http://www.ktemkin.com/faq-fusee-gelee/

Kate has collected and answered the most common questions she's gotten regarding Fusée Gelée. Most notably she explains the three "types" of FG hacks, software, hardware (temporary) and hardware (permanent).

Enjoy!

Kate herself responded to this thread on page 26, thanks Kate!

There's a lot more here than I can easily respond to, so apologies if I miss posts or gloss over points.



This is correct-- while there likely will be software chains around for these things in the future, I don't see them as coming along as quickly as f-g. We don't have a non-coldboot exploit chain at all for 5.0.0-- and we haven't looked yet, as we've had other things to focus on and coldboot works. We do have one for 4.1.0, but it's centered around a couple of exploits that we don't want to burn-- we're hoping to use them to get an opportunity to poke around inside T214/Mariko.



I don't view you as particularly hostile, no. I don't know if challenge is generally a good thing-- sometimes you do have to accept that other people have different ethics or viewpoints from yourself and let that pass, especially if they're just doing stuff for fun-- but I don't view your post as hostile.



Jamais Vu (1.0.0 TrustZone hack) isn't my bug, but has been written up, and is just awaiting someone with the skills to have time to do a public interpretation. Déjà Vu is currently centered around the exploit I mentioned above, and we definitely want to hold onto that for as long as it's applicable. It's entirely a Switch bug, too, so I don't see it as being something that needs responsible disclosure.



For Déjà Vu, absolutely. (explained in last quote)



I don't agree that things like tweeting are ego. This is something I work on because I find it a lot of fun to hack on things, and there's definitely an aspect in which it makes me happy when seeing the results of things makes other people happy. There's also an aspect in which I hope that showing these things are possible inspires people to want to learn e.g. reverse engineering. This stuff is cool; and I want to share the excitement with others and lift them up as much as I can.

You don't have to believe me on that or like that that's my goal. I won't hold it against you if you don't.



I honestly support people updating when it makes sense; and I recognize that there's a conflict between holding back information and enabling others to make reasonable decisions about that. I don't like or feel good about secrecy, and I know it has implications. I've tried to be as clear as I can about the costs regarding updating without crossing the line into giving things away.



I think we've been pretty clear that 4.1.0 will eventually see a non-coldboot, software-only exploit with the same level of power. That's actually been posted on the ReSwitched Discord's FAQ for months, but I know the message gets skewed as its gets communicated over to other places. That's part of why I'm here, now-- I want to help clear things up.

The interactions between the operating system and the bootloader-- say on reboot-- are actually fairly limited; and knowing what any of them are is enough to point people at the particular section of bootrom that's vulnerable. That's why I'm not commenting on Fusée Gelée and how it relates to software-only solutions right now. I have said e.g. above that since there's no public way of getting the privileges necessary to run things, 4.1.0 isn't going to see a pure software solution that the public can use at the time that f-g is released. Software exploits will likely come in time; and it's possible we'll come up with things that are even easier than f-g.



I'm not sure if they'll take it seriously enough. I don't know how they are internally-- but I can't just assume they'll fail to do anything and skip disclosure. Honestly, I don't think a "security advisory" is really a bad thing, either-- there are definitely applications of Tegra chips that I and/or the public don't know about. If giving NVIDIA notice gives them time to explain exactly what's dangerous and allow their customers to remove and replace units from places where the vulnerability can cause harm, I consider that a win, and well worth delaying some public switch hacks by a few months.

I'll also say that my fear that vendors won't take the vulnerability seriously is a huge reason I'm so keen to get things out there-- and why I provided a date after which I'll tell the public what's going on that I've said was non-negotiable. I want to make sure this doesn't get hidden, and that people understand exactly what f-g can and can't accomplish, to minimize FUD while also letting people understand the actual risks are associated with using a vulnerable device.



It changes this from an exploit that's going to be usable before the affected people know it's a thing to something that people may have a chance to react to. Making the vulnerability public without disclosure really increases the odds someone is capable of using it to do bad.

I didn't really give NVIDIA a chance to sell-off stock; though. I've said publicly multiple times that there are bugs in Tegra processors well before NVIDIA reached out to me seeking disclosure. If anything, I think telling the public that these vulnerabilities exist while pursuing disclosure helps developers interested in using Tegra chips in the future ask the right question.



