Any hackers in here? Hack a Google Home?...

[Paul]

On 10/17/2022 12:58 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 05:06:26 +0100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On 10/16/2022 6:44 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 19:49:34 +0100, boB <boB@k7iq.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 06:15:42 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

Just wondering if I can change the main program in a Google Home, or is it hard coded?  It must allow updates to the software, so can I fool it this way and give it an altered version?

Here is one place to start...  Find out what is inside of a Google
Home Mini which should be close to the other GOogle Homes...
Good to know what you are trying to deal with before you try anything.

No a lot to see here but...
https://youtu.be/OexI0LzYnVE?t=1492

Same guy...  A closer look into some of the parts.
http://mobilemodding.info/google-home-mini-closer-look/

You might be able to start from scratch on firmware by knowing what
the processor is (ARM of course) but I\'m sure it is code read
protected and so you would have to write EVERYTHING yourself or find
libraries for that part.  Marvel I think.

I wish that the Google Homes were stereo like the Amazon Echos and
Alexas are.

Can you not get two google home speakers and call one a left speaker and one a right?  Once they\'re told this, they will output two channels?  It is pointless to have stereo on a single unit in one place in your room (although mine is hard wired into my stereo!)

You know better than that.

Electronics never work the way you want. It\'s a given.

Google can mix-down stereo to MONO and send to all your units.
Sending MONO cuts their data traffic in half. Bonus.

Only if the unit had a 1/8\" jack on it, might someone at
Google be tempted to send stereo.

Well Google must be lying then....
https://support.google.com/googlenest/answer/7559493?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform%3DAndroid#zippy=
\"For an immersive music and media experience, you can connect 2 speakers to set up stereo sound.\"

Even though the speakers have Bluetooth, Bluetooth won\'t allow one host device, to
drive two mono speakers. I believe I\'ve already tried this. That page
only describes a Wifi method.

There is also no description of telling \"L\" from \"R\".
The instructions should have allowed selecting one device,
declaring it \"L\", selecting a second device, declaring it \"R\",
and then... not losing the bloody settings a day later.

That page seems to leave it as an exercise for the reader,
to put the speakers in the correct orientation, after carrying
out the Google procedure.

This isn\'t as seamless as it looks. You can imagine if you\'d bolted
the two speakers to the ceiling, and \"L\" and \"R\" needed to be swapped,
you\'d be just a bit annoyed.

In that sense, these speaker ideas (I own a couple mono BT speakers),
are less than ideal, compared to wired solutions.

Because your device has two microphones on it, that immediately
removes it as a candidate in my house. This is a no-microphone house.
I don\'t want to hear \"What was that ? I didn\'t catch all of that.
You\'ll have to speak up\" coming out of any miniature trouble-makers.

The computer speakers in this room, I set them up once, wired \"L\" to \"L\"
and so on, and they\'ve never needed setup (or batteries changed) since then.
Now that\'s convenience.

Paul

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 07:20:58 +0100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On 10/17/2022 12:58 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 05:06:26 +0100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On 10/16/2022 6:44 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 19:49:34 +0100, boB <boB@k7iq.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 06:15:42 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

Just wondering if I can change the main program in a Google Home, or is it hard coded? It must allow updates to the software, so can I fool it this way and give it an altered version?

Here is one place to start... Find out what is inside of a Google
Home Mini which should be close to the other GOogle Homes...
Good to know what you are trying to deal with before you try anything.

No a lot to see here but...
https://youtu.be/OexI0LzYnVE?t=1492

Same guy... A closer look into some of the parts.
http://mobilemodding.info/google-home-mini-closer-look/

You might be able to start from scratch on firmware by knowing what
the processor is (ARM of course) but I\'m sure it is code read
protected and so you would have to write EVERYTHING yourself or find
libraries for that part. Marvel I think.

I wish that the Google Homes were stereo like the Amazon Echos and
Alexas are.

Can you not get two google home speakers and call one a left speaker and one a right? Once they\'re told this, they will output two channels? It is pointless to have stereo on a single unit in one place in your room (although mine is hard wired into my stereo!)

You know better than that.

Electronics never work the way you want. It\'s a given.

Google can mix-down stereo to MONO and send to all your units.
Sending MONO cuts their data traffic in half. Bonus.

Only if the unit had a 1/8\" jack on it, might someone at
Google be tempted to send stereo.

Well Google must be lying then....
https://support.google.com/googlenest/answer/7559493?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform%3DAndroid#zippy=
\"For an immersive music and media experience, you can connect 2 speakers to set up stereo sound.\"

Even though the speakers have Bluetooth, Bluetooth won\'t allow one host device, to
drive two mono speakers. I believe I\'ve already tried this. That page
only describes a Wifi method.

