-political", and
| "interesting to any HAM" is... basically just saying
| hello, weather, trash talk, and self-referential showing
| off.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| At least in the UK you can't if you're a linux user, the
| software they use to spy on you while taking the test is
| windows only.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Well first off, the certificate comes with certain
| guarantees, and they can't give those guarantees if they
| can't prove you didn't cheat on the test. "spy on you" is
| absolutely correct, but a bad faith phrasing. That said, I
| did my AWS test at a test / exam center where there's
| isolated computers and cameras to validate that there was
| no cheating.
| akwagiobe wrote:
| Pos
| Aetheridon wrote:
| fantastic providing such knowledge for free, many thanks
| abetusk wrote:
| Unfortunately not Open Source, in the common definition of the
| word.
|
| From the license.md [0] page, under "Terms":
|
| > Exemptions: Commercial Use: For inquiries regarding commercial
| use, please contact the author.
|
| [0]
| https://github.com/f3nter/HardBreak/blob/fd3d2d4cd17624a3f62...
| hw-f3nter wrote:
| I just don't want anyone to copy the content and sell it. It's
| meant to be freely accessible to everyone.
| nerdile wrote:
| That's fine. It's just not open source. Don't call it open
| source if it's not.
|
| Definition: https://opensource.org/osd
| SomeoneOnTheWeb wrote:
| Not everyone agrees with this definition. If the source is
| open to read, for me it's open source. The website you
| linked is an _opinionated_ view on what open source is.
| __jonas wrote:
| > If the source is open to read, for me it's open source
|
| Not everyone agrees with the OSI definition but I'd say
| almost noone agrees with that definition there.
|
| I think most people understand what you are describing as
| "Source Available". Could even be a commercial project.
| shevis wrote:
| > If the source is open to read, for me it's open source.
|
| That's called "source available". Open source
| colloquially implies open license.
| rvense wrote:
| I mean, there's not a lot we can do to stop you using the
| phrase in this way. But you should know that you will
| cause confusion. The phrase "open source" is, to an awful
| lot of people, a technical term with a specific meaning
| and has been so for decades now.
| captainepoch wrote:
| It's not. Open Source has its own definition.
|
| You can define however you want, but it's not Open
| Source. What you mean is "source available".
| palata wrote:
| I think you misunderstand the debates happening around
| open source. They exist, but not for what you mean.
| Llamanator3830 wrote:
| This reminds me of the discussion of whether if open source
| AI models are open source or not, when the training data is
| not available to the public.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| >Free and open-source software (FOSS) or free/libre and
| open-source software (FLOSS) is openly shared source code
| that is licensed without any restrictions on usage,
| modification, or distribution. Confusion persists about
| this definition because the "free", also known as "libre",
| refers to the freedom of the product, not the price,
| expense, cost, or charge. For example, "being free to
| speak" is not the same as "free beer".
|
| I generally think of open source as where I can see the
| code and freely modify it, not necessarily freely
| commercialize it on my own.
| woodrowbarlow wrote:
| the FSF/OSI are big on emphasizing that "free/open" means
| more than exposing the designs and mechanisms; it means
| guaranteeing certain freedoms and rights to the users of
| your software.
|
| what you're describing is usually called "source-
| available".
| thatcat wrote:
| If open source doesn't specify a license that is it under
| then you should only assume that the source has been made
| available. Both GPL and Apache licensing are considered
| open source, even though apache is more permissive for
| commercial derivatives. No one calls GPL "source-
| available" in common conversation regardless of OSI's
| opinion.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| As well as some variants of BSD licenses:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
|
| >Two variants of the license, the New BSD
| License/Modified BSD License (3-clause), and the
| Simplified BSD License/FreeBSD License (2-clause) have
| been verified as GPL-compatible free software licenses by
| the Free Software Foundation, and have been vetted as
| open source licenses by the Open Source Initiative. The
| original, 4-clause BSD license has not been accepted as
| an open source license and, although the original is
| considered to be a free software license by the FSF, the
| FSF does not consider it to be compatible with the GPL
| due to the advertising clause.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| I think I'm about where you are in all this, I see NC
| (restrictions that activities are non-commercial; like
| CC-NC) as being 'open source'.