I've already said that while pure-software stuff is doable on 4.1.0; it'll be a wait. As far as I'm remembering, the only part of the chain that could require multiple tries to work is PegaSwitch, which is our browser-based entry point, and I haven't even tried the browser entry point that'll eventually be public to see how reliable it is. SciresM did the work to get our non-coldboot exploit working on 4.1.0; not me.



Yeah, that's hard-- especially as everyone has a different view as to how inconvenient things are. I don't know of a way to communicate this better without more details.

Incidentally, the 'inconvenience' verbiage came from SciresM and I discussing our respective views on updating. I think SciresM is more towards the opinion that people should hold back more often, where I'm more of the opinion that updating can be a good and reasonable option sometimes. The way we wound up phrasing things is a compromise between views.



(I'm going to assume this meant "on the hacking side". If not I'm not sure what hacking site you're referring to.)

Updating to latest just closes the possibility of using software exploits launched from Horizon, which can make setup more difficult. I know you'd like to know how much, but I unfortunately don't have a good way of qualifying that. As I've mentioned, if you're suffering from not being able to use your 3.0.1+ Switch, you probably do want to upgrade and just risk things being more inconvenient in the future. Worst comes to worst, if you decide you can't tolerate the inconvenience, you upgrade and then wind up having to figure out a modchip.

The downgrade protection fuses literally mean nothing to a system with f-g, which can entirely skip the downgrade check. Incidentally, SciresM actually accidentally bricked one of his systems in a way such that it was always failing the downgrade checks, and he's been able to use f-g to get that system up and running again.



I don't think that's clear at all, nor do I want to confirm or deny this. Sorry.



I think you're making a bunch of assumptions here, and that's maybe not a great idea. I'm not saying you're necessarily right or wrong; just that I don't think your assumptions are founded.



I don't think this contradicts. This is talking about vulnerabilities that aren't f-g; not because f-g doesn't work on 4.1.0, but because it's possible we may come up with vulnerabilities that are even nicer on 4.1.0 in the future.



I'm being as clear as I feel I can, and adding clarifications e.g. here where I think it helps. There will be different names for the the ways you can use f-g eventually; and I'll be fully open about everything once the summer rolls around and I'm not putting the disclosure timeline in jeopardy.



I know and have said about that this "bring your own exploit" business makes development exclusive, and that's exclusionary and I really don't like it-- I just don't see a way around it. I would love to get more developers and more perspective, and that's why my release date for f-g is tied to my disclosure timeline and not in particular to Atmosphère's release.




I've tried to point out approximately what the difficulty would be for some of the options to kind of provide this, but this is a hard thing to accomplish. In this case, providing details that are more specific really points a finger at vulnerability details, so there's not much I'm comfortable sharing. I've shared what I could-- as a data point, some of the other teams have outright stated that they think I've shared too much already and made things obvious. I don't agree or necessarily care about their opinons, but c'est la vie.



Well, this isn't the case. This has been disclosed to Nintendo, too-- as NVIDIA shares their vulnerability findings with downstream customers. It's more general malicious actors that I'd be worried about.



See above-- but I don't think I'd advise specifically updating to 4.1.0 unless that gives you enough access to the games you want.



I'm also super glad that we can do a lot of our work in the open. I hope there's a lot more of it in the future-- and I'd love to stream some of it.



I find the requirement disheartening as well, but I think this is the right way to do things, for now. I've explained my rationale above; feel free to ask questions.



I'm not sure why people are against communication, here. There were definite benefits to talking about f-g in the first place; including that it demonstrates that Tegra chips are vulnerable-- which hopefully influences buying decisions in the future and puts pressure on NVIDIA to seek as much of a fix as they can. After that there seemed to be definitely benefits to talking about more details, even in the limited sense that I'm able to. I've tried to give people more information than the nothing they would have had so they could have more of an idea whether it's be a good idea to e.g. pre-order a modchip or update their system. I know it can be frustrating to not get full disclosure, and that more information would help people to make a better or more conclusive decision, but full disclosure isn't an option until this summer. I don't think that's a reason to hold back information.



