immobilizer 4, "pills", rfid range, keys, older car - simpler living

Any reason why you started a new thread instead of continuing the previous one? I'm a bit tempted to merge this back into that thread for context.

-Uwe-

Uwe said:

Any reason why you started a new thread instead of continuing the previous one? I'm a bit tempted to merge this back into that thread for context.

-Uwe-

Click to expand...

I was thinking this had more to do, for example, with immobilizer behavior and whether it can be 'reset', whereas the other has more to do with finding ways to try to avoid the various impediments to having an additional key when a person was down to one shaky one. Or, perhaps better stated, this had more to do with trying to get out of a hole, and the other had more to do with trying not to fall into one in the first place.

But agreed, its holes in either case. If it is better for the forum to merge them. Let's merge. Is that something I can do?

Are you an immobilizer behavior person?

Merged -- since it's all the same issue in the same car.

-Uwe-

breeve said:

2.The odometer reads "L3 3-4" -- and reads this all the time. Car off, car on...still same. (I am given to understand that is a message from the Immobilizer/ Inst Panel saying, in effect, that three keys have been presented for adaptation, and it is expecting a fourth). But thi is not "DeF" and this is not "SAFE".

Click to expand...

Your immobilizer got stock in Programing mode and with special tool it can be fixed.VCDS can not fix this and it is not just RESET.
This is what I tell evryone on those cars, Do Not trust every lock smith.They all going to say "YES I CAN DO IT".
Tell you lock smith guy , that you have someone in TX( I meant my serf) ,to send cluster to fix this mess he did and he has to pay for it..

It's not stuck ...........It was just not completed because an improper key count was presented when entering the mode.

In theory you could take an extra ready unlocked open RFID and install in key ignition and it should see it after login.

If you want........... send me the ECU, cluster and all keys on hand to be married; with valid documentation of identity........ and I will fix the count NC.

Just pay the freight or at the most an extra RFID pill.

Oooooh. Thank you.

Jack@European_Parts said:

It's not stuck ...........It was just not completed because an improper key count was presented when entering the mode.

In theory you could take an extra ready unlocked open RFID and install in key ignition and it should see it after login.

If you want........... send me the ECU, cluster and all keys on hand to be married; with valid documentation of identity........ and I will fix the count NC.

Just pay the freight or at the most an extra RFID pill.

Click to expand...

Jack -- Yours is a very kind offer. Montgomery NY is actually not that far from me (Eastern MA), and I have several possible reasons for having to go out to Western MA -- which would be closer and NJ (which is kinda passing on Rte 84). Is there any possibility you would keep your offer "open" while the various stuff I gotta do wanders around me and then see whether there isn't a convenient time for you when I could just bring you the car (and a transponder or two).
I think I see a phone number and address for you, etc. on the web so, if it is okay with you, I would just get in touch when I know more about what I'm doing.

If it could be dropped off with valid credentials submitted sure, however, when shop time is used, it isn't free; & I don't work while you wait.

Free through the mail for this offer.

So... How did it all end, this tale?
Jack @ European Parts, said: "In theory you could take an extra ready unlocked open RFID and install in key ignition and it should see it after login."
And that turned out to be true.

I now have:
4 adapted and working transponders/"pills"/Megamos Crypto ID 48 - TP 25
and 3 working cut keys w/ remote lock/unlock (to which I could readily add a fourth)
And the odometer reads correctly, and the car will pass MA inspection.

Life is good.

But I feel that I should a) summarize and b) do a little ranting. Summary first:

- The significant majority of what gets said about Immo 4c keys, duplication and adaptation by people who propose to know is not true. Much of what Audi says about its security system is false and intended to deceive the car owner (and is only short of distinct consumer fraud on the question of whether it would be found by a court to be detrimental to the ordinary car owner as such).
- I do not know all the facts (by any means) but I do know:
- That permanent/semi-permanent semiconductor memory containing everything needed to cause a 2007 immo 4c unit to adapt keys is readily accessible from the OBD port. A very short "stimulus" (the text of which I don't know) clearly produces it.
- Whether it is a 5 digit (made 5) or a 7 digit code I cannot say, but I am quite sure that "phoning in to the mother ship" -- as is done by Audi dealers is in fact entirely unnecessary (for an RB8 of this vintage).
- That the TP25s made by the Chinese and available on Ebay for very little money are entirely sufficient transponders for use and adaptation to this immobilizer without any further fussing or modification (and thus all of the claims to the effect that the only keys that can be adapted are those made by Audi and supplied to Audi dealerships are untrue).
- That all of the things said in the paper that was subjected to the gag order by the British Court "Dismantling Megamos Crypto: Wirelessly Lockpicking a Vehicle Immobilizer" appear to be true, but are somewhat irrelevant to the usual actual practical problem of getting a cut key to operate a car."
- That, at least for my particular car, the Megamos transponder has to be "right there" in the key ring. (First try w/ the 4th transponder taped on to side of key was not recognized.)


