FM2A88X-ITX+ ROM are fatter than 8MiB whaaa

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   I looked at it and it seems maybe the last 4k comprise checksums and perhaps signing by ASRock. Self-consistency (plus perhaps an unclonable physical factor, hooray!) Still...it hasn't worked? Anyone?

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
AMD-fandom Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Newbie Joined: 04 Jun 2020 Location: Kansas, USA Status: Offline Points: 4	Post Options Post Reply Quote AMD-fandom Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Topic: FM2A88X-ITX+ ROM are fatter than 8MiB whaaa Posted: 10 Jun 2020 at 5:22am
	I looked at it and it seems maybe the last 4k comprise checksums and perhaps signing by ASRock. Self-consistency (plus perhaps an unclonable physical factor, hooray!) Still...it hasn't worked? Anyone?

AMD-fandom Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Newbie Joined: 04 Jun 2020 Location: Kansas, USA Status: Offline Points: 4	Post Options Post Reply Quote AMD-fandom Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 04 Jun 2020 at 3:49am
	I managed to get a FM2A88X-ITX+ to stop booting by presenting a 3.4 ROM on a flash drive. Attempts thereafter to burn the ROM have met similar fates in that the mobo will power up with no beeps and do nothing. I have a programmer (CH341 jumpered to 1.8V devices plus a utility) but I find that the binary image is 8,392,704 bytes rather than 8192ish, so it seems that it's not the binary or the first few kb are trash. What offset should I be starting flash with? Is there a magic number at a certain location I can take as a cue? For example the 3.4 ROM starts with ?��?J#wûH but at $0x00021000 there's another block of data, perhaps the load of UEFI image should be offset to that? Maybe there's a binary viewer or ghidra environ I should load it into...