feat: add passive support for GV5121/GV5122/GV5123/GV5125/GV5126 #89
Conversation
| key = time_ms + bytes(12) | ||
| try: | ||
| decrypted = decrypt_data(key, enc_data) | ||
| except ValueError: | ||
| _LOGGER.warning("Failed to decrypt H512x: %s", hex(data)) | ||
| return | ||
| model_id = decrypted[2] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@gh2o model_id is a guess here. It seems to hold up as I bought multiple of the same device to confirm it, but it would be great if you had some insight here since I feel like I'm poking around in the dark with this one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I only have the H5122 (single button), and the FW appears to hard-code decrypted[0/1/2/3] so I'm not entirely sure what the meaning of these bytes are.
One possible hint though is that the FW code does different operations to assign to those bytes. To summarize, it does something like this:
decrypted[0] = ord('1') - 0x30
decrypted[1] = ord('5') - 0x30
decrypted[2] = 8
decrypted[3] = 2If I had to venture a wild guess, the meaning of the numbers would be:
decrypted[0]= version (major)decrypted[1]= version (minor)decrypted[2]= model IDdecrypted[3]= number of data bytes following this byte
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it make sense to do
"GV5121" in local_name and model_id == 3
instead of or so that if this invariant breaks in the future, we can catch it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The local name is empty when the scanner is passive
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I bought another motion sensor and 2 button remote. This pattern held true so I think we are ok here at least for now
A lot of this is a guess