Why use bluetooth?!

There is also no description of telling \"L\" from \"R\".
The instructions should have allowed selecting one device,
declaring it \"L\", selecting a second device, declaring it \"R\",
and then... not losing the bloody settings a day later.

That page seems to leave it as an exercise for the reader,
to put the speakers in the correct orientation, after carrying
out the Google procedure.

Eh? It\'s quite clear: \"The lights on one of the speakers should start to flash white. Tap Left or Right to match the location of the speaker that blinks \"

This isn\'t as seamless as it looks. You can imagine if you\'d bolted
the two speakers to the ceiling, and \"L\" and \"R\" needed to be swapped,
you\'d be just a bit annoyed.

No, you just set them up again.

In that sense, these speaker ideas (I own a couple mono BT speakers),
are less than ideal, compared to wired solutions.

Because your device has two microphones on it, that immediately
removes it as a candidate in my house. This is a no-microphone house.
I don\'t want to hear \"What was that ? I didn\'t catch all of that.
You\'ll have to speak up\" coming out of any miniature trouble-makers.

They say nothing until you say \"hey google\".

The computer speakers in this room, I set them up once, wired \"L\" to \"L\"
and so on, and they\'ve never needed setup (or batteries changed) since then.
Now that\'s convenience.

But you had to wire them. And what if those speakers are all over the room? Wires to be hidden neatly over the whole room?

 

[Don Y]

On 10/16/2022 11:20 PM, Paul wrote:

Even though the speakers have Bluetooth, Bluetooth won\'t allow one host device, to
drive two mono speakers. I believe I\'ve already tried this. That page
only describes a Wifi method.

Wireless devices have inherent problems/limitations.
How do they react to interference or intermittent loss
of signal? What can *you* do to remedy this problem if
it manifests? Where do they get their power from
(do you need a wall wart nearby -- and an electric outlet
to power that wart?) How much acoustic power can you get
from them? Does the protocol ensure synchronization of
EMITTED audio signals between the two devices (if the audio
is sent on two separate carriers)? etc.

In that sense, these speaker ideas (I own a couple mono BT speakers),
are less than ideal, compared to wired solutions.

Because your device has two microphones on it, that immediately
removes it as a candidate in my house. This is a no-microphone house.
I don\'t want to hear \"What was that ? I didn\'t catch all of that.
You\'ll have to speak up\" coming out of any miniature trouble-makers.

That\'s not a problem with the microphone but, rather, the application
that is listening.

The computer speakers in this room, I set them up once, wired \"L\" to \"L\"
and so on, and they\'ve never needed setup (or batteries changed) since then.
Now that\'s convenience.

I\'ve designed some \"network speakers\" with wired interfaces and
integrated amplifiers powered from the network connection (PoE).

IME, speakers tend not to want to move (or be moved).

But, the audio piped through them may wish to be sourced from a
wide variety of devices -- more than would typically be accommodated
by a \"HiFi\".

If I want to listen to music, I arrange for the multimedia tank to
deliver music to the \"two nearest speakers\" -- or, the speakers
that I typically select when I am in the location that I currently
occupy. (E.g., when seated at this computer, I\'d prefer to have
music routed through *two* of the adjacent living room\'s 4 speakers
in front of me, not the speakers in the kitchen, located behind me)

If I get up and walk into the office, then it would be foolish for
the music to keep playing through those speakers. It should, instead,
\"follow me\" into the office and be played through the speakers there.

Or, into the kitchen, back porch, garage, etc.

Likewise, if I am watching TV, then I\'d prefer the audio to be
played from speakers near where I am viewing the video presentation.
And, when I move into the kitchen, the audio AND VIDEO should follow
me to that location, while powering down the original TV/speakers.

If the phone rings, I should be able to interact with the caller
wherever I happen to be -- without scurrying to find a \"phone\"
(or, worse, CARRYING ONE ON MY PERSON).

If someone comes to the front door, I shouldn\'t have to walk to the door
to determine who it is and if I want to interact with them, at this time
(so, route the camera feed to a nearby display and the audio to a nearby
speaker -- if I chose to talk to them).

If dinner is ready, SWMBO shouldn\'t have to come fetch me. Nor, \"yell\"
for me to come to the table. Her voice should issue from the nearest
\"speaker\" (which may be a BT headset).

Have a fall in the bathroom? \"Help! I\'ve fallen and I can\'t get up!\"
WITHOUT having to wear a silly device to implement that link!

