New PM3 with newer chip?

iceman · 2016-02-19 10:19:50

I just got a mail from Elechouse where they raise the issue that it is getting harder and more expensive to buy ARM7 chips.

To just start the discussion about it,
the change of chip would mean re-making of firmware.
Would the community be interested in this?

Each time it becomes harder and harder for us to produce it. Because the FPGA seems to be stopped producing, and the ARM7 chips are rare in the market. In fact we thought about changing those chips with other types but it requires much work on the firmware migration.
I am not sure if the firmware contributors are interested in migrating to other chips.
As far as I know, to do so we could produce more at lower cost and sell at very decent price.

iceman · 2016-02-19 12:20:18

If we would like to get UHF (900mHz) functionality, what would we need to upgrade?

ARM: ARM7 -> ? Cortex-A17, Snapdragon ?
FPGA: Spartan II -> Spartan-7 ?

Onboard memory 1gb?

asper · 2016-02-19 16:51:30

I will be interested!
Kickstarter campaign?

iceman · 2016-02-19 17:11:14

As I understand it is not so much about making a new board with better fpga and chip.
Its the re-making of the firmware which will take time.

How can we get that done? Who was it that made the fpga, bootrom, code?

marshmellow · 2016-02-19 23:44:10

sadly fpga and bootrom is out of my league

iceman · 2016-02-29 12:44:05

How about making a kickstarter project focused on bringing out a new Proxmark4 ?

Would that be of some interest to the community? Would you back it?

What would you like to see in the device?

0xFFFF · 2016-03-01 00:30:13

I would back it.

What about using an existing hardware platform such as the HackRF One?

marshmellow · 2016-03-01 02:05:40

I'm interested. I've been looking into the hackrf one for a little while, and it does appear it might be able to read even down to lf some with the right antenna, but I doubt it will be very good in that space. And it isn't very windows friendly from what I can tell. Might make sense to move to a USB 3 device as well. ?

0xFFFF · 2016-03-01 03:41:25

The HackRF is one of many SDRs options available today. I only suggested it because I own a few and enjoy using them.
As far as LF goes, there are few options available. I use an upconverter in this case.
I didn't think about cross-platform performance.

In what way does moving to USB3 make sense?

marshmellow · 2016-03-01 05:33:05

In reading about hackrf it seemed more than one had issues with their computers USB 2.0 ports getting enough throughput to stream at the highest capture rates. But really I know little of the real hardware limitations. It is possible those users had other bottlenecks unrelated to their usb2 hubs.

I am curious, has anyone implemented a tag protocol on the hackrf one or is it currently only able to snoop and replay?

And I watched a video presentation where the presenter was able to snoop the wave a lf tag with a coil of wire between the reader and tag. It sounded like it took a bit of configuring, but he got it to work... But I don't know if it could power a tag and read it.

Last edited by marshmellow (2016-03-01 05:36:41)

iceman · 2016-03-01 06:27:47

With a new PM4, as I see it, we don't want to lose functionality.

Lets just talk freely about what kind of hardware, design, functionality, practicallity such a device would have.

Hardware design roads to choose from would be,
- building upon existing open source SDR implementation (like HackRF or similar)
- building upon current PM3,
- building a new board with all prefered and good solutions from the PM3.

Which users here is the hardware gurus? PM me so I can contact them and ask. Not everyone is on this forum anymore.

And equally important to figure out, which ones are the firmware gurus? I'll need to get their input aswell.

asper · 2016-03-05 23:53:36

What do you think about an hackrf implementation/expansion ?

iceman · 2016-03-06 07:35:39

I'm open to suggestions. Someone mentioned that the LF part (kHz range) is not so good, and where do I find what kind of functionality it supports? I mean like pm3 has support for different protocols and layers. How much work will it take to get the same functionality and implementations as PM3?

I like the hackRF since we would get the possibility to analyse UFH.

iceman · 2016-03-09 09:22:17

Really? so little response. Is it so little interest in making a next generation proxmark?

moebius · 2016-03-09 14:17:46

Interesting, what about the HydraBus + HydraNFC (and in the future, new shields like HydraLF, HydraUHF, etc.)?

I mean, aiming efforts to implement the software and maybe new shields?

Last edited by moebius (2016-03-09 15:13:29)

0xFFFF · 2016-03-10 00:28:00

I like the idea of using modules but as long as we don't use Arduino nomenclature.
Also, while size is not important to me personally, I think most people wouldn't want this thing to get too bulky.

