cccam contest: 2.0.10, 2.0.11, 2.1.4, 2.2.1 and 2.3.0

[aplok]

Re: cccam contest: 2.0.10, 2.0.11, 2.1.4, 2.2.1 and 2.3.0

hello guys !

here are some comments

1.
PID %CPU %MEM COMMAND
1520 2.2 6.6 CCcam_2.0.10


pid: process id
% cpu: % of cpu load
% mem: % of the ram
command: process name

that is, the process CCcam_2.0.10, with his instance n° 1520, needs 2.2 % of the global cpu, and 6.6 % of the ram

... on the same sat receiver ... of course !

but i do not focus on these figures,
i focus on the different version of cccam: 2010, 2011, 214, 220, 221, 230



2. obviously, the figures reported are related to the same sat rcvr (!), and after 2 min (!) for connections settlement

then, i start this command

cd /tmp
top >a.tmp

an i kill it ( killall top ) after 30 seconds

then, i remove the identical line :

sort -u a.tmp >b.tmp


3. the cccam_*, starts many instances of cccam_*
most of them have a 0.0 %cpu (cleared by sort -u ... )

i have max ( ~ 1.3 ... 1.5 )

4. i my opinion this is the relevant figure,
not the average (because i should proceed more and more smartly ...)

5. then i have the proposed table

6. we can see that % mem increase with version:
2010 2011 214 221 230
6.6 6.5 7.0 7.0 7.2

-> my conclusion, 230 has a wider mem footprint (7.2) when compared with 2010 (6.6)

7. we can see that %cpu is roughly identical

8. ... except for 230, where i do not observe other cpu% than 0.0 and 0.1 (?)

-> my conclusion: 230 behaves significantly differently in term of %cpu when compared with other


... but nothing more

[Satphoenix]

Re: cccam contest: 2.0.10, 2.0.11, 2.1.4, 2.2.1 and 2.3.0

I think it depends on both. Some versions are faster than others.
If it is tested on the same server, the results should depend on the cccam client only.
Also averaging on all encryption types is useful.

The main part of the ecm-time depends on the server.

Let's say you have a good internet connection and 600ms ecm-time than the speed of the cccam is less then ~2% (I would say less than 1%) and depends on the processor-speed of your receiver. And these processors are very fast today!



But if your server is to slow, no fast processor or cccam can help you...

[sjamesamuel]

Re: cccam contest: 2.0.10, 2.0.11, 2.1.4, 2.2.1 and 2.3.0

The main part of the ecm-time depends on the server.

Let's say you have a good internet connection and 600ms ecm-time than the speed of the cccam is less then ~2% (I would say less than 1%) and depends on the processor-speed of your receiver. And these processors are very fast today!



But if your server is to slow, no fast processor or cccam can help you...

And if the server is good, there will still be some noticeable difference in time to decrypt channels. To me cccam 2.2.1 was faster than 2.0.11, at least for some providers.

[BlueIsMyColor]

Re: cccam contest: 2.0.10, 2.0.11, 2.1.4, 2.2.1 and 2.3.0

Yesterday and today, i have made some tests with 2.0.11 and 2.2.1 versions and it seems that 2.2.1 is slightly faster. I think it depends of other things, like server, net connection...

regards

[sjamesamuel]

Re: cccam contest: 2.0.10, 2.0.11, 2.1.4, 2.2.1 and 2.3.0

Yesterday and today, i have made some tests with 2.0.11 and 2.2.1 versions and it seems that 2.2.1 is slightly faster. I think it depends of other things, like server, net connection...

regards

Exactly what I noticed before.
Any idea how 2.3.0 would compare with them?
1% increase in cpu or mem is nothing if the ecm is faster.

[gianni253]

Re: cccam contest: 2.0.10, 2.0.11, 2.1.4, 2.2.1 and 2.3.0

Has anyone ever made investigations about backdoors/trojans ? (using netstat or other network tools)

[sucan]

Re: cccam contest: 2.0.10, 2.0.11, 2.1.4, 2.2.1 and 2.3.0

Has anyone ever made investigations about backdoors/trojans ? (using netstat or other network tools)

Last year on some websites and forums was an opinion that 2.3.0 has a backdoor which send your line information to some sites but I can not find any info that confirming this opinion till now. I have never heard about someone lost their personal line info.
But this does not mean that all version found over the internet are safe.
There is always possibility to download modified version of cccam. So
download and use your cccams only from trusted websites.

[gianni253]

Re: cccam contest: 2.0.10, 2.0.11, 2.1.4, 2.2.1 and 2.3.0

Last year on some websites and forums was an opinion that 2.3.0 has a backdoor ...

Yes mate, same info I was referring to ... anyway, before using personal clines, a little time monitoring with netstat is surely worth !

[kalpikos]

Re: cccam contest: 2.0.10, 2.0.11, 2.1.4, 2.2.1 and 2.3.0

I had also heard about a backdoor on 2.3.0 version and even I had read on some forums for an IP in Germany that involved in the game.

After that I have seen many people using cccam 2.3.0 and even when some experts tried to investigate what really happens, nothing found.
Maybe it was just a special version from a very clever man

So, be careful from where you download cams and plugins.

If someone knows something more about 2.3.0 version and how safe is, please share it with us.

[BlueIsMyColor]

Re: cccam contest: 2.0.10, 2.0.11, 2.1.4, 2.2.1 and 2.3.0

I have been trying cccam 2.2.1 for some weeks on my dm500s but notice some instability on the box - sometimes the emu stops responding. I am back to 2.1.4 version and wait to compare.

regards

[kalpikos]

Re: cccam contest: 2.0.10, 2.0.11, 2.1.4, 2.2.1 and 2.3.0

I have been trying cccam 2.2.1 for some weeks on my dm500s but notice some instability on the box - sometimes the emu stops responding. I am back to 2.1.4 version and wait to compare.

The problem you say maybe comes from the image you have and not from cccam.
Also, maybe you have plugin which cause conflicts.

I had similar problems with my box when I had gemini image, but when I flashed it with openpli all problems gone.

[BlueIsMyColor]

Re: cccam contest: 2.0.10, 2.0.11, 2.1.4, 2.2.1 and 2.3.0

The problem you say maybe comes from the image you have and not from cccam.
Also, maybe you have plugin which cause conflicts.

I had similar problems with my box when I had gemini image, but when I flashed it with openpli all problems gone.

Has i said on another topics, i have a dm500s with the latest openpli image installed + cccam ppanel. Do you recommend another (version) image from openpli?

regards

[kalpikos]

Re: cccam contest: 2.0.10, 2.0.11, 2.1.4, 2.2.1 and 2.3.0

Has i said on another topics, i have a dm500s with the latest openpli image installed + cccam ppanel. Do you recommend another (version) image from openpli?

No, your image it's ok
Try another version of cccam as you said.
If you still have problem, maybe you should reflash your box.

[BlueIsMyColor]

Re: cccam contest: 2.0.10, 2.0.11, 2.1.4, 2.2.1 and 2.3.0

I have tried cccam 2.2.1 with nemesis image on my dm500s and it have stability problems - sometimes the cam stops responding. With 2.1.3 or 2.1.4 versions i have no problems.

regards

[Triad]

Re: cccam contest: 2.0.10, 2.0.11, 2.1.4, 2.2.1 and 2.3.0

Cccam 2.2.1 on Nabilo BH image, never had any stability problems, using this image for 2 years already... ;-)