Being able to route (and control) power and signal to a variety of
destinations (and sources!) means the location of those \"emitters\"
is less critical. Swap L & R? Sure! Would you like me to switch back
and forth between them at 5 Hz, just for effect? Would you like me to
alter the \"color\" (tone) of the audio from one -- or both -- while I\'m
at it?

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 07:54:52 +0100, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 10/16/2022 11:20 PM, Paul wrote:
Even though the speakers have Bluetooth, Bluetooth won\'t allow one host device, to
drive two mono speakers. I believe I\'ve already tried this. That page
only describes a Wifi method.

Wireless devices have inherent problems/limitations.
How do they react to interference or intermittent loss
of signal?

Wifi nowadays is pretty good. Anyway, a long speaker cable picks up hum and introduces resistance.

What can *you* do to remedy this problem if
it manifests? Where do they get their power from
(do you need a wall wart nearby -- and an electric outlet
to power that wart?)

Which is easier than the longer run of cable to connect the speaker cone to the amp on the other side of the room.

How much acoustic power can you get
from them?

No difference.

Does the protocol ensure synchronization of
EMITTED audio signals between the two devices (if the audio
is sent on two separate carriers)? etc.

Should be easy enough to do. Think how your satnav does it.

In that sense, these speaker ideas (I own a couple mono BT speakers),
are less than ideal, compared to wired solutions.

Because your device has two microphones on it, that immediately
removes it as a candidate in my house. This is a no-microphone house.
I don\'t want to hear \"What was that ? I didn\'t catch all of that.
You\'ll have to speak up\" coming out of any miniature trouble-makers.

That\'s not a problem with the microphone but, rather, the application
that is listening.

And he can disconnect the mic inside the box and just have it as a speaker.

The computer speakers in this room, I set them up once, wired \"L\" to \"L\"
and so on, and they\'ve never needed setup (or batteries changed) since then.
Now that\'s convenience.

I\'ve designed some \"network speakers\" with wired interfaces and
integrated amplifiers powered from the network connection (PoE).

IME, speakers tend not to want to move (or be moved).

But, the audio piped through them may wish to be sourced from a
wide variety of devices -- more than would typically be accommodated
by a \"HiFi\".

If I want to listen to music, I arrange for the multimedia tank to
deliver music to the \"two nearest speakers\" -- or, the speakers
that I typically select when I am in the location that I currently
occupy. (E.g., when seated at this computer, I\'d prefer to have
music routed through *two* of the adjacent living room\'s 4 speakers
in front of me, not the speakers in the kitchen, located behind me)

If I get up and walk into the office, then it would be foolish for
the music to keep playing through those speakers. It should, instead,
\"follow me\" into the office and be played through the speakers there.

Or, into the kitchen, back porch, garage, etc.

Likewise, if I am watching TV, then I\'d prefer the audio to be
played from speakers near where I am viewing the video presentation.
And, when I move into the kitchen, the audio AND VIDEO should follow
me to that location, while powering down the original TV/speakers.

That is only required if you have another person in the house who doesn\'t want to listen to your music. Otherwise just leave them all on.

If the phone rings, I should be able to interact with the caller
wherever I happen to be -- without scurrying to find a \"phone\"
(or, worse, CARRYING ONE ON MY PERSON).

I don\'t scurry. Phonecalls are not urgent to the degree of seconds. I go to the phone, then call them back or ignore it if they didn\'t wait long enough. I also don\'t want phonecalls if I\'m not in the living room.

If someone comes to the front door, I shouldn\'t have to walk to the door
to determine who it is and if I want to interact with them, at this time
(so, route the camera feed to a nearby display and the audio to a nearby
speaker -- if I chose to talk to them).

I just walk towards the door and look on the camera near it. Most people I do want to answer the door to, since I have a no salesman notice up. Only Irish ignore it, and I like yelling abuse at them.

If dinner is ready, SWMBO shouldn\'t have to come fetch me. Nor, \"yell\"
for me to come to the table. Her voice should issue from the nearest
\"speaker\" (which may be a BT headset).

So you created a nag transmission system?

 

[Martin Brown]

On 16/10/2022 08:17, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 16-Oct-22 4:38 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 06:26:49 +0100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 16-Oct-22 4:15 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Just wondering if I can change the main program in a Google Home, or is
it hard coded?  It must allow updates to the software, so can I fool it
this way and give it an altered version?

I\'d be very surprised if the updates did not have to be
cryptographically signed by Google. Since you would have no way to sign
a substitute program, it is unlikely that you\'ll be able to replace the
software via the usual update process.

