Modding my multiplus in the DIWHY

Modifications
21

For sure. thanks.
Just so that its clear:

It is legal under RTR law to reverse engineer ones own device to provide functionality and interoperability to ourselves. It is of course not then a cart blanch to publish the entirety of the spec as its not my ip and I cannot own the logic also it would be a derivative work.

Thats the reason I made it so very public here.

Even if this may read facetiously, note that it is not my intention. By keeping this thread public, the intent is clear. Precisely, not to steal IP.

But I do understand that it could be used to do so. This may be dunning kruger speaking but it would appear as if it is rather simple and if someone were after IP, they would probably already have it. And not share that publicly.

So the question then becomes: if I were to try and work with this IP, how would I be allowed to do so without stepping on anyone’s toes. am I limited to the output side of the vebus? That seems like the limitation.

Im appreciative of the assumption that you’re not at liberty to speak on this.

The private subreddit concept revolves not around getting help, that would essentially be cheating, rather to give an invested party access to observe what is actually being discussed, without the publicity that this forum involves.

1 Like
22

Trouble with public discussion on such topics is that could help someone that is trying to duplicate/copy/clone the devices.
As I’ve said to you into another thread, the electronics are easy to copy. But if you also have the firmware, you have the entire product.
Victron has tried to make it harder for such attempts to clone the products, by encrypting the firmware.
And it would be nice, at least on any second-level domain that contains victronenergy wording, to refrain of discussing how to get to the real firmware.
In the end, their home, their rules. You can’t go on someones house and start to open all doors and drawers
 :grin:

Now, regarding your desire, it must be understood the following.
VEBUS and VECAN are Victron names for their implementation of communication protocols on various hardware.
Of course that, on low level, both are serial communication. VEBus is RS485 and VECan is CAN bus.
That being said, it’s obvious that the hardware implementation of VEBus is one thing and the hardware implementation of VECan is another.
Different hardware, different chips, different speeds, different framing, etc. Different everything on every level of OSI/ISO model.
You can’t just change the firmware for making a VEBus device to talk VECan because of the hardware implementation/requirements.
It’s just like trying to put a boat engine into a family car. It’s doable, but with lots of modifications.
In this case it’s not worth the effort.
Of course, you can try to do it, by designing additional, exterior to the system, hardware that will get the CAN frames, translate them and then send the info to the inverter in VEBus talk, but it would be only on your system, because of the, your designed, additional hardware and software.
Again, the hardware on VEBus inverters can’t be used to send/receive CAN frames. And vice-versa.

1 Like
23

I apologize if my intent was misunderstood.

​My perspective is rooted in the evolving Right to Repair. From my understanding, once a user performs their own firmware service or update, the manufacturer is effectively indemnified; the burden of safety and operational integrity shifts entirely to the owner.

​Furthermore, these directives emphasize the owner’s right—and often the necessity to ensure interoperability. If the hardware is capable of communicating across different standards, the ability to facilitate that connection should rest with the person who owns the device. It’s about ensuring the longevity and flexibility of the product within a wider ecosystem, rather than bypassing IP protections.

Understanding the limitations and parameters of that space shifts to the owner and is a core element of that repair directive

So this the is the mystery, why is VE.bus used if VEcan is just as capable. While I acknowledge the hardware difference VEbus being RS-485 based and VEcan being canbus, RTR logic dictates that if the hardware can be interfaced via custom firmware or external bridges, the manufacturer should not intentionally obfuscate the firmware to prevent that interoperability. The goal isn’t to clone their chip, but to unlock the data we already paid for.

If a user has a VE.Bus inverter but wants it to communicate with a third-party CAN-bus BMS without buying a €300+ “Gateway” (GX device), the RTR law supports the user’s right to access the data/firmware to build that bridge themselves

24


why is VE.bus used if VEcan is just as capable


if the hardware can be interfaced via custom firmware


VEBus was used (and still used) in the beginning. VECan is an evolution. (at least this is how I see it)
Both are for their range of products and both are fit for their purposes.

But, again, you CANNOT interface a VEBus device on a VECan network with just custom firmware.
The difference in electronics/hardware prevents you to do this.

Some cars use gasoline, some diesel. Both systems are fit for their purpose, but you cannot make one to use the other fuel only by changing the ECU firmware. There is more, there is hardware difference. Hope that this comparison explains it.

RTR could be viewed as providing you with the right module for the repair to be performed.
Victron is not obliged to give you the firmware at all if you think about it. It could supply you with the mainboard with the microcontroller already programmed if the mainboard is defective. You will be able to exchange it and the inverter will be functional again. RTR was infringed? No, because you have a working device. Case closed.

2 Likes
25

I agree and am fully aware that that is impossible, but then what is possible

Ive been asking for weeks now what the parameters are of user involvement and as soon as I find something interesting that I can do now, stonewalled.

