This article analyzes two different VCDS clone cables, comparing their hardware, functionality, and potential risks. We’ll delve into the chipsets used, driver installation, performance, and security concerns, providing insights for those considering a budget-friendly alternative to genuine Ross-Tech cables. Understanding the nuances of these clone cables, particularly concerning the Vcds Clone Cable Driver, is crucial for informed decision-making.
Decoding the Hardware: Atmega162 vs. STM32F405
The first cable utilizes an Atmega162 microcontroller, requiring a separate loader executable for operation. This loader was flagged as potentially malicious by VirusTotal, raising immediate security concerns. Further inspection revealed this cable to be a HEX-CAN interface, an older generation incompatible with newer vehicle models. The internal components resembled those found in genuine Ross-Tech HEX-CAN cables, likely explaining the Atmega162’s presence. However, the required loader and potential security risks make this cable a less desirable option.
The second cable, featuring an STM32F405 microcontroller, closely mirrors the hardware found in genuine VCDS interfaces. This cable functioned without requiring a separate loader or modification of the VCDS software. Performance testing revealed faster logging speeds and improved overall responsiveness compared to the older HEX-CAN interface. Notably, this cable worked seamlessly with an active internet connection, despite instructions advising otherwise.
Bypassing Security: Delving into the STM32F405
Curiosity led to further analysis of the STM32F405 cable. The chip was locked with Read Protection Level 2 (RDP2), preventing direct access. However, utilizing a ChipWhisperer, the RDP2 protection was bypassed, granting debug access and allowing for RAM dumps. While Read Protection Level 1 (RDP1) remained active, glitching techniques allowed for memory reading. This process, though functional, proved unstable due to reliance on the internal RC oscillator. Future efforts will focus on using the CAN interface and HSE clock for increased stability.
Conclusion: Genuine vs. Clone – A Question of Value and Risk
While genuine Ross-Tech cables remain the recommended choice for reliability and guaranteed compatibility, these clone cables offer a budget-conscious alternative. The STM32F405 based cable provides surprisingly good performance. However, the potential for firmware locks and the inability to update the cable firmware limit its long-term viability. Users should carefully weigh the risks and benefits before opting for a clone cable, especially considering potential compatibility issues with future VCDS software updates. Always prioritize a secure working environment and consider the potential security risks associated with using unofficial hardware and drivers.