Depriving people of control of things they own is perhaps the most
egregious use of cryptographic signing that exists, but until
legislators get involved (don\'t hold your breath), that\'s where we
stand.

This is not to say it\'s impossible to do, but will probably require
considerable technical knowledge, and time, if it can be done at all.

I have virtually no knowledge of hacking, but isn\'t the program in
there kinda like an OS?  Or the only program running under the OS?  No
matter what Microsoft put in Windows, they cannot stop me deleting it
and inserting Linux onto my desktop.  Why can\'t I do the same with the
Google Home?

It really comes down to what code the system runs when it starts,
whether that\'s called a BIOS, a boot loader, or whatever (hereinafter
boot loader). If the boot loader is not willing to load and run code
that\'s not been signed with a signature that it will accept, then that\'s
a significant obstacle. You\'d have to replace the boot loader, which
could involve physically removing a ROM and supplying a different one
(whose code you got from....?), or re-flashing it (ditto), if it allows
itself to be re-flashed, and again you have the issue of whether the
replacement needs to be signed.

One annoyance in the present environment is that *major* players issue
printer and scanner device drivers that are not properly signed so that
users are used to clicking the \"I know the risks run it anyway\" button.

Your Google Home may well not even have a separate boot ROM - everything
could be on a single chip.

It is probably easier to go after IoT devices - plenty of them have
appalling security weaknesses designed in by clueless halfwits.

As for PCs so far, the likes of Microsoft have not been able to
persuade/cajole/threaten/bribe the manufacturers of CPUs, laptops and
motherboards to allow only programs signed by said likes to run, and
this is why you can install other software.

Windows 10 + 11 \"S mode\" is an attempt by Microsoft to close down the
opportunity to run non-MS code on PC\'s running that variant. In S-mode
you can only run apps that are from the MS walled garden app store.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_editions#S_mode

Fortunately it is still fairly easy to jailbreak it back to a normal
full implementation where useful third party software will run OK.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:17:13 +0100, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/10/2022 08:17, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 16-Oct-22 4:38 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 06:26:49 +0100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 16-Oct-22 4:15 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Just wondering if I can change the main program in a Google Home, or is
it hard coded? It must allow updates to the software, so can I fool it
this way and give it an altered version?

I\'d be very surprised if the updates did not have to be
cryptographically signed by Google. Since you would have no way to sign
a substitute program, it is unlikely that you\'ll be able to replace the
software via the usual update process.

Depriving people of control of things they own is perhaps the most
egregious use of cryptographic signing that exists, but until
legislators get involved (don\'t hold your breath), that\'s where we
stand.

This is not to say it\'s impossible to do, but will probably require
considerable technical knowledge, and time, if it can be done at all.

I have virtually no knowledge of hacking, but isn\'t the program in
there kinda like an OS? Or the only program running under the OS? No
matter what Microsoft put in Windows, they cannot stop me deleting it
and inserting Linux onto my desktop. Why can\'t I do the same with the
Google Home?

It really comes down to what code the system runs when it starts,
whether that\'s called a BIOS, a boot loader, or whatever (hereinafter
boot loader). If the boot loader is not willing to load and run code
that\'s not been signed with a signature that it will accept, then that\'s
a significant obstacle. You\'d have to replace the boot loader, which
could involve physically removing a ROM and supplying a different one
(whose code you got from....?), or re-flashing it (ditto), if it allows
itself to be re-flashed, and again you have the issue of whether the
replacement needs to be signed.

One annoyance in the present environment is that *major* players issue
printer and scanner device drivers that are not properly signed so that
users are used to clicking the \"I know the risks run it anyway\" button.

Major? I\'d say 99% of drivers aren\'t signed. It\'s just another of those needless security inventions like https. So who signs these things? MS? And you trust them?

Your Google Home may well not even have a separate boot ROM - everything
could be on a single chip.

It is probably easier to go after IoT devices - plenty of them have
appalling security weaknesses designed in by clueless halfwits.

As for PCs so far, the likes of Microsoft have not been able to
persuade/cajole/threaten/bribe the manufacturers of CPUs, laptops and
motherboards to allow only programs signed by said likes to run, and
this is why you can install other software.

Windows 10 + 11 \"S mode\" is an attempt by Microsoft to close down the
opportunity to run non-MS code on PC\'s running that variant. In S-mode
you can only run apps that are from the MS walled garden app store.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_editions#S_mode

Fortunately it is still fairly easy to jailbreak it back to a normal
full implementation where useful third party software will run OK.

Why jailbreak it? Why not just install normal Windows?

