I still see,after analyzing a bit more,that the packet length is not correct.And I could still be wrong at that,of course.
Basically,a chained packet is a packet which length is larger than 188 bytes,so a bit is set to denotes the rest of payload comes in the next packet.
Now,and without getting deep into this,this packets have more than one table inside the same packet,and without a correct payload length would make it impossible to parse it correctly.
And there should be a bit to denote that more than one table is present in the packet.
Where is it?...anybody?
And which service used this before for Oscam to be ready for it by now?
Unless the notion of "latest powervu" you refer to is the provider making their receivers ready for this.(and not Oscam,as I thought you said).
Multiple CA types you have to explain better.
You mean multiple CA id's in same packet? why would they do that? they could simply use same CA id and set a flag for the next payload in the same packet to be decrypted differently.
I wish you could explain better.
Basically,a chained packet is a packet which length is larger than 188 bytes,so a bit is set to denotes the rest of payload comes in the next packet.
Now,and without getting deep into this,this packets have more than one table inside the same packet,and without a correct payload length would make it impossible to parse it correctly.
And there should be a bit to denote that more than one table is present in the packet.
Where is it?...anybody?
And which service used this before for Oscam to be ready for it by now?
Unless the notion of "latest powervu" you refer to is the provider making their receivers ready for this.(and not Oscam,as I thought you said).
Multiple CA types you have to explain better.
You mean multiple CA id's in same packet? why would they do that? they could simply use same CA id and set a flag for the next payload in the same packet to be decrypted differently.
I wish you could explain better.
