Upgrade Proxmark3 firmware on a Mac

My first post here.

I’ve just received my Proxmarx 3 and have installed PM3 on my Mac but I get a message saying that the firmware is out of sync so I need to update it. This is what I’m seeing.

Release v4.17140 - Raccoon
  [ Proxmark3 RFID instrument ]

    MCU....... AT91SAM7S512 Rev B
    Memory.... 512 KB ( 60% used )

    Client.... Iceman/master/v4.17140 2023-09-09 11:00:00
    Bootrom... Iceman/master/v4.16717 2023-06-26 13:10:45 
    OS........ Iceman/master/v4.16717 2023-06-26 13:10:45 
    Target.... PM3 GENERIC


[!] ⚠️   --> ARM firmware does not match the source at the time the client was compiled
[!] ⚠️   --> Make sure to flash a correct and up-to-date version

I think that the guide I need is found linked in the post, but the link is broken.

Any ideas where I should go from here?

Try this one

Thank you.

I have it working in that I can write to a card and read from a card but I get no detection when using the lf em 410x watch.

I figured that the Iceman firmware being out of sync with PM3 was maybe the problem. All I want to do is try updating the firmware if it is indeed out of date.

Early days so I’m find the terminology a little confusing!

Okay, so from what I can see here.
Your client on the mac is the latest stable release but your proxmark bootloader and firmware are not.
Connect the pm to your mac, holding it’s button so it goes dfu mode.
First do pm3-flash-bootrom, after this is done, reconnect it again(in dfu mode) and do pm3-flash-fullimage. Afterwards start the client and all 3 versions should be the same.
That should address the issue you’re experiencing.

1 Like

Thanks!

[+] Flashing...
[+] Writing segments for file: /usr/local/Cellar/proxmark3/4.17140/bin/../share/proxmark3/firmware/fullimage.elf
[+]  0x00102000..0x001559db [0x539dc / 669 blocks]
...................................................................
        @@@  @@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@   @@@@@@  @@@  @@@
        @@! !@@      @@!      @@! @@! @@! @@!  @@@ @@!@!@@@
        !!@ !@!      @!!!:!   @!! !!@ @!@ @!@!@!@! @!@@!!@!
        !!: :!!      !!:      !!:     !!: !!:  !!! !!:  !!!
        :    :: :: : : :: :::  :      :    :   : : ::    : 
        .    .. .. . . .. ...  .      .    .   . . ..    . 
...................................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
............................ ok

[+] All done

[=] Have a nice day!

That all went smoothly. When I use lf search I get:

[usb] pm3 --> lf search

[=] NOTE: some demods output possible binary
[=] if it finds something that looks like a tag
[=] False Positives ARE possible
[=] 
[=] Checking for known tags...
[=] 
[!] ⚠️  Specify one authentication mode
[+] [H10301  ] HID H10301 26-bit                FC: 87  CN: 56950  parity ( ok )
[+] [ind26   ] Indala 26-bit                    FC: 1405  CN: 3702  parity ( ok )
[=] found 2 matching formats
[+] DemodBuffer:
[+] 1D555555555599AA9AA5A9A6

[=] raw: 000000000000000000afbced

[+] Valid HID Prox ID found!

[=] Couldn't identify a chipset

but lf em 410x watch just gets this:

` [**usb**] pm3 --> lf em 410x watch

[+] Watching for EM410x cards - place tag on Proxmark3 antenna

[=] Press <Enter> or pm3-button to abort simulation

[=] Done`

I see no response when presenting the card to the Proxmark3. What could i be doing wrong here?

Hey Ashs! Welcome to the community!

Looks like you’re reading an H10301 credential, then trying to read an em410x credential.

Those are different technologies. So, I’m going to ask this way. Are you changing the credential/tag between lf search and lf em 410x watch ? If not, I’d expect the response you received.

I haven’t tried a watch command yet, but can you try
lf hid watch
with the same tag/credential and tell me what it says?

1 Like

Yes! That works.

I’m not yet understanding this. What should I read?

Try the lf hid commands instead of the lf em 410x commands

1 Like

What outcome do you want? (as I’ve personally learned) RFID bits is a really large pool to jump into.

If you want to clone that card to your implant that’s already in place?
lf hid clone -w H10301 --fc 87 --cn 56950
with your new implant on the proxmark.

If you tell me what you want to do, I can better point you the way of success.

Thank you for your help.

I have a tag that reads as below:

[usb] pm3 --> lf search

[=] NOTE: some demods output possible binary
[=] if it finds something that looks like a tag
[=] False Positives ARE possible
[=] 
[=] Checking for known tags...
[=] 
[!] ⚠️  Specify one authentication mode
[+] EM 410x ID 010B937435
[+] EM410x ( RF/64 )
[=] -------- Possible de-scramble patterns ---------
[+] Unique TAG ID      : 80D0C3EAC
[=] HoneyWell IdentKey
[+]     DEZ 8          : 09663541
[+]     DEZ 10         : 0194212917
[+]     DEZ 5.5        : 02963.29749
[+]     DEZ 3.5A       : 001.29749
[+]     DEZ 3.5B       : 011.29749
[+]     DEZ 3.5C       : 147.29749
[+]     DEZ 14/IK2     : 00004489180213
[+]     DEZ 15/IK3     : 000553258659500
[+]     DEZ 20/ZK      : 08001300120902141012
[=] 
[+] Other              : 29749_147_09663541
[+] Pattern Paxton     : 27767349 [0x1A7B235]
[+] Pattern 1          : 7002652 [0x6ADA1C]
[+] Pattern Sebury     : 29749 19 1274933  [0x7435 0x13 0x137435]
[+] VD / ID            : 001 / 0194212917
[=] ------------------------------------------------

[+] Valid EM410x ID found!

This tag type works with both of the keypads on my garage doors and also our house alarm.

I want to add this same tag type to a home automation project that I have been working on, using an ESP32 and Wiegand reader.

Before getting my implant, I want to ascertain if I can achieve this.

I have a NExT implant ready to go and an xEM implant on the way.

Is this achievable?

The tech is compatiable, so as long a the readers can “see” the implant, you should be fine.

Just a quick note and question.

Are you planning to use your next either your garage or alarm, and the xEM for the other?
You could just enroll one implant to do both…

FYI
There was some testing done a little while ago, comparing the xEM to the NExT.
In theory, the xEM should perform exactly the same as the NExT, however, during that test, the xEM performed just slightly better.
So if your reader is struggling to read the NExT, the xEM MIGHT be the better option

1 Like

LINK

1 Like

Thank you.

Yes, just one implant to do them all.

1 Like