Anyway they won\'t manage - Android runs in S mode but you just turn it off in the settings. No legal system would permit them not to have that option.

 

[Don Y]

On 10/17/2022 1:17 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

One annoyance in the present environment is that *major* players issue printer
and scanner device drivers that are not properly signed so that users are used
to clicking the \"I know the risks run it anyway\" button.

This is just another manifestation of the \"convenience trumps security\"
issue. It\'s possible to lock down a system so that one has to \"follow
all the rules\" -- but, that would tend to get in the way of people
\"getting work done\". So, there is a persistent demand for a mechanism to
break the rules... \"just temporarily\" (yeah, right!)

Your Google Home may well not even have a separate boot ROM - everything
could be on a single chip.

It is probably easier to go after IoT devices - plenty of them have appalling
security weaknesses designed in by clueless halfwits.

There, the problem is that security is an afterthought. They are
typically more concerned with trying to make the \"gizmo\" do whatever
it\'s salable function is and only worry about security after that
already works.

And, of course, there\'s no time to do this properly as Manglement
sees a product that APPEARS to work and wants to \"sell it\"!

The better approach is to think about how you are going to design
security in from the beginning. And, keep thinking about how
that security can be subverted by attacks on your design.

If, as is pretty common, you\'re just wrapping something around a Linux
kernel (with little knowledge of what goes on in the kernel *or*
what \"features\" need not be present for YOUR product), then you
likely have a simple security model: become root and you own the
entire device.

A better model likely assigns capabilities to different actors
instead of sweeping generalizations based on an \"identity\".

As for PCs so far, the likes of Microsoft have not been able to
persuade/cajole/threaten/bribe the manufacturers of CPUs, laptops and
motherboards to allow only programs signed by said likes to run, and this is
why you can install other software.

Windows 10 + 11 \"S mode\" is an attempt by Microsoft to close down the
opportunity to run non-MS code on PC\'s running that variant. In S-mode you can
only run apps that are from the MS walled garden app store.

So, pretty useless for anyone other than generic \"office workers\".

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

mandag den 17. oktober 2022 kl. 10.52.09 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:

On 10/17/2022 1:17 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
Windows 10 + 11 \"S mode\" is an attempt by Microsoft to close down the
opportunity to run non-MS code on PC\'s running that variant. In S-mode you can
only run apps that are from the MS walled garden app store.
So, pretty useless for anyone other than generic \"office workers\".

and schools, I believe it is basically intended as an alternative for Chrome OS in schools

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:51:59 +0100, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 10/17/2022 1:17 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

One annoyance in the present environment is that *major* players issue printer
and scanner device drivers that are not properly signed so that users are used
to clicking the \"I know the risks run it anyway\" button.

This is just another manifestation of the \"convenience trumps security\"
issue. It\'s possible to lock down a system so that one has to \"follow
all the rules\" -- but, that would tend to get in the way of people
\"getting work done\". So, there is a persistent demand for a mechanism to
break the rules... \"just temporarily\" (yeah, right!)

Which is why I never ever use Linux.

Your Google Home may well not even have a separate boot ROM - everything
could be on a single chip.

It is probably easier to go after IoT devices - plenty of them have appalling
security weaknesses designed in by clueless halfwits.

There, the problem is ****that**** security is an afterthought.

Please don\'t use superfluous words. It gets on my nerves.

They are
typically more concerned with trying to make the \"gizmo\" do whatever
it\'s salable function is and only worry about security after that
already works.

If the law shot people who hacked things, we wouldn\'t need security. Yet I know of a hacker called Dustin Cook who is free to roam and work for.... AV companies! Probably where most of the viruses come from, made by the AV company who wants to have the \"solution\" ready first and get more customers....

And, of course, there\'s no time to do this properly as Manglement
sees a product that APPEARS to work and wants to \"sell it\"!

The better approach is to think about how you are going to design
security in from the beginning. And, keep thinking about how
that security can be subverted by attacks on your design.

Programmers have enough difficulty getting things to work, nevermind be secure.

If, as is pretty common, you\'re just wrapping something around a Linux
kernel (with little knowledge of what goes on in the kernel *or*
what \"features\" need not be present for YOUR product), then you
likely have a simple security model: become root and you own the
entire device.

A better model likely assigns capabilities to different actors
instead of sweeping generalizations based on an \"identity\".

Model indeed, since the advent of object orientated programming, nobody writes proper code.

As for PCs so far, the likes of Microsoft have not been able to
persuade/cajole/threaten/bribe the manufacturers of CPUs, laptops and
motherboards to allow only programs signed by said likes to run, and this is
why you can install other software.

