Changing the S4000 bootloader

[reboot]

Reading on other forums that there is safer ways of changing the bootloader to other resellers and back of course.
I have carried out the hazardous bootlader change with binary files from tftpserver over putty or usb-stick, but I have sweaty palms every time I do it to be honest. I switched my Icecrypt to an Octagon 1018 but didn't find any advantage so I returned it back. It has put me off playing with the Enigma2 Image as I feel the risk of switching back to the original bootloader not worth the it at the moment.
Does any one know of the safer method of putting the uboot-binary together with a script or standalone application, making an image and then transfering the image to the box and starting it with bootm... or autoscript...
This method should be safe because the application will not start if the transfer failed or is damaged. Typos should not cause a bootloader failure because the checksum has to be correct before the bootloaderflash can begin. A Checksum failure will cause the procedure to be aborted thus protecting the bootloader from being wiped.
I think this is the method used in the AFF Recovery tool but I don't know if the AFF Recovery tool can return the S4000 back to its original S4000 bootloader or is it locked into the Atevio?
I'm only asking to save me the effort of actually trying for myself and maybe bricking my Icecrypt.

[ManikM]

download AAF recovery tool 2.5, it has an option to download maxi u boot - and original boot loader (which can be downloaded)

i wish someone would do a "howto" guide - as there are a few guys on here that have done it, and running the F1 enigma 2 image

[ManikM]

i think the Octagon firmware is more forthcoming than the Icecrypt and fixes seem to occur far more frequent.

[steford1]

I disagree - it's the same code just a few days later for the Icecrypt.

[ManikM]

I disagree - it's the same code just a few days later for the Icecrypt.

lets see..
:respect-048:

[ColdAsICE]

Let put this straight the Firmware from all Fortis resellers are the same apart from slight territorial functionality differences and of course welcome Logo's. The delay in the Icecrypt releases is due to in house testing before public release. It seems that Octagon are not concerned if the firmware release might cause undesirable issues to customers machines and immediately release it or maybe they are more trusting.
They have other competing resellers in their own territory so the impression of being faster releasing and better supported is important to them.
By the way we don't pad out(add irrelevant information) the release notes either or rename plugin's as our own work.

[stubs]

Let put this straight the Firmware from all Fortis resellers are the same apart from slight territorial functionality differences and of course welcome Logo's. The delay in the Icecrypt releases is due to in house testing before public release. It seems that Octagon are not concerned if the firmware release might cause undesirable issues to customers machines and immediately release it or maybe they are more trusting.
They have other competing resellers in their own territory so the impression of being faster releasing and better supported is important to them.
By the way we don't pad out(add irrelevant information) the release notes either or rename plugin's as our own work.

Do you work for Icecrypt?

[ManikM]

Let put this straight the Firmware from all Fortis resellers are the same apart from slight territorial functionality differences and of course welcome Logo's. The delay in the Icecrypt releases is due to in house testing before public release. It seems that Octagon are not concerned if the firmware release might cause undesirable issues to customers machines and immediately release it or maybe they are more trusting.
They have other competing resellers in their own territory so the impression of being faster releasing and better supported is important to them.
By the way we don't pad out(add irrelevant information) the release notes either or rename plugin's as our own work.

fair enough mate, i'd rather wait while you test more, i'd much rather wait before applying a firmware that might break things due to insufficient testing.

thanks for clarifying ColdAsIce (if that is your real name!) and thank you posting the fw updates on here. (why is the IceCrypt website so behind with their f/w?)



:respect-013:

[ManikM]

I disagree - it's the same code just a few days later for the Icecrypt.

OK OK, you are right.

It only took one day.

(im sure only cos i've my post!)