|
| Sure, I can't take your work, cut you off, then sell that
| work as if it were my own... but without explicit
| encouragement to do that (*), honour should inhibit that.
|
| (* I'm aware some licenses give explicit encouragement to
| commercially exploit -- I just don't think that is the
| boundary for open source)
| 38 wrote:
| that definition is wrong, really by just common sense
| fsflover wrote:
| This is a shallow dismissal, which is against the HN
| Guidlines.
| megous wrote:
| I mean this lists MIT license as opensource license, when
| it's clearly not, because it doesn't at all mention source
| code. The license just talks about "software".
|
| Anyone is free to publish only binaries+docs under this
| license, if they wish.
|
| So the website is not very accurate.
| ajot wrote:
| Have you thought of a Creative Commons license? You can have
| a Non-Commercial clause, while letting others to cooperate
| with you and remix the information in your site. CC licenses
| are IMHO better suited for documents than things like GPL,
| BSD or MIT.
|
| https://chooser-beta.creativecommons.org/
| snvzz wrote:
| Note that the CC -ND licenses are not Open Source either.
| ajot wrote:
| That's a fair comment, maybe OP should change the Open
| Source part after all, even if the license is changed.
| 38 wrote:
| wrong. your definition essentially means "business friendly",
| the wiki is open source in every way that matters, except for
| "lets make money off this persons free work"
| CaptainFever wrote:
| Thanks for your work in pointing this out! Like a trademark, we
| have to defend this term if we want its meaning to persist.
|
| I don't have specific sources, but to those curious, the gist
| is this: open source, or more accurately free software or free
| culture, is not about the creator. It is about affirming the
| rights of the user, to use the work in any way they wish, which
| includes selling it.
|
| A common phrase to correct this unfortunate misconception is
| "free as in speech, not as in beer". The price tag is not the
| issue (you can actually sell free work, like by commission or
| by phsyical copies), the freedom of the user is. This includes
| the freedom to reuse the content in a commercial manner. Just
| about the only freedom that may be restricted is the freedom to
| restrict others.
|
| You may disagree with this, but this is just the history of the
| free software, free culture and open source movement, which
| built a significant portion of the software world we have
| today.
| SilentM68 wrote:
| Thank you for the site.
|
| I've been trying to learn how to customize Linux (e.g. roll my
| own Linux) for any platform but it takes time to learn since all
| the information is laid out all over the internet, thus hard to
| locate. I'm aware of Linux From Scratch project but it is a long
| read and I find that certain knowledge is assumed (e.g. why build
| chain is needed), thus not necessarily newbie-friendly. Though
| I've yet to go through your site, hopefully it will take the
| newbie inexperience (e.g. electronics knowledge if any) into
| consideration.
|
| Good luck, SM68
| whalesalad wrote:
| Can anyone recommend a resource for how to (architecturally)
| handle communication with a device over i2c? That is where I am
| kinda stuck atm when it comes to programming a GPS device.
|
| Backstory: at one point I was trying to use elixir/nerves on an
| rpi to manipulate a few sensor modules to try and produce a race
| lap timer for motorcycles:
| https://github.com/whalesalad/rabbit/blob/master/lib/rabbit/...
|
| I bit off more than I could chew: learn elixir, learn i2c, and
| produce a novel library for controlling the ublox chip since
| nothing existed for Elixir.
|
| But when it comes to managing the state of the device,
| reading/writing memory, etc.. that is all very foreign to me (I
| am used to sockets, http apis, etc) like request/response style
| interactions.
| wmat wrote:
| You might find some useful information on elinux.org here:
| https://elinux.org/Interfacing_with_I2C_Devices
|
| Additionally, search on the wiki of i2c.
| thomasthorpe wrote:
| So it jumps into detail quickly and is written by a vendor but
| this is a pretty good guide handling the architecture and
| detail. See how read and writes use device and register
| addresses to issue requests, and responses are managed with
| clock pulses and bus arbitration.