Windows 10 + 11 \"S mode\" is an attempt by Microsoft to close down the
opportunity to run non-MS code on PC\'s running that variant. In S-mode you can
only run apps that are from the MS walled garden app store.

So, pretty useless for anyone other than generic \"office workers\".

Even then, what if you wanted your office workers to use a different product?

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:04:28 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

mandag den 17. oktober 2022 kl. 10.52.09 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
On 10/17/2022 1:17 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
Windows 10 + 11 \"S mode\" is an attempt by Microsoft to close down the
opportunity to run non-MS code on PC\'s running that variant. In S-mode you can
only run apps that are from the MS walled garden app store.
So, pretty useless for anyone other than generic \"office workers\".

and schools, I believe it is basically intended as an alternative for Chrome OS in schools

I worked in a school, we used many many non-MS products. That\'s exactly the kind of place you install unusual apps only used in education. To limit that to MS approved ones would be fucking absurd.

And we never used Chrome, why the hell would we do that? We used Windows. Normal Windows. The OS they would all use when they left school.

 

[Don Y]

On 10/17/2022 2:04 AM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

mandag den 17. oktober 2022 kl. 10.52.09 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
On 10/17/2022 1:17 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
Windows 10 + 11 \"S mode\" is an attempt by Microsoft to close down the
opportunity to run non-MS code on PC\'s running that variant. In S-mode you can
only run apps that are from the MS walled garden app store.
So, pretty useless for anyone other than generic \"office workers\".

and schools, I believe it is basically intended as an alternative for Chrome OS in schools

Possible. MS used to have a \"facility\" that would create a sandbox for
the machine, let you do everything in that sandbox, then *reset* the
sandbox at next boot.

So, you could install whatever apps you wanted and be assured (?) that
any actions a user took would not be persistent; he couldn\'t muck with
the initial configuration (he *could* install an app -- but, it would
disappear at next reboot).

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

mandag den 17. oktober 2022 kl. 11.20.16 UTC+2 skrev Commander Kinsey:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:04:28 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

mandag den 17. oktober 2022 kl. 10.52.09 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
On 10/17/2022 1:17 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
Windows 10 + 11 \"S mode\" is an attempt by Microsoft to close down the
opportunity to run non-MS code on PC\'s running that variant. In S-mode you can
only run apps that are from the MS walled garden app store.
So, pretty useless for anyone other than generic \"office workers\".

and schools, I believe it is basically intended as an alternative for Chrome OS in schools
I worked in a school, we used many many non-MS products. That\'s exactly the kind of place you install unusual apps only used in education. To limit that to MS approved ones would be fucking absurd.

can just get those apps approved, stops the kids installing all kinds of junk

> And we never used Chrome, why the hell would we do that? We used Windows. Normal Windows. The OS they would all use when they left school.

a lot of chromebooks used in schools, cheap and power efficient. Windows S is specifically made to compete with that

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:52:36 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

mandag den 17. oktober 2022 kl. 11.20.16 UTC+2 skrev Commander Kinsey:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:04:28 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

mandag den 17. oktober 2022 kl. 10.52.09 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
On 10/17/2022 1:17 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
Windows 10 + 11 \"S mode\" is an attempt by Microsoft to close down the
opportunity to run non-MS code on PC\'s running that variant. In S-mode you can
only run apps that are from the MS walled garden app store.
So, pretty useless for anyone other than generic \"office workers\".

and schools, I believe it is basically intended as an alternative for Chrome OS in schools
I worked in a school, we used many many non-MS products. That\'s exactly the kind of place you install unusual apps only used in education. To limit that to MS approved ones would be fucking absurd.

can just get those apps approved,

By who?

> stops the kids installing all kinds of junk

Nok that\'s prevented by the domain server they log into. That way I can allow staff (and certain trustworthy kids) to install stuff to save me the bother.

And we never used Chrome, why the hell would we do that? We used Windows. Normal Windows. The OS they would all use when they left school.

a lot of chromebooks used in schools, cheap and power efficient. Windows S is specifically made to compete with that

Portable computers in schools, ROFL! They would get nicked.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:29:11 +0100, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 10/17/2022 2:04 AM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
mandag den 17. oktober 2022 kl. 10.52.09 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
On 10/17/2022 1:17 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
Windows 10 + 11 \"S mode\" is an attempt by Microsoft to close down the
opportunity to run non-MS code on PC\'s running that variant. In S-mode you can
only run apps that are from the MS walled garden app store.
So, pretty useless for anyone other than generic \"office workers\".

and schools, I believe it is basically intended as an alternative for Chrome OS in schools

Possible. MS used to have a \"facility\" that would create a sandbox for
the machine, let you do everything in that sandbox, then *reset* the
sandbox at next boot.