Rant next:

Having been through this little learning experience, and having done some collateral learning about what is out there, I am only that much more convinced that having Audi hold the key codes to one's car makes about as much sense as having Microsoft hold the administrator password to your desktop computer, that is to say, no sense at all. It is well past time to get over the technical 'paternalism'' of the car companies.

And, no surprise, I am also that much more convinced that Uwe Ross' technical 'paternalism' makes NO sense either. It's possible, but I doubt, that Ross-Tech collectively has no idea how to read the ECU or Immo ROM that holds the bitstring that is going to be compared to allow adaptation. Uwe says he's worried about sleeping while his product is used to steal cars. And IN THE REAL WORLD Ross-Tech gear is not even close to being the method of choice for car thieves, and even if Ross-Tech provided a ROM reader, it wouldn't be. There is a lot of stuff out there that doesn't work (Chinese Vag-Tacho 5.0) BUT the stealing methods are already very well and fully solved by those who want them. (Among other tangential discoveries, I was treated to some demonstrations.) It is the fixing methodologies that continue to lag significantly, even for older cars.

For whatever it is worth, I would entreat the community of Ross-Tech users to tell the good people of Lansdale how much we appreciate them for all that they do and how well they have done it. BUT I do think we should collectively tell them to stop treating us like babies. It makes no sense that we should each be disassembling microprocessor code and playing puzzle when we just need to communicate with our damn car, and that includes when we need a replacement key, as much as when we need to retract the electronic rear parking brake so we can replace the pads, or when we need to find out whether the drive-by-wire system is coding for throttle body angle errors. I don't think the missing pieces are especially complicated -- or properly "proprietary". They are just missing. And a bit of a pain in the ass for each of us to deal with individually, indeed exactly the sort of pain in the ass we meant to overcome by buying the cable.

I CAN'T BUT HELP FEEL YOUR PAIN..........RELEASE IT TO ME!


Respectfully, the methods used by these testers on the AFT you aforementioned; are reading and writing the RB8 cluster keys, & are for the most part screwing up clusters. I have spent more time fixing the DEF message, or FAIL, for many of these tools just bricking component's.

I am glad you listened to me, and were not bamboozled by the aforementioned posts or crap circulating online.

I do not say something can be done, that can't, and I may not always be willing to share certain things due to keeping things semi secure.

Knowing the things I or RT happen to know, brings a certain level of responsibility, however, most of your rant I am in alignment with.

FYI: I am the one that informed the EPA in the early 2000's about how VW-Audi has used the key costs ( they were sued ) , Immobilizer, and component protection as a tool to create an unfair tortious interference business model and monopoly; while further engaging in fraud. Additionally aftermarket tuning companies deleting emissions devices & using frivolous fraud, as a means to perpetuate their illegal agenda, is going to have a bit of a lemon twist.
( Case in point: emissions scandal fun with VW, only proves that when the AFT tuners get followed up on they are going to get a good dry fist up their ass )

Tortious interference is a common law tort allowing a claim for damages against a defendant who wrongfully interferes with the plaintiff's contractual or business relationships. See also intentional interference with contractual relations.

Click to expand...

A frivolous lawsuit is any lawsuit that is filed with the intention of harassing, annoying, or disturbing the opposite party. It may also be defined as any lawsuit in which the plaintiff knows that there is little or no chance of the lawsuit succeeding if pursued in court

Click to expand...

What is a "duty to act"? What is "failure to act"?



In personal injury and other tort cases, the phrase “duty to act” may refer to one of two things. First, people generally have a duty to act with reasonable care to prevent harm. If a person fails to do so, he may be liable for negligence. More often, however, the phrase “duty to act” means that a person has a duty to do a specific thing, and that if he fails to do it, he may be liable for failure to act.