I think we've missed a step or two. What about specifications? We need to set some 'goal posts'.
How about this for a PM4 Specifications list?

iceman · 2016-03-10 07:16:55

Good idea with the shared excel sheet.

Lets fill it up with suggestions then we look at it and decide which items that are most interesting.

The Elechouse ppl are willing to make a design from what we want to have.

Bugman1400 · 2016-03-13 20:56:12

0xFFFF wrote:

I like the idea of using modules but as long as we don't use Arduino nomenclature.
Also, while size is not important to me personally, I think most people wouldn't want this thing to get too bulky.
I think we've missed a step or two. What about specifications? We need to set some 'goal posts'.
How about this for a PM4 Specifications list?

I've been out of the loop for a while now but, the thought of a new PM4 w/ 900MHz support has my interest again. I first brought up questions about 900MHz a few years ago.

To address the current specs:
1.) I do not think we should limit ourselves on the display. They seem to be cheap nowadays. Perhaps we should list the info that needs to be displayed. This would dictate the number of lines and functionality we need.
2.) I am not familiar with SDR but, I did read about the HackRF One from the link below and about SDR from asper's posts. My question is if SDR is practical. Is SDR a value added tool or just a 'new thing'. I would like to hear a practical list of things it could do.
3.) I think I am in the same boat as others...my strongpoints are not fpga and bootrom. However, I would like to be better but, have struggled finding a tutorial that contains complete, walkthrough exercises (w/pictures or screencaptures) on how to revise existing fpga or bootrom and compile into useful drivers.
4.) I think we need to firm up the specs. That will drive what chipset, display, and other hardware features (buttons, battery port, etc.) we use.

marshmellow · 2016-03-13 21:58:59

I added SDR to low priority options as the hardware likely would be capable of streaming or recording various audio radio bands. But it is not what the project should focus on as there are several devices dedicated to that purpose.

I also added the display and think it should just be simple as many will likely not even use it. And while they are not expensive every little upgrade adds up. But I'm not against better, just thinking of minimum requirements.

Last edited by marshmellow (2016-03-13 23:44:28)

marshmellow · 2016-03-13 23:39:49

I would like to suggest UHF epc gen 2 standards be the first target UHF implementation. It Seems to be a large open format standard that continues to grow in popularity.

Bugman1400 · 2016-03-17 21:27:56

marshmellow wrote:

I would like to suggest UHF epc gen 2 standards be the first target UHF implementation. It Seems to be a large open format standard that continues to grow in popularity.

I'm not familiar with those standards. Got a link?

marshmellow · 2016-03-17 22:00:51

http://www.gs1.org/epcrfid/epc-rfid-uhf … col/latest

holiman · 2016-03-17 22:30:37

I've also been out of the loop for a while... I'd definitely back a pm4, but really, I think it it takes someone hardcore (both hardware and software) to dedicate a year of his life to implementing it. Designing, testing, china-manufacturing etc..

I really like the FPGA-design. It's the primary reason that pm3, after about 10 years, still is the go-to-tool for rfid research. The ability to generate _exactly_ whatever waves we tell it to, not bound by any standards as implemented by TI or whoever. Sure, it is a hassle to modify, but it's not impossible.

Edit: I could live without LF-support. There are other tools which does this very good, RFIDler particularly, and it's also quite cheap. I think hardware-wise, it would be simpler to omit LF and focus on only HF + UHF.

Edit2: has anyone seen the hackrf portapack? https://store.sharebrained.com/products/portapack-for-hackrf-one . It's got a small display, and a wheel-clicky-input-knob. That wheel-thingy is super useful, and having such a thing instead of a couple of buttons would be awesome.

0xFFFF · 2016-03-18 00:04:05

holiman wrote:

Edit2: has anyone seen the hackrf portapack? https://store.sharebrained.com/products/portapack-for-hackrf-one . It's got a small display, and a wheel-clicky-input-knob. That wheel-thingy is super useful, and having such a thing instead of a couple of buttons would be awesome.

I didn't put it in my post earlier but the portapack was another one of the reasons why I mentioned the HackRF.
The hardware is essentially done. In this case it is the firmware & software that will need work.

Personally, I wouldn't miss LF. I have Proxmarks and the RFIDler if I'm feeling nostalgic.
If there anything LF that has not been implemented in the PM3 and/or RFIDler?
What would be gained if LF was included in the PM4?
Excluding the LF will help reduce overall cost.