So, you could install whatever apps you wanted and be assured (?) that
any actions a user took would not be persistent; he couldn\'t muck with
the initial configuration (he *could* install an app -- but, it would
disappear at next reboot).

Perhaps useful when teaching Computing, otherwise no.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

mandag den 17. oktober 2022 kl. 12.02.18 UTC+2 skrev Commander Kinsey:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:52:36 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

mandag den 17. oktober 2022 kl. 11.20.16 UTC+2 skrev Commander Kinsey:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:04:28 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

mandag den 17. oktober 2022 kl. 10.52.09 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
On 10/17/2022 1:17 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
Windows 10 + 11 \"S mode\" is an attempt by Microsoft to close down the
opportunity to run non-MS code on PC\'s running that variant. In S-mode you can
only run apps that are from the MS walled garden app store.
So, pretty useless for anyone other than generic \"office workers\".

and schools, I believe it is basically intended as an alternative for Chrome OS in schools
I worked in a school, we used many many non-MS products. That\'s exactly the kind of place you install unusual apps only used in education. To limit that to MS approved ones would be fucking absurd.

can just get those apps approved,
By who?

Microsoft of course

stops the kids installing all kinds of junk
Nok that\'s prevented by the domain server they log into. That way I can allow staff (and certain trustworthy kids) to install stuff to save me the bother.

and then you need to have and maintain that server

And we never used Chrome, why the hell would we do that? We used Windows. Normal Windows. The OS they would all use when they left school.

a lot of chromebooks used in schools, cheap and power efficient. Windows S is specifically made to compete with that
Portable computers in schools, ROFL! They would get nicked.

how many decades since you were in school?

 

[wmartin]

On 10/16/22 15:44, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 19:49:34 +0100, boB <boB@k7iq.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 06:15:42 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

Just wondering if I can change the main program in a Google Home, or
is it hard coded?  It must allow updates to the software, so can I
fool it this way and give it an altered version?

Here is one place to start...  Find out what is inside of a Google
Home Mini which should be close to the other GOogle Homes...
Good to know what you are trying to deal with before you try anything.

No a lot to see here but...
https://youtu.be/OexI0LzYnVE?t=1492

Same guy...  A closer look into some of the parts.
http://mobilemodding.info/google-home-mini-closer-look/

You might be able to start from scratch on firmware by knowing what
the processor is (ARM of course) but I\'m sure it is code read
protected and so you would have to write EVERYTHING yourself or find
libraries for that part.  Marvel I think.

I wish that the Google Homes were stereo like the Amazon Echos and
Alexas are.

Can you not get two google home speakers and call one a left speaker and
one a right?  Once they\'re told this, they will output two channels?  It
is pointless to have stereo on a single unit in one place in your room
(although mine is hard wired into my stereo!)

Nope, you just get constant inane political infighting over mostly
useless \"issues\" meant to distract your attention from how little is
ever accomplished!

 

[Snit]

On Oct 17, 2022 at 9:35:24 AM MST, \"wmartin\" wrote
<tik08c$3fpf6$1@dont-email.me>:

On 10/16/22 15:44, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 19:49:34 +0100, boB <boB@k7iq.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 06:15:42 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

Just wondering if I can change the main program in a Google Home, or
is it hard coded? It must allow updates to the software, so can I
fool it this way and give it an altered version?

Here is one place to start... Find out what is inside of a Google
Home Mini which should be close to the other GOogle Homes...
Good to know what you are trying to deal with before you try anything.

No a lot to see here but...
https://youtu.be/OexI0LzYnVE?t=1492

Same guy... A closer look into some of the parts.
http://mobilemodding.info/google-home-mini-closer-look/

You might be able to start from scratch on firmware by knowing what
the processor is (ARM of course) but I\'m sure it is code read
protected and so you would have to write EVERYTHING yourself or find
libraries for that part. Marvel I think.

I wish that the Google Homes were stereo like the Amazon Echos and
Alexas are.

Can you not get two google home speakers and call one a left speaker and
one a right? Once they\'re told this, they will output two channels? It
is pointless to have stereo on a single unit in one place in your room
(although mine is hard wired into my stereo!)

Nope, you just get constant inane political infighting over mostly
useless \"issues\" meant to distract your attention from how little is
ever accomplished!

