Proxmark3 community

raptor

Contributor

Registered: 2016-11-17

Posts: 27

What makes proxmark3 not a good cloner compared to cheap alternatives

Hey all

New here!

Trying to learn and reading the github wiki and more.

As i understand it, proxmark3 is not really a good cloner compared to something like cheap chinese aliexpress alternatives.

Why is this?

I know proxmark3 is one of the best readers, (hackers?), and definitely simulator.

As i see it, it should outclass cheap chinese alternatives.

jramb0

Contributor

Registered: 2016-11-07

Posts: 25

Re: What makes proxmark3 not a good cloner compared to cheap alternatives

It does outclass the Chinese alternatives... to my knowledge.

But it requires a bit more work than the simple 125khz copier that you can buy from aliexpress where you press read and then copy.

raptor

Contributor

Registered: 2016-11-17

Posts: 27

Re: What makes proxmark3 not a good cloner compared to cheap alternatives

Thanks

I got it from this Conference video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xz5HgOL_Gc

From 04:10

He says the proxmark3 is not as good as alternatives at cloning.

I'm just trying to understand the limits of the proxmark3.

iceman

Administrator

Registered: 2013-04-25

Posts: 9,538

Website

Re: What makes proxmark3 not a good cloner compared to cheap alternatives

Well that particular video is from april 2014,  and a lot of changes have been added since.
LF part was remade quite a lot and is now good.  More "systems" / "formats" with easy sim/clone to t55x7 is there.

raptor

Contributor

Registered: 2016-11-17

Posts: 27

Re: What makes proxmark3 not a good cloner compared to cheap alternatives

Thanks bud!

I was more chocked of what i heard since i thought proxmark3 was the reference
hah

Last edited by raptor (2016-11-18 11:59:20)

marshmellow

Contributor

From: US

Registered: 2013-06-10

Posts: 2,302

Re: What makes proxmark3 not a good cloner compared to cheap alternatives

the PM3 can handle a lot more types of cards than typical cloners.  however, it is not designed for cloning, so it may take a few steps and a bit of know-how to accomplish.  (it is capable just it isn't simplified for that use case.) 

but the code is open source so you can adjust it to do as you like.

also note the pm3 is quite old in technology standards (over 9 years old) so it does have some limitations, but there is not a better multi-purpose rfid tool.

raptor

Contributor

Registered: 2016-11-17

Posts: 27

Re: What makes proxmark3 not a good cloner compared to cheap alternatives

Hey Marshmellow

Thanks for the response.

I haven't received my pm3 but i'm a little curious about this response.

also note the pm3 is quite old in technology standards (over 9 years old) so it does have some limitations, but there is not a better multi-purpose rfid tool.

What would those limitations be? Maybe i will understand more when i receive mine.
Is anyone working on pm4 ?

marshmellow

Contributor

From: US

Registered: 2013-06-10

Posts: 2,302

Re: What makes proxmark3 not a good cloner compared to cheap alternatives

arm memory is one, though with piwi's compression addition it is less of an issue for now.

maximum bitrate supported (RF section) appears to be currently limited. due to speed of the crystals?  I'd have to look around for what that max is currently but i know newer cards and even some iclass standards can communicate faster than the pm3 currently can support.  (though most readers support multiple bitrates to accept older tags)

there are limited rf filters (on purpose) making some signals difficult to cleanly read.  (but once we get deep into the hardware details i only know what i've been told...)

one push button is really not enough if you really want to utilize a good offline mode, and depending on the model you purchase, no battery port also makes this difficult.