Bugman1400 · 2016-03-18 02:44:48

0xFFFF wrote:

holiman wrote:
Edit2: has anyone seen the hackrf portapack? https://store.sharebrained.com/products/portapack-for-hackrf-one . It's got a small display, and a wheel-clicky-input-knob. That wheel-thingy is super useful, and having such a thing instead of a couple of buttons would be awesome.
I didn't put it in my post earlier but the portapack was another one of the reasons why I mentioned the HackRF.
The hardware is essentially done. In this case it is the firmware & software that will need work.
Personally, I wouldn't miss LF. I have Proxmarks and the RFIDler if I'm feeling nostalgic.
If there anything LF that has not been implemented in the PM3 and/or RFIDler?
What would be gained if LF was included in the PM4?
Excluding the LF will help reduce overall cost.

Are you able to list the components that can be eliminated by excluding LF? If the total of the components add up to less than $10, I don't see much savings. Or, maybe its possible to still include it in the PCB design but, leave out the components and let the user make the decision to add the components themselves.
The portapack demo video looks way cool but, I think we should address the basics first. If there are enough volunteers, perhaps someone could take that on and figure out how to interface it with the main PM4 board and how the GUI should look and function.

Bugman1400 · 2016-03-18 02:56:57

marshmellow wrote:

http://www.gs1.org/epcrfid/epc-rfid-uhf … col/latest

The standard seems to show familiar encoding and ASK modulation. So, does this mean that the only difference is the main carrier frequency? So, is this just as simple as a tuner mod?

I think the first step is to start tuner tweaking. Who is good at hardware? Does anyone know if Carl55 is still around?

iceman · 2016-03-18 08:50:30

How about we keep the focus on what we want in a PM4, to gather a list of supported functions first in this thread.

There has been a wishlist items for the firmware/client since long here http://www.proxmark.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2405

I know that wanting something is easy, but we need to start somewhere. Another user and I has connect with a manufacturer who is willing to make pcb that suits us for our hardware specs. One item will be cost-reduction. it has to be cheap to manufacture.

Another important question to answer is how do we want to use it? For pentesters I can imagine that they want a PM4 to be like the chameleon. For desktop users, I'm guessing they don't care if its bulky (like adding modules onto it).
Do we want the PM4 to be a standalone tool? or do we want to have it together with for example Raspberry pie?

Last edited by iceman (2016-03-18 14:12:52)

iceman · 2016-03-18 08:57:51

Next question, which way is the prefered way of dealing with a RF signal? FPGA? Where we apply low/high pass filters etc in a flexible way?

marshmellow · 2016-03-18 14:03:25

With the hackrf one can you act as a reader or can you only snoop?

For all of us that have other hardware for lf it isn't as important, but lf tags aren't going away and there are new types still being developed and released. It would be nice to have one good tool to focus on developing.

Bugman1400 · 2016-03-19 19:03:48

iceman wrote:

How about we keep the focus on what we want in a PM4, to gather a list of supported functions first in this thread.
There has been a wishlist items for the firmware/client since long here http://www.proxmark.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2405

I know that wanting something is easy, but we need to start somewhere. Another user and I has connect with a manufacturer who is willing to make pcb that suits us for our hardware specs. One item will be cost-reduction. it has to be cheap to manufacture.
Another important question to answer is how do we want to use it? For pentesters I can imagine that they want a PM4 to be like the chameleon. For desktop users, I'm guessing they don't care if its bulky (like adding modules onto it).
Do we want the PM4 to be a standalone tool? or do we want to have it together with for example Raspberry pie?

Perhaps you have a different approach that I'm not sure I agree with. How long do you plan to take suggestions on the feature list? Like most projects we need to have a schedule and dues dates. Obviously, we need to have valid input and review but, eventually, a decision needs to be made. Otherwise, this turns into a perpetual wish list with no product!

I don't quite understand why you would sway away from FPGA. There is little doubt that it is much faster than CPU & software. I think we need to ensure the FPGA can handle up to at least the 900MHz. Seems like the hardware is the only thing we have to get right the first time. I see software coming after that.
I don't care much about PCB makers....they are a dime a dozen and even supply the PCB design software. I don't see one cutting a deal any better than any of the others!

Bugman1400 · 2016-03-19 19:28:38

0xFFFF wrote:

I like the idea of using modules but as long as we don't use Arduino nomenclature.
Also, while size is not important to me personally, I think most people wouldn't want this thing to get too bulky.
I think we've missed a step or two. What about specifications? We need to set some 'goal posts'.
How about this for a PM4 Specifications list?

