Discussion in 'BIOS Mods' started by Tito, Jan 10, 2012.
You need to login to view this posts content.
Please take a look at this thread...
What is the reason for flashing from USB, aside from the general rule that Dos flas > Win flash?
Should a flash from Windows work as well?
I might as well ask here too: is a universal (permanent or non-permanent) mod possible using this way or will future bios mods always be device specific?
There is always a risk of bricking the mobo, if not flashing from DOS..
You need to login to view this posts content.
Quick stupid question:
Someone here posted a SLIC ROM done using phoenixtool191/Dynamic. Is it OK/expected that by using the same exact version unmodified source ROM with phoenixtool195/Dynamic, you would get a slightly different binary .ROM file? Are there other factors in play which cause the two SLIC ROMs modified by different people on different computers to not be "the same" (if the same approach you described was used)?
Yah... quite natural
More precisely, any of the three tools always make different roms while modding. In fact, a mod done by u using Phoenix Tool 1.95 of a particular rom may not be same as my mod using Phoenix Tool 1.95. This is because while integrating modules, some random data are always generated.
Yen or any other talented people on this field may throw more light on this topic
Great, thanks for the quick reply and info!
This is no stupid question. It is a question about reliability the most important thing a tool must have.
When used the same tool (same working approach), same SLIC OEM and same BIOS revision then the MOD will be byte by byte the same.
Differences: Not exactly the same SLIC (OEM creator ID may vary for instance) or not exactly the same approach / patch or not exactly the same original EFI to be modified.
There is also a module shrinking / sizing code in the tool. It uses random bytes to adjust a size of a module. But the way to resize should here (same original) be the same also.
If you want to know a particular difference of 2 mods, please upload them and their original here. I can explain what's different.
Oh wow, thanks... Sure, that would be a great lesson and perhaps good examples for others to see as well if you had the time.
Incoming link spam:
EDIT: Realized I can't post links due to not having enough posts. DOH! Does circumventing with stuff like this work? --> pastie.org(slash)3294166 (maybe someone can grab that bbcode and post it for me)
I had a look and did some tests:
The guy who has modded the EFI (ROM #2) with tool 1.95 did a dynamic Asus mod and added an SLP string ASUS_FLASH additionally for OA1.0 (winxp) activation (module A062CF1F-8473-4AA3-8793-600BC4FFE9A8_1_134.ROM) by loading the Asus SLP string file into andy's tool additionally.
Tool 1.91 results to the same mod as expected. I have tested it.
The guy who did the EFI mod with tool 1.91 (rapidshare link ROM #1) did a mod without to add SLP1. Anyway he did not use the same original ROM to mod it. It has too many differences as it didn't result to the same mod. There are byte changes near PE header of different modules which are not related to SLIC modding.
By using the original EFI that is available on the Asus site 0301 I could not achieve to get his modded one.
I don't know what he has used to mod. It might be a previous version, or an inofficial version....it is really different where it shouldn't. Anyway he's posted that it works. But he definitely did not mod the original EFI which is available on the Asus site today.
Thanks so much for that report!
Yes, ROM #2 does have the SLP string added (it was obvious that ROM #1 didn't -- from that post -- so it shouldn't have been added to ROM #2 either for a "closer" comparison, sorry).
It still didn't make sense that so much data was different in a side-by-side diff type comparison.
Since you are saying that ROM #2 was done correctly and it should work as-is, I will test it and report back. I wasn't able to find any other modified ROM for this exact motherboard model with BIOS version 0301 (the latest) -- besides ROM #1, that is. I had not tested ROM #1 yet and was just holding off.
Would the inclusion of the AcpiTbls.rw file (in ROM #2) cause a significant and meaningful difference (vs. not including it), with the latest tool? Perhaps the ROM #1 guy didn't include it but then again, you're saying that using the official 1.91 tool, you were able to get a very close/similar output to ROM #2 so sounds like other factors were present --different source even though it's clearly labeled the same.
Anyway, thanks again very much for your analysis and very helpful information.
it seems you are interested in details, so I try to explain them.
First I definitely can repeat the guy who did ROM #1 with version 1.91 did not mod the original that is available on the Asus site. Either Asus has pulled it and updated it silently or he got it from somewhere, or it's a beta version......or he dumped it from his PC in order to mod.
This is no info about if it works or not.
I have modded it with rwe report and with SLP using 1.91 and 1.95. Both mods are exactly the same. Not almost, they are exactly when compared all modules. This is as expected and a must.
How does the dynamic approach actually work, what's the purpose of the rwe report and what has changed from 1.91 to 1.95?
The dynamic approach is used if the EFI already contains a SLIC ACPITable (somewhere in the EFI) or if it's prepared to have one.
The rwe report is parsed by the tool to gather info which ACPITables are actually mapped to ACPI namespace.
-The SLIC version and its OEM and OEMTableIDs, its presence at ACPI namespace and its validity
-The RSDT table's OEM and OEMTableIDs
-The XSDT table's OEM and OEMTableIDs
Changelog of Andy's tool:
v1.92 FIX: RW report optional for EFI mods
Means: Tool 1.91 does not mod without it. (The guy must have used one to mod.)
v1.93: ADD: ALASKAAMI OEM/Table ID now always changed even if no RW report
What is essential in order to activate windows? The OEM and OEMTableIDs of the SLIC, RSDT and if present XSDT must be the same (have to match).
The EFI gets parsed and detects a SLIC [Complete SLIC (2.0) (A M I OEMSLIC ) (x1)]. This is actually a dummy SLIC since there is no certificate available.
Version 1.95 detects the ALASKAAMI OEM/Table ID and changes it to _ASUS_Notebook (even without rwe-report). 1.91 does not mod it without the report. With the report it changes it as well.
Both tools also notice that no SLIC is found at the ACPI namespace, even though a A M I OEMSLIC is located at the EFI.
By choosing manufacturer: Asus, the tool uses code patches which unlock the SLIC by patching code that prevents it to map. [ASUS EFI lock(type 1) found in A1902AB9-5394-45F2-857A-12824213EEFB_1_131.ROM at E38)]
When a SLP file is loaded both tools parses module A062CF18473-4AA3-8793-600BC4FFE9A8_1_134.ROM for SLP 1.0 and add there the string. No other module is affected concerning SLP1.0.
So both tools do:
Exchanging the SLIC
replacing the OEM and OEMTableIDs
patching the Asus lock.
1.91 does not mod without rwe report (out of the box).
1.95 does mod without rwe report and patches the ALASKAAMI OEM/Table ID no matter with or without report.
ROM #1 has a lot of differences at modules which are not SLIC modding related at all.
This analysis does nothing say about if the mod works or not. It can be that ROM #1 works as stated. ROM #2 is well done and it should. Unfortunately we cannot simulate an EFI.
Thanks for the detailed explanation Yen...
Yes, thanks much for that. It makes sense!
Will try ROM #2 shortly and post feedback but it *should* work, indeed.