|
| https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/sbaa565 [pdf]
| whalesalad wrote:
| thank you!
| atentaten wrote:
| This is good. I would've like to see the things that are possible
| by hacking hardware upfront. I think this help entice users by
| providing some exciting anticipation.
| freedomben wrote:
| This is great, and sorely needed! My son wanted to get into
| hardware hacking a couple of years ago and had a horrible time.
| He ended up watching a mish-mash of varying quality youtube
| videos and reading blog posts which went out of date suprisingly
| quick.
| fitsumbelay wrote:
| whether partially open source or not, I appreciate this. Thanks,
| OP
| rubslopes wrote:
| Please remember to write "Show HN:" when submitting your own
| content.
| hw-f3nter wrote:
| I was thinking about it, but the Guidelines include this:
|
| >Off topic: blog posts, sign-up pages, newsletters, lists, and
| other reading material. Those can't be tried out, so can't be
| Show HNs. Make a regular submission instead.
|
| so I made a regular submission, as I think HardBreak is reading
| material. @Mods feel free to move my post, if this is
| considered a Show HN post.
| rubslopes wrote:
| I think you are right! I stand corrected.
| david_shaw wrote:
| This is great.
|
| I've always been on the application security side of things, but
| I'm increasingly interested in hardware hacking. Through some
| cursory research, I learned that there are a few scattered
| resources, but the best way to learn is to really work with
| someone who knows what they're doing.
|
| Putting all these guides, roadmaps, etc. together in a single
| place is a great resource that I'll definitely use.
|
| Thank you!
| hi_hi wrote:
| This is great timing. I recently purchased a micro:bit for
| learning with my young daughter (who loves it) and found I was
| very quickly out of my depth with even the most rudimentary
| customisation for the board.
|
| My draws have now exploded with breadboards, alligator clips,
| jump wires, LCDs and various other electrical components and I'm
| in desperate need of understanding the fundamentals of how all
| these things work.
|
| There's something magical and addictive about being able to
| control your own hardware components from your own code though.
| We've had great joy from simply lighting up LEDs and programming
| our IR receiver.
| JoeDaDude wrote:
| Nice! Hopefully it will grow to include circuit bending [1]
| techniques, those typically used for altering music machines and
| similar.
|
| [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_bending
| 0xEF wrote:
| Just in case folks are curious, a circuit bending wiki does
| exist:
|
| https://circuitbending.miraheze.org/wiki/Circuit_Bending
| amatecha wrote:
| A minor nitpick, but it would be great if you put a description
| of the site in the meta/og description[0] so people get an
| explanation of what the site is when linking elsewhere, e.g. the
| same "This page is a free and open-source wiki about hardware
| hacking!" as is on the page itself. I just linked the site in
| Slack and it just says "hardbreak.wiki / Welcome to HardBreak |
| Hardbreak" which is pretty terse. I imagine there might be some
| setting in your wiki software that might populate these tags
| automatically (moreso than they already have), with any luck!
|
| [0] https://ogp.me/
| hw-f3nter wrote:
| You are right! I encountered the same problem. Unfortunately, I
| didn't find a setting in Gitbook to change the preview text,
| just the preview image. It seems like it just takes the name of
| the first page 'Welcome to HardBreak' and adds the site name
| 'HardBreak' at the end. So I'd have to change the name of the
| first page, but a name like 'HardBreak - a Hardware Hacking
| Wiki' or something similar would look weird on the website, I
| think. I haven't found a good solution for that yet.
| sen wrote:
| I think having it in the homepage title is fine. I do it for
| most sites I build for exactly this reason.
|
| "HardBreak - Open-Source Hardware Hacking Wiki"
|
| Looks fine as a title, and helps for embeds/sharing.