I don't have specific answers to your questions, unfortunately-- but I think it sounds like the main purpose of this Switch is as a gaming device and maybe you should upgrade and enjoy playing games with your son.



I don't think that asking for clarification is criticism. It might be rude to push me to answer something I said I wouldn't, but I don't think there's harm in answer.



I don't think I've said anything about opening the console or not. See above for my views on updating?



I'm not sure where you got this impression, or why you're confident about things enough to claim you know about the internal values or working of ReSwitched. This is also easily disprovable just from public information--Hedgeberg has tested out f-g on stream. I don't see it as great opsec to enumerate how many people have access to the vulnerability, but we've long had a policy of only giving exploit details to those who actually want to know them and are in a position where they can use them to help. This is a basic security precaution and not about trust.

I'm actually not sure how this is relevant to the broader discussion. Based on your post history, I can tell that you strongly support TX and the option they're providing, and you're welcome to that, but I think throwing around generic unfounded criticism of RS doesn't do much good and distracts from me answering community questions.



I don't think they're obviously more convenient, as they exist right now. They're both inherently however-tethered-you-consider-PegaSwitch, take a bunch of time to run, and rely on a pegaswitch entry point.



That's not correct-- everyone on a current hardware revision will be able to install and use CFW the day it's released, if they're willing to put in the effort and potentially take on some minor risk.



I'm actually not sure what you mean by this entire post? Sorry about that-- I'd love to address your ideas, but unfortunately I can't figure out your meaning.



That was about me having fun by trying to see if a DIY, cheap modchip option is reasonable. It turns out it is. As you've noted, it's not necessary on any firmware. I just really like the idea that the open exchange of knowledge -- especially when profit's not a motive -- can result in creation of neat options for the community. ^-^



Yep; that's exactly what it means.



I don't think this has been at all implied-- and you'd be hard pressed to find a way to make a solder-less Arduino option that even remotely fits in the Switch case.

I should also clarify that the DIY option isn't solderless.

If you have or are going to get the game anyway, you can. Those versions are pretty much interchangeable in the long-term.



Yep-- and it's possible at some point that we'll allow you to install Fake News without Puyo using f-g/Atmosphère. The original plan was to release Atmosphère for 1.0.0 first while we tried to figure out how to deal with Fusée Gelée, but we actually wound up with a disclosure schedule that was faster than we'd thought.

 

[subcon959]

Regarding the "responsible disclosure", it was also good to know, made me think probably of the self-driving Tesla computers, but sure there are a lot of Tegra devices out there, perhaps those also suffer from the bug.

I don't want to fall on the opposite side of this because I really am not, but it does seem to me that it only sounds good on the face of it and if you actually think deeper then it doesn't make much sense. The delay in responsible disclosure is typically so the vulnerability may be mitigated via a software patch. That simply isn't possible in this case, and therefore any significant delay after disclosure does precisely nothing. Whether it's released now or months from now, the number of affected devices will not decrease.

 

[Brawl345]

I will say that pure-software implementations of Fusée Gelée exist, but they're some of the ones I'm least excited about, especially on higher firmwares.

This is confusing :/ Thought this would be a software-only solution? Post doesn't really answer any questions, just confuses more...

 

[Onibi]

I disagree, it turned out to be a pretty interesting read.

Minor collection of conventional wisdom.

Regarding the "responsible disclosure", it was also good to know, made me think probably of the self-driving Tesla computers, but sure there are a lot of Tegra devices out there, perhaps those also suffer from the bug.

No.
1) Tegra seems to power the media center
2) You need access to the board ... (many cars can be affected by direct access)
3) You think they are going to recall them? Nothing is ever gonna happen for HW exploits. If anything, after a release and potential outcry. Seen this: https://amdflaws.com/ ?

And specially about the hack, it is now quite clear that no matter what version of firmware you have, you can still pull it off without even soldering anything, that is to said, quite easily.

Jup. That's true. That makes not releasing it, but a long-winded FAQ even more annoying.

I think you probably just can't enjoy reading. Or perhaps you are an unhappy person... I mean, for the unnecessary complaining about the length of a good structured text that actually is not that long.

