If it's ST-10 you can disable heads by terminal.

For F3 arch tools like SeDiv will "patch" ROM to "disable" head(s) for some drives. For others you can only cut the last head one at a time, meaning that if you have h0 h1 h2 h3 you can only cut h3, and the drive will have h0 h1 and h2, then you can cut h2 and so on. If on the same drive h1 is bad you can't cut it to have h0 h2 h3, you can only cut it and end up with h0 only.

I am currently doing some work on F3 ROMs here:

Analysis of Seagate F3 ROM:
http://www.hddoracle.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=2173

I have analysed the RAP module and am now doing the same for the SAP.

If you upload your ROM samples, I can try to analyse them.

Try this :



Procedure :

http://www.hddoracle.com/viewtopic.php? ... =20#p13389

thanks spildit

ICBW, but this is how it looks to me:

CAP


RAP


SAP

ICBW, but this is how it looks to me:

CAP


RAP


SAP

ISTM that SeDiv makes extensive, unnecessary changes to the RAP module. That said, these changes appear to be benign and are probably ignored.

Here is one example (RAP Zone Format Budget Parms):

RAP_uncut.bin


RAP_cut_1.bin


In the uncut ROM, there is a 1:1 correspondence between logical and pphysical heads (heads 2 - 7 are place holders). However, when head #1 is cut, the data for the remaining physical heads is shifted up by one position. ISTM that this is unnecessary since the cut has not changed the correspondence between logical head #0 and physical head #0, and head #0 is the only remaining physical head. If, OTOH, head #0 were cut, then the data for physical head #1 would need to be shifted up into the logical head #0 position.

of course i found capacity offset and changed

original capacity 500gb = 976773168

976773168 = 3A386030

new capacity 250gb = 488397168

488397168 = 1D1C5970

but i dont know how updatae checksum

This is silly.

For years now people have been researching and posting VSC in open forums.

Fujitsu VSCs for example are very well known for many, many years now and Fujitsu didn't "lock" or encrypt access to SA, neither did Toshiba, Seagate, etc ....

WD scripts to read module 02 were posted many years ago, even scripts to read configuration of WDC based MCU were posted way before and espite WD did make some progress encrypting and protecting the drives (newer ones) there were no significant "change" to the way SA access works even on modern USB based drives.

What you state is just a silly argument to encourage people to stop sharing. The majority of drive makers will just not bother even if the commands to access SA are known. They might change from time to time one aspect or two related to security but with exception of Seagate they will not lock much.

Seagate have their own data recovery business and they do make very crappy drives that are getting worse by each new model they make.

I would be more concearned by the crappy platter quality of newer Seagate drives than with terminal locks. You will not need terminal access at all if the quality of Seagate drives keeps the same ... as you will end up with platters without magnetic substract anyway !!!

The ROM that I posted have already correct capacity for the CUT. Doesn't need to be changed.

You still need correct checksums !

Instead of wasting time in locking FW access and signing ROM, etc ... Seagate could use their resources for something more usefull like making reliable drives at the platter/head level ?!

Nowadays Seagate platters/substract are crap and firmware itself is junk as well.

Instead of locking FW and prevent end users from manipulating FW they could simplify FW in order to be functional ....

Drives like Toshiba, Hitachi, etc have very known VSC and they don't bother to lock SA access.

For example the command to CLEAR S.M.A.R.T. (that can be abused by people wanting to sell used drives as new) have been the same since IBM is S.M.A.R.T. capable and it's the same for ALL drives from IBM/Hitachi/HGST from arch M24 to ARM based.

The changes that Seagate do to firmware from drive to drive in order for commands that work with one drive cause damage to the others are ABSURD.

Seagate was fine on the ST-10 age. As soon as Seagate moved to F3 arch it was a nightmare.

Just DON'T BUY, DON'T USE AND STAY AWAY from Seagat F3 ARCH. ALL drives from 7200.11 and newer are just junk-

7200.11 have the popular BSY bug + LBA 0 problem - Seagate enters the data recovery market.

- Popular Fix is released.

- Drives from 7200.12 series now have entries on NRG-List and translator problems. You use commands that would "fix" 7200.11 drives on 7200-12 drives and you end up with partial access due to NRG-List.

- Then you have DM series with media cache problems, you have to disable re-location by editing sysfiles as well. Quality of platter is junk. Each time a new feauture is introduced on firmware it causes more harm than good.



I don't see any point on this.

For example Hitachi/HGST ARM and Toshiba have the same set of VSCs for AGES.

If you want to "unlock" ATA password on Toshiba you issue 2 commands. One is the super on the other regenerate the password sector / clear it / replace it with clear copy.

That LBA 48 command (for SATA) is almost the same as the "older" LBA 28 for IDE. Translator system is very simple and you don't have a huge amount of un-necessary defect lists like the non-resident, etc ... Yet those drives work and last ....

There are no measures to "prevent" users from access the FW on those if one knows the VSC.

Seagate on the other hand does make life harder to people wanting to access the FW and at the same time makes FW more buggy in order that it's really necessary to access it to fix the problems that they create ....

I'm telling all people to just forget about Seagate and buy other brands of HDDs.

seagate and wdc main companies are in usa but why seagate making junk drives?