Can we put a due date on the PM4 spec list (feature wish list)? Also, is there a PM4 committee that makes the decisions? Perhaps we should state who the task directors are. Both 0xFFFF and iceman seem to be at the forefront and should create and direct the tasks and testing to be done. Otherwise, it seems you'll end with multiple folks doing the same work.

iceman · 2016-03-19 20:05:58

Be my guest, and put due dates out. There is no harm in that.

0xFFFF · 2016-03-31 06:49:07

I think scheduling / deadlines are a good idea but we're still flying blind at the moment. A few things need to be established first.

I know there are a number of talented people here but I do not know what you are capable of individually. Can I ask everyone to go here and enter in your skills?
If you have access to resources that you think will help towards the design and fabrication of a PM4, please post those details in this thread.

berne · 2016-05-19 02:25:42

Bugman1400 wrote:

0xFFFF wrote:
2.) I am not familiar with SDR but, I did read about the HackRF One from the link below and about SDR from asper's posts. My question is if SDR is practical. Is SDR a value added tool or just a 'new thing'. I would like to hear a practical list of things it could do.

I'm not expert but the way I understand it the Proxmark3 is SDR, the the software (firmware) on the FPGA is doing the signal processing etc., which is what makes the Proxmark3 so versatile and flexible. New cards and features are able to be added by writing code (software). IMVAO any PM4 should be SDR. Processing power is getting better and better, so I think SDR should get better and better. I think the new hardware should have an FPGA and not be purely a CPU (ARM etc.), it should be a design similar to the PM3 with a CPU and an FPGA. Others will have better knowledge of electronics, RF, and FPGAs than I do, but this is my 2 cents.

somemadeupname · 2016-05-30 00:51:57

In searching for what kind of data rates UHF RFID works at, I noticed that there is mention of work being done to develop HF data rates up to 13.56Mbit/s (eg. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5467248 )

The article is dated back to 2010 and I don't know if there are any real world examples of HF / UHF that support >848kbit/s, but it does suggest that it might be worth aiming to support higher data rates

somemadeupname · 2016-06-17 08:30:11

Btw, what about 433MHz and 2.45GHz RFID?

I have a feeling that a generic SDR (as in, HackRF, BladeRF, etc) will be better suited to the frequencies that PM3 doesn't currently support. Haven't seen anything that specializes in RFID running on those devices though. The raw signals are certainly accessible, but not much more seems to be built on top of it.

I would still love to see an 'official' upgrade to the PM3 hardware with a larger, more up to date FPGA. When I first looked into the PM3 code, I anticipated seeing the FPGA dealing with Manchester / Miller / etc encodings with the MCU dealing more with the protocol level stuff built on top of it. From what I understand, the current FPGA just isn't big enough to actually structure things that way.

Are there any known issues with the current hardware; specifically anything that does / might hinder compatibility of tags in the LF / HF range?

Proxmark3 community

Announcement

#1 2016-02-19 10:19:50

New PM3 with newer chip?

#2 2016-02-19 12:20:18

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#3 2016-02-19 16:51:30

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#4 2016-02-19 17:11:14

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#5 2016-02-19 23:44:10

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#6 2016-02-29 12:44:05

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#7 2016-03-01 00:30:13

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#8 2016-03-01 02:05:40

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#9 2016-03-01 03:41:25

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#10 2016-03-01 05:33:05

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#11 2016-03-01 06:27:47

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#12 2016-03-05 23:53:36

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#13 2016-03-06 07:35:39

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#14 2016-03-09 09:22:17

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#15 2016-03-09 14:17:46

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#16 2016-03-10 00:28:00

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#17 2016-03-10 07:16:55

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#18 2016-03-13 20:56:12

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#19 2016-03-13 21:58:59

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#20 2016-03-13 23:39:49

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#21 2016-03-17 21:27:56

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#22 2016-03-17 22:00:51

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#23 2016-03-17 22:30:37

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#24 2016-03-18 00:04:05

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#25 2016-03-18 02:44:48

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#26 2016-03-18 02:56:57

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#27 2016-03-18 08:50:30

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#28 2016-03-18 08:57:51

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#29 2016-03-18 14:03:25

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#30 2016-03-19 19:03:48

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#31 2016-03-19 19:28:38

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#32 2016-03-19 20:05:58

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#33 2016-03-31 06:49:07

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#34 2016-05-19 02:25:42

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#35 2016-05-30 00:51:57

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

#36 2016-06-17 08:30:11

Re: New PM3 with newer chip?

Board footer