No I am annoyed by the hold-back. I would like to play with the device myself and not get a CFW served while bowing to the people doing it (by holding back any other developer behind an exploit wall).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I don't want to fall on the opposite side of this because I really am not, but it does seem to me that it only sounds good on the face of it and if you actually think deeper then it doesn't make much sense. The delay in responsible disclosure is typically so the vulnerability may be mitigated via a software patch. That simply isn't possible in this case, and therefore any significant delay after disclosure does precisely nothing. Whether it's released now or months from now, the number of affected devices will not decrease.

Exactly.

 

[brickmii82]

Kinda looking forward to the tweezer jumping hardware hack lol. It’ll be a thrill like the first time I did a kamikaze on a D4S drive. I killed it. Second one went fine though lol.

 

[Onibi]

This is confusing :/ Thought this would be a software-only solution? Post doesn't really answer any questions, just confuses more...

Jap not very clearly expressed.
Basically, what they hide behind this ridiculous umbrella name is an ability to run code in the highest privilege level and thus flash yourself into the boot chain / early software stack.

Think of them as completely different. The HW mod will do it likely via glitching / recovery while the software solution will only work for certain FWs and use multiple exploits in multiple security levels to gain that access (somewhat different on each FW). That is also why on 5.1.0 this is currently not possible. Because it will require new exploits. At that point a HW mod may just be easier to pull of.

 

[sarkwalvein]

I don't want to fall on the opposite side of this because I really am not, but it does seem to me that it only sounds good on the face of it and if you actually think deeper then it doesn't make much sense. The delay in responsible disclosure is typically so the vulnerability may be mitigated via a software patch. That simply isn't possible in this case, and therefore any significant delay after disclosure does precisely nothing. Whether it's released now or months from now, the number of affected devices will not decrease.

But the companies will have time to take the appropriate measures to diminish the impact.

No. 1) Tegra seems to power the media center 2) You need access to the board ... (many cars can be affected by direct access) 3) You think they are going to recall them? Nothing is ever gonna happen for HW exploits. If anything until a release and potential outcry. Seen this: https://amdflaws.com/ ?

Yes, I think it gives them the possibility to do a recall if they think it is required. Will they do it or not? That doesn't matter, they have the option and time window to take measures.

No I am annoyed by the hold-back. I would like to play with the device myself and not get a CFW served while bowing to the people doing it (by holding back any other developer behind an exploit wall).

I understand that. Yes it is annoying to wait, but well, life goes on, there are many other things to do in the meanwhile. Of course your mileage may vary, but I don't see this as urgent at all. They can release or not (but they are saying they will anyway), otherwise some other group will release something eventually, or perhaps not. I don't think it really matters, if it is about hacking things or creating software there are many other devices where one can invest their time in the meanwhile. No urgency really.

 

[leon315]

I’m imagining it in French, said by Sophie Marceau in her mid 20’s....

wow, i googled her, she's indeed a very attractive and elegant lady, but my favourite French lady is definitely Alizée

 

[bixxewoscht]

Nice FAQ, only thing I wanna know now is if the more inconvinient way to CFW on higher FWs is once or after every boot. If you only have to do it once its no problem at all if you ask me.

 

[thekarter104]

Yeah, time to play Melée

 

[brickmii82]

wow, i googled her, she's indeed a very attractive and elegant lady, but my favourite French lady is definitely Alizée

Googled, and fap banked as well

I’m a terrible misogynistic pig....

 

[Onibi]

But the companies will have time to take the appropriate measures to diminish the impact.

Yes, I think it gives them the possibility to do a recall if they think it is required. Will they do it or not? That doesn't matter, they have the option and time window to take measures.

This exploit likely was disclosed by failoverflow last year. Even if not, it has been some time now since the disclosure. I tried to make the point multiple times now: Software and Hardware are different. If a hardware flaw is not fixable, waiting does nothing good for the consumer. The more you wait, the more devices will be sold. Your "responsible" disclosure becomes unresponsible because you favored a process over results. It would be better to release as early as possible to create pressure. What this in the end protects is nvidia sales and stock. Not customers of them (e.g. tesla) or end-users. Because they will keep on selling affected devices. This is the reason google has such short exploit disclosure windows (even for SW). Because companies need to be forced to change by pressure.