Listen the grandMa 3 relies on a proprietary ptp protocol :

PTPv2 (IEEE 1588-2008) occupies an interesting middle ground: it is an open industry standard, but the standard document itself is not “free,” and its implementations can be either open-source or proprietary.

1. The Standard (Open, but Paid)

The protocol is developed by the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

  • Open Access to Specs: Anyone can read the technical specifications if they purchase the standard (usually around $300 USD).
  • Non-Proprietary: It is not owned by a single company. It is a “living” standard maintained by a committee of experts from various companies and universities.

So if I can just buy the spec of the protocol then I can design a device that works with it.

moreover:

1. The Right to Repair (Directive 2024/1799)

Adopted in 2024 (with most rules taking effect in 2026 ), this directive directly targets technical barriers that hinder third-party or user-led modifications.

  • Anti-Obstruction Clause: Manufacturers are prohibited from using software or hardware techniques (such as “part pairing” or firmware encryption) to prevent the use of compatible or second-hand parts.
  • Mandatory Access: For specific product categories (like smartphones and tablets), manufacturers must provide “fair and non-discriminatory access” to the firmware and software necessary for repair and maintenance.

2. The Cyber Resilience Act (CRA)

The CRA (fully mandatory by 2027 ) sets the security standards. Crucially, it clarifies the line between “security” and “locking out the user”:

  • Integrity vs. Modification: While the CRA requires firmware to be protected against unauthorized external attacks (via encryption and secure boot), it also supports the principle of user-controlled integrity.
  • Transparency: Manufacturers must provide a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) , which forces them to be transparent about what is in the firmware, making it harder to hide “lock-out” code under the guise of proprietary encryption.

So again, some time this year or next victron will loose their grasp on what they are legally allowed to withhold from us.

I can just wait till then.

But I agree we should just stop talking about it because if theres information that Id want to know that Ill probably be able to access it with a few weeks of work and manual research. it just seems like a waste to make every interest user go thru the birthing process.

26

Never mind, I figured it out. and no I will not share it with anyone.

27

As far as I know that doesn’t apply to any of the Victron products.

28

Eben, es ist ja klar, dass solche Gesetzeswidrigkeiten bei vielen Herstellern hĂ€ufig vorkommen. Aber dass du so etwas öffentlich ĂŒber deinen Arbeitgeber behauptest, ist schon ein starkes StĂŒck, oder?

Äusserst interessant.

Edit

Die Behauptung, Victron sei ein reiner Industrie-Hersteller und unterliege daher nicht dem Right to Repair (RTR), greift zu kurz. Das mag fĂŒr einige Produkte gelten, aber sicher nicht fĂŒr den gesamten Katalog. Besonders da Batterien ausdrĂŒcklich dem RTR unterstellt sind, mĂŒssen die dafĂŒr notwendigen PeripheriegerĂ€te konsequenterweise dazugezĂ€hlt werden.

Da Victron-Produkte im 48V-Bereich (und darunter) primĂ€r den Consumer-Markt bedienen und als essentielle Peripherie fĂŒr Batterien fungieren (die bereits der EU-Batterieverordnung unterliegen), ist eine Einstufung als ‘befreites Industriegut’ rechtlich nicht haltbar. Der Anspruch auf Ersatzteile und Reparaturinformationen nach der EU-Richtlinie 2024/1799 muss daher auch fĂŒr Wechselrichter und Laderegler dieser Leistungsklasse gelten

Referenzen:

EU2023/1542 , EU2024/1799

29

Right to repair is restricted to consumer products smartphones, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, etc.
It does not apply to these systems and has been discussed previously.
It is market as a product for qualified professionals not consumers.

This topic has run its course and is now drifting, further drift and it will be closed.

1 Like
30

Victron ist nicht mein Arbeitgeber! Sonst hĂ€tte ich ein “Victron-Staff” an meinem Namen.

Hast du dir die Gesetze auch mal angeschaut?

EU2024/1799 Anhang II listet die betroffenen GerÀte auf:

  1. Haushaltswaschmaschinen und Haushaltswaschtrockner: Verordnung (EU) 2019/2023 der Kommission (1)
  2. HaushaltsgeschirrspĂŒler: Verordnung (EU) 2019/2022 der Kommission (2)
  3. KĂŒhlgerĂ€te: Verordnung (EU) 2019/2019 der Kommission (3)
  4. Elektronische Displays: Verordnung (EU) 2019/2021 der Kommission (4)
  5. SchweißgerĂ€te: Verordnung (EU) 2019/1784 der Kommission (5)
  6. Staubsauger: Verordnung (EU) Nr. 666/2013 der Kommission (6)
  7. Server und Datenspeicherprodukte: Verordnung (EU) 2019/424 der Kommission (7)
  8. Mobiltelefone, schnurlose Telefone und Slate-Tablets: Verordnung (EU) 2023/1670 der Kommission (8)
  9. HaushaltswÀschetrockner: Verordnung (EU) 2023/2533 der Kommission (9)
  10. Waren, die Batterien fĂŒr leichte Verkehrsmittel enthalten: Verordnung (EU) 2023/1542 des EuropĂ€ischen Parlaments
    und des Rates (10)

Mir wÀre es neu, das Victron solche GerÀte verkauft.