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| Great idea, and it's definitely an area I am becoming more
| interested in as a hobbyist.
|
| Not to be that guy, but I always think it's a shame to see an
| open source community centre itself around a Discord server.
| hw-f3nter wrote:
| Thank you for your feedback! The Discord server serves as a
| platform for feedback and discussions about hardware hacking
| and HardBreak. Do you have any suggestions for alternative ways
| to offer these features?
| mdaniel wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42685138 is the one I
| always post in any mention if Discord or Slack because they
| are both walled gardens
|
| In your specific case, you may have to self-host or pay
| because I don't believe your project would qualify under
| their open source hosting offering but it wouldn't hurt to
| ask
| theyknowitsxmas wrote:
| AI gen hogwash
|
| Head to your local public library and pick any book pre 2020
| petabyt wrote:
| Shameless plug: For anybody wanting to get into rockchip SoC
| development I've created a (no AI) resource:
| https://danielc.dev/rk/
| Over2Chars wrote:
| The wiki is free and open-source? Or the contents of the wiki are
| free and open-source?
|
| If it's a wiki, it would be less than courteous to restrictively
| copyright public contributions (but I'm sure it's been done).
|
| And presumably, paywalling it would reduce contributions.
|
| My impression as to the number one barrier to hardware
| modifications is _soldering_. For some reason people can 't or
| won't do it.
|
| So I'd like to introduce the non-sponsor for this comment,
| "Pincel" the open firmware soldering iron
|
| https://pine64.org/devices/pinecil/
|
| It's running a risc-v chip on open firmware so you'll have cool
| points with when you whip it out at Richard Stallman's next BBQ.
| 1317 wrote:
| It's nice that open firmware exists
|
| but why on earth would a soldering iron need firmware to begin
| with?
| snvzz wrote:
| Temperature control.
|
| It can be done w/o software for sure, but it's easier to do
| PID with.
| 0xEF wrote:
| The Pinecil is great, but is definitely a terrible
| recommendation for anyone new to soldering. If you're trying to
| encourage people to learn to solder, they should be doing it
| with a proper station that can handle and maintain temp for
| extended periods. I have a Pinecil, but it's really only useful
| for quick on-the-fly jobs (which it excels at, in my
| experience) so it stays in my tool bag for work. It suffers
| from overheating and temperature changes for more lengthy jobs.
|
| Otherwise, yeah, if you're already competent at soldering and
| need a pocket-sized iron that you can create a portable power
| supply for, invest in a Pinecil
| HeartofCPU wrote:
| I love it so much. I always wanted to get started with hardware
| hacking , and this is the right place to start !
| Fokamul wrote:
| Omg, wiki is recommending "Bus Pirate", this HW is many years old
| and basically abandoned project. Use something up-to-date, like
| Tigard and BitMagic.
| teatkin wrote:
| Ian Lesnet/Dangerous Prototypes have within the last few months
| released the v5 Bus Pirate. Looks like he and the Dangerous
| Prototypes team might have taken on different ventures, but Ian
| has come back to the Bus Pirate.
|
| On a personal note, I think the v5 hardware is pretty good,
| worth having alongside a Tigard since they are all so cheap
| anyway.
|
| Edit: Apparently there's now a v5 XL and a v6 based on the
| RP2350 been released too, seems to be revived
| mrc527 wrote:
| Nice one, very user friendly.
|
| Can't wait for the RFID section :)
| fasten wrote:
| Thanks this is an awesome resource! Especially to get into
| hardware hacking without getting lost in case studies... It looks
| super beginner friendly too
| xvilka wrote:
| Instead of `strings` for the search[1], I recommend using `rz-
| bin`[2] and `rz-find`[3] tools, which offer more flexibility,
| searching strings outside of the data sections, searching for
| Unicode and less common encodings, and built-in cryptographic
| keys search. There are also `/` (search) commands in the Rizin
| itself. As for the entropy, there is a configurable and
| interactive histogram, see `p=` and `p==` commands, e.g. `p==e`.
|
| [1] https://book.rizin.re/src/search_bytes/intro.html
|
| [2] https://book.rizin.re/src/tools/rz-bin/strings.html
|
| [3] https://book.rizin.re/src/tools/rz-find/intro.html
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-14 23:01 UTC)