I understand that. Yes it is annoying to wait, but well, life goes on, there are many other things to do in the meanwhile. Of course your mileage may vary, but I don't see this as urgent at all. They can release or not (but they are saying they will anyway), otherwise some other group will release something eventually, or perhaps not. I don't think it really matters, if it is about hacking things or creating software there are many other devices where one can invest their time in the meanwhile. No urgency really.

True, but really no reason to withhold something either IMO. Other then a personal agenda. And that annoys me. If you want to be better then TX, great. Then please be social and release.
I agree with you in spirit thou. And if I would see a sense in any delay I would certainly approach it like you.

 

[subcon959]

This exploit likely was disclosed by failoverflow last year. Even if not, it has been some time now since the disclosure. I tried to make the point multiple times now: Software and Hardware are different. If a hardware flaw is not fixable, waiting does nothing good for the consumer. The more you wait, the more devices will be sold. Your "responsible" disclosure becomes unresponsible because you favored a process over results. It would be better to release as early as possible to create pressure. What this in the end protects is nvidia sales and stock. Not customers of them (e.g. tesla) or end-users. Because they will keep on selling affected devices. This is the reason google has such short exploit disclosure windows (even for SW). Because companies need to be forced to change by pressure.

..and we know that most tech people are logical thinkers by nature, and yet here we have this somewhat illogical practice, and therefore it's hard not to wonder if something other than ethics is driving it.

 

[notimp]

I disagree, it turned out to be a pretty interesting read.

Regarding the "responsible disclosure", it was also good to know, made me think probably of the self-driving Tesla computers, but sure there are a lot of Tegra devices out there, perhaps those also suffer from the bug.

And specially about the hack, it is now quite clear that no matter what version of firmware you have, you can still pull it off without even soldering anything, that is to said, quite easily.

I think you probably just can't enjoy reading. Or perhaps you are an unhappy person... I mean, for the unnecessary complaining about the length of a good structured text that actually is not that long.

Completely out of line, dumb as a rock, slant.

Something made me think of Tesla, not sure why, but other people probably do better thinking.... (They don't successfuly argue for responsible disclosure on non software patchable silicon though -- here is some logic for you. Responsible disclosure was dreamt up as a method so companies would be incentiviced to fix things. If they cant - without "ruining the company" (recalls are very expensive, they are never put into action for moral considerations) responsible disclosure isn't good for anything. In practice its seldomly more than a whitehats pipedream to begin with. Still its the only method we got to make companies fix software flaws, at all...

Its basically an extortion racket that claims "we gave you time to do something - so if you didn't do anything, and something happens - the public rage will be upon you" - which in practice never works, because the public never seems to notice...).

"Can be done without soldering", doesnt mean "can be done without opening the device, and sticking something in it though, so be exact with your language.

Also - I enjoy reading, and this FAQ reads like a "yeah - we probably should go for modchips - everyone, but wait for ours (open sourced, so no profit incentive), they will be cheaper and more "responsible"" announcement to steal thunder from underneath the ongoing TX preordering window. (edit: Dont preorder. As a general rule. In life.)

If anything, this reads like some severe backpaddling... as in "don't bank on things being readily usable without hardware modification". At which point, people will go with trusted brands. I probably won't, but I dont read any of this as a "race against TX" can be shelved. I read this as "neither party on the "ethical"" front, is quite sure yet which method to actually go with, so they are trying to cover all fronts. ("Our thing can be usefull for every method!" is entirely useless, If you don't focus in on "ok, but which one people will want to actually use".

("We cant tell you yet, because responsible dis...")

"Do not update!" didn't quite work out, as their warcry, didn't it?

edit: One more thing. People usually dont care if they have to buy a 7 USD plus shipping "clamp", or a 70 USD modchip treatment, they care about if they have to find a guy that does that stuff for them, or if they can press a few buttons and everything works. As long as you can make sure that there are not only one or two vendors who are able to provide the "tools", there will be no price gauging - on a level where you could argue, that some people might have to think twice to afford it. Cost of parts and even ip is minimal to begin with, what you are paying most for is for the time of someone to do the hardware mod and not ruin your console in the process. Also all laughing about tiny soldering guy aside, people will happily pay for that, none of them opens up their devices to learn stuff, or out of curiosity to see how things work. (As a "by the numbers" argument (= oversimplification).)