Abgesehen davon:
Zum Schutz des geistigen Eigentums dĂŒrfen Schutzmaßnahmen getroffen werden, das betrifft meiner Meinung nach ganz klar die Firmware.

Selbst wenn, die Victron Produkte darunter fallen wĂŒrden, mĂŒssten sie meiner Meinung nach nur die VerfĂŒgbarkeit von Ersatzteilen verbessern.

Victron verhindert meines Wissens nach nicht aktiv den Einsatz von Fremdteilen (wenn es da ĂŒberhaupt Anbieter gibt).
Du kannst ja durchaus das Control-PCB von einem Multi in einen baugleichen andern Multi einbauen.
Das zielt eher auf die Praktiken von z.B. Apple ab, bei denen man zwar z.T. Ersatzteile bekommt, das Smartphone sich dann aber weigert damit zu funktionieren und man so gezwungen ist Reparaturen teuer in Apple-Shops machen zu lassen.

31

Vielen Dank fĂŒr die Klarstellung.

Die von Ihnen getĂ€tigte Aussage impliziert eine gewisse EndgĂŒltigkeit; angesichts Ihrer Position hier in diesem Forum erscheint es nachvollziehbar, wie eine solche Schlussfolgerung zustande kommen konnte. In der von Ihnen bereitgestellten Liste erkenne ich mindestens drei Elemente, fĂŒr die Victron gesetzlich dazu verpflichtet wĂ€re, Zugang zur Firmware sowie Ersatzteile bereitzustellen.

Ich komme zurĂŒck auf meine ursprĂŒngliche Bitte um abschließende KlĂ€rung darĂŒber, was Victron mir zu dokumentieren erlaubt – wobei Sie in diesem Fall als Nicht-Angestellter nicht befugt sind, im Namen des Unternehmens zu sprechen (bitte korrigieren Sie mich, sollten Sie tatsĂ€chlich ĂŒber ein entsprechendes Mandat verfĂŒgen). Ihre Äußerung ließe darauf schließen, dass dies der endgĂŒltige öffentliche Standpunkt von Victron ist, wie Sie es formulierten.

Sie stĂŒtzen Ihre Argumentation auf die Notwendigkeit, geistiges Eigentum zu schĂŒtzen und den Nutzern das Reverse Engineering des Codes basierend auf dieser Notwendigkeit zu verweigern. Erneut impliziert die PrĂ€misse Ihrer vorangegangenen Aussage, dass Victron als industrieller Anbieter aufgrund dieses Status ein besonderer Schutz zugesprochen wird. Mein Argument hingegen besagt eindeutig – entsprechend meiner persönlichen Auffassung und der Intention der einschlĂ€gigen Richtlinien –, dass Systeme unter 48V nicht als industrielles Risiko fĂŒr den Anwender bei Reparaturen einzustufen sind.

Zudem ist der Hersteller nach der DurchfĂŒhrung eines simplen Firmware-Updates nicht fĂŒr etwaige auftretende SchĂ€den haftbar zu machen. Da die Verantwortung fĂŒr die FunktionalitĂ€t ab diesem Zeitpunkt beim Nutzer liegt, liegt es auch in dessen Verantwortung, mit dem GerĂ€t kommunizieren und es warten zu können. Das Gesetz definiert ausdrĂŒcklich das Recht des Nutzers auf Reverse Engineering der Firmware fĂŒr genau diesen Zweck.

Daraus ergibt sich folgendes logisches Fazit: Da ca. 80 % der Nutzer Firmware-Updates selbst durchgefĂŒhrt haben, haben sie Victron von der GewĂ€hrleistungspflicht entbunden. Diese Erkenntnis, verknĂŒpft mit Ihrer Aussage, dass dies „auf keines der Victron-Produkte zutrifft“, lĂ€sst den logischen Schluss zu, dass es den Nutzern freisteht, ihre Systeme zu modifizieren. Es ist ihr Recht – wenn nicht gar ihre Pflicht –, sicherzustellen, dass ihr GerĂ€t so funktioniert, wie es die rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen in vollem Umfang vorsehen.

Des Weiteren gilt es unmissverstĂ€ndlich festzuhalten: Wenn das Gesetz ein solches Vorgehen als Recht vorschreibt, erwĂ€chst daraus fĂŒr mich auch die Verpflichtung, diesem Recht nachzugehen. Nur so kann ich mich umfassend informieren und mit Gewissheit sicherstellen, dass mein Handeln und der Betrieb des Systems vollumfĂ€nglich gesetzeskonform sind.

32

The thread has been marked as solved since Guy posted the following:

or at latest here:

Any further comments and the ongoing conversation are simply clarifications of the above statements.

I apologise sincerely if I hadn’t made that clear.

33

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.