In most situations, there is no affirmative duty to act. People have a responsibility to avoid doing things that might cause harm to others, but they usually do not have a duty to jump in and prevent harm when it is occurring. Even if a person says he will help someone, his mere words may not be enough to create a duty to act.
There are, however, a few exceptions to the rule that there is no duty to act. The exceptions include:

• A person who causes a harmful situation has a duty to act to help another person get out of harm’s way. The duty to act includes both people at risk of being injured and people who have already been injured and are at risk of further injury.
• A person who takes responsibility for an injured person has a duty to act to secure that person’s safety, including necessary medical care. He may not start helping the injured person and then abandon him.
• Some state laws require people to act to help one another, if the first person can act without endangering himself.
• A person who encourages another person to commit a tort is responsible for any injuries caused by the tort.
• A person who encourages a child or mentally incompetent adult to do something that may harm that person is responsible for that person’s injuries.
• People in a special relationship with one another have a duty to act to protect one another’s safety. Special relationships that create a duty to act include employer/employee relationships, friends or companions at a social event, and business inviters and invitees in premises liability cases.

Also, negligence law does not usually impose a duty to rescue or defend someone else, as long as the would-be rescuer did not cause the danger. Even if a bystander realizes another person is in danger, the bystander generally does not have a duty to rescue that person and cannot therefore be held liable if the bystander chooses not to act.
Like the standard duty to act, however, a duty to act to rescue or defend someone does exist if the person in danger and the rescuer or defender have a certain type of relationship toward one another. Relationships that may create a duty to rescue or defend include:

• Common carriers like railroads may have a duty to rescue or defend a passenger.
• Innkeepers may have a duty to rescue or defend a guest. However, colleges and universities generally do not have a duty to protect dormitory residents from one another. A landlord and tenant may have a duty to rescue or defend one another if one knows that a dangerous individual or condition is in the area.
• Businessowners may have a duty to rescue or defend customers or clients.
• The legal guardian or custodian of a child may have a duty to rescue or defend the child.
• Employers and employees may have a legal duty to rescue or defend one another if one is in imminent danger.
• A physician has a duty to warn or protect if she reasonably believes her patient poses an imminent risk to himself or others.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_suit

In the United States, a citizen suit is a lawsuit by a private citizen to enforce a statute.[SUP][1][/SUP] Citizen suits are particularly common in the field of environmental law.[SUP][2][/SUP]
Citizen suits come in three forms. First, a private citizen can bring a lawsuit against a citizen, corporation, or government body for engaging in conduct prohibited by the statute. For example, a citizen can sue a corporation under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for illegally polluting a waterway. Second, a private citizen can bring a lawsuit against a government body for failing to perform a non-discretionary duty. For example, a private citizen could sue the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to promulgate regulations that the CWA required it to promulgate. In a third, less common form, citizens may sue for an injunction to abate a potential imminent and substantial endangerment involving generation, disposal or handling of waste, regardless of whether or not the defendant's conduct violates a statutory prohibition. This third type of citizen suit is analogous to the common law tort of public nuisance.[SUP][3][/SUP] In general, the law entitles plaintiffs who bring successful citizen suits to recover reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs.[SUP][4][/SUP]
In 1970, when amending the Clean Air Act, the United States Congress was inspired by similar legislation in the civil rights arena[SUP][5][/SUP] to begin including specific provisions for citizens to bring suit against violators or government agencies to enforce environmental laws. Today, most anti-pollution laws have provisions for citizen suits and they have become a major means of ensuring compliance with environmental laws. Public-interest environmental legal service organizations, such as Earthjustice and the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic, often prosecute citizen suits.[SUP][6][/SUP] Some non-environmental statutes, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Amendments Act, also contain citizen suit provisions, but the majority of regulatory statutes do not.
Citizens may only bring citizen suits in federal court if they have "standing to sue". To establish standing, the courts have required proof of three elements. First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical’”. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be “fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Third, it must be “likely”, as opposed to merely “speculative”, that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.”[SUP][7][/SUP]
Environmental laws that allow citizen suits include:

• Clean Water Act
• Safe Drinking Water Act
• Clean Air Act 1970
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
• Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
• Endangered Species Act of 1973
• Emergency Planning and Community Right To Know Act of 1986- SARA Title III

Click to expand...