 

[chirogan]

I don't want to fall on the opposite side of this because I really am not, but it does seem to me that it only sounds good on the face of it and if you actually think deeper then it doesn't make much sense. The delay in responsible disclosure is typically so the vulnerability may be mitigated via a software patch. That simply isn't possible in this case, and therefore any significant delay after disclosure does precisely nothing. Whether it's released now or months from now, the number of affected devices will not decrease.

The purpose of the delay is to ensure that NVIDIA and other related companies have decent amount of time to pose a remedy for the exploit discovered for the said chips. Switch isn't the only device affected.

this is done to ensure that the systems using this chips are not prone to illegal attacks/exploits made by unauthorized persons who gets their hand on the said exploit. once the necessary actions from the companies has been made, we will see Fusee Gelee codes in the open source world.

 

[smf]

I don't want to fall on the opposite side of this because I really am not, but it does seem to me that it only sounds good on the face of it and if you actually think deeper then it doesn't make much sense. The delay in responsible disclosure is typically so the vulnerability may be mitigated via a software patch. That simply isn't possible in this case, and therefore any significant delay after disclosure does precisely nothing. Whether it's released now or months from now, the number of affected devices will not decrease.

It doesn't need to sound logical to foaming mouth switch owners, responsible disclosure is about sounding logical to non technical lawyers.

What I want to know is how sure everyone is that the exploits haven't been patched already, the FAQ says

"Assuming you have the switch in your hands at the time this is posted-- "

But if you just bought one and Nintendo were told months ago, then they may have already applied fixes to the bootrom at the factory.

Similar to bootmii as boot2 released in October 2008

"Since boot1 is untouchable once the Wii leaves the factory, every current Wii in existence (as far as we know) is and forever will be vulnerable to this bug, which lets us install a fakesigned boot2 of our choice."

But nintendo had fixed it in the 1st quarter of 2008.

Holding onto the exploit means that people have no way of knowing if their console is going to be exploitable. Which is frustrating & nothing to do with patience. "Please be patient as we make you lose the chance of running CFW".

 

[chirogan]

It doesn't need to sound logical to foaming mouth switch owners, responsible disclosure is about sounding logical to non technical lawyers.

What I want to know is how sure everyone is that the exploits haven't been patched already, the FAQ says

"Assuming you have the switch in your hands at the time this is posted-- "

But if you just bought one and Nintendo were told months ago, then they may already fixed the bootrom at the factory.

She meant to say that all the Switch versions up to this date has this bug. but since she has already disclosed the bug to NVIDIA, from this day forward the new batches will be patched and you could possibly get a patched version of the switch when you buy a switch in the coming months.

 

[Onibi]

The purpose of the delay is to ensure that NVIDIA and other related companies have decent amount of time to pose a remedy for the exploit discovered for the said chips. Switch isn't the only device affected.

this is done to ensure that the systems using this chips are not prone to illegal attacks/exploits made by unauthorized persons who gets their hand on the said exploit. once the necessary actions from the companies has been made, we will see Fusee Gelee codes in the open source world.

Sorry, but still: No.

Explain to me how this works?

If you dance a polka in the meantime and then go public, or just go public, the amount of chips with flaws are not affected, because that entirely depends on how fast nvidia is changing the chips they release. Your release does not alter the devices already sold, and if anything, going pubic will make them change the chips they print faster.

(EDIT: Removed stupid example)

 

[brickmii82]

(EDIT: Removed stupid example)

But it was so.... XXX

 

[Onibi]

But it was so.... XXX

It had a usecase too. Basically implying that nvidia will give no crap whatsoever about the flaw for printing any amount of chips. But that's a different issue. Somehow I got mixed up. Need a coffee ... And really should do some work ...

Continue please, nothing to see

 

[netovsk]

Good FAQ. The solderless solution reminds me of when I used kafluke's software to host the Wii U exploit.

Now to get a 64gb SD and tri-wing screwdriver just in case.