How little is accomplished, and how BOTH parties are paid for and beholden to
the very rich. One actually tosses an occasional bone to the people, but both
of our parties are horrid.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 12:08:43 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

mandag den 17. oktober 2022 kl. 12.02.18 UTC+2 skrev Commander Kinsey:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:52:36 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

mandag den 17. oktober 2022 kl. 11.20.16 UTC+2 skrev Commander Kinsey:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:04:28 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

mandag den 17. oktober 2022 kl. 10.52.09 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
On 10/17/2022 1:17 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
Windows 10 + 11 \"S mode\" is an attempt by Microsoft to close down the
opportunity to run non-MS code on PC\'s running that variant. In S-mode you can
only run apps that are from the MS walled garden app store.
So, pretty useless for anyone other than generic \"office workers\".

and schools, I believe it is basically intended as an alternative for Chrome OS in schools
I worked in a school, we used many many non-MS products. That\'s exactly the kind of place you install unusual apps only used in education. To limit that to MS approved ones would be fucking absurd.

can just get those apps approved,
By who?

Microsoft of course

Like that\'ll happen, these are small companies writing the software who don\'t want to pay the fee.

stops the kids installing all kinds of junk
Nok that\'s prevented by the domain server they log into. That way I can allow staff (and certain trustworthy kids) to install stuff to save me the bother.

and then you need to have and maintain that server

The server is there anyway! Of course we have a server, so they can log on and save their work! The default on the server is to disallow things like installing, I turned on people I trusted.

In fact we had multiple servers in a cabinet. An council designed internet proxy I disagreed with to censor things, I spent half my time letting stuff through. A server to log staff on. A server to log kids on. A backup server to log kids on. A massive RAID storage unit. An internal mail server. A 3kW battery backup for all the above. And they and the desktops ran Boinc when idling. Almost everything was computerized, no playing VHS tapes through TVs on trolleys. I digitized the lot and they just played them on their classroom computer onto the smart whiteboard.

And we never used Chrome, why the hell would we do that? We used Windows. Normal Windows. The OS they would all use when they left school.

a lot of chromebooks used in schools, cheap and power efficient. Windows S is specifically made to compete with that
Portable computers in schools, ROFL! They would get nicked.

how many decades since you were in school?

Half. Yeah we had laptops, padlocked on a trolley. But I set up loads of computer rooms classes would go to when they wanted to do computer stuff. Proper real desktops, not little play-tablets.

Stop fucking about with the newsgroups line you troll. This goes to alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-11,sci.electronics.design

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 17:35:24 +0100, wmartin <wwm@wwmartin.net> wrote:

On 10/16/22 15:44, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 19:49:34 +0100, boB <boB@k7iq.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 06:15:42 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

Just wondering if I can change the main program in a Google Home, or
is it hard coded? It must allow updates to the software, so can I
fool it this way and give it an altered version?

Here is one place to start... Find out what is inside of a Google
Home Mini which should be close to the other GOogle Homes...
Good to know what you are trying to deal with before you try anything.

No a lot to see here but...
https://youtu.be/OexI0LzYnVE?t=1492

Same guy... A closer look into some of the parts.
http://mobilemodding.info/google-home-mini-closer-look/

You might be able to start from scratch on firmware by knowing what
the processor is (ARM of course) but I\'m sure it is code read
protected and so you would have to write EVERYTHING yourself or find
libraries for that part. Marvel I think.

I wish that the Google Homes were stereo like the Amazon Echos and
Alexas are.

Can you not get two google home speakers and call one a left speaker and
one a right? Once they\'re told this, they will output two channels? It
is pointless to have stereo on a single unit in one place in your room
(although mine is hard wired into my stereo!)

Nope, you just get constant inane political infighting over mostly
useless \"issues\" meant to distract your attention from how little is
ever accomplished!

Google Home refuses to talk politics. I asked mine who would win the Russia Ukraine war and it either says it doesn\'t understand, ignores me completely, or gives me irrelevant information. Same if I ask it if god exists. Somebody is bribing google, I want facts not bias.

 

[Paul]

On 10/17/2022 9:20 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

Google Home refuses to talk politics.  I asked mine who would win the Russia Ukraine war and it either says it doesn\'t understand, ignores me completely, or gives me irrelevant information.  Same if I ask it if god exists.  Somebody is bribing google, I want facts not bias.

https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/google-assistant-tips-commands-pixel-google-home-allo/

\"Tell me a joke.\"

The way that Assistants start, is with all the features
turned on. But when the company discovers how many Amazon
instances they have to run, to do the computing for natural
language interaction, they rapidly shut stuff off.

This is one of the reasons that Google search results
vary with time of day. The load on Google, determines
the depth of search.

Paul