Perhaps you can, i think you only need NAND access.Wait, I thought that even with Sighax, you still wouldn't be able to get CFW if you are on 11.3.
Perhaps you can, i think you only need NAND access.Wait, I thought that even with Sighax, you still wouldn't be able to get CFW if you are on 11.3.
I do remember hearing something about that.Perhaps you can, i think you only need NAND access.
I do remember hearing something about that.
So if have a stock 11.3 3DS without a NAND backup, your out of luck.
If you have an 11.3 3DS with a NAND backup, its "possible."
Right?
The reason why I thought we couldn't install Sighax on 11.3 was because of a quote from the "What the heck is SigHax???" part of the SigHax discussion thread...Sighax (presumably) modifies NAND directly, so a NAND dump is not required. To answer your previous question, Sighax can install CFW on any firmware, from now until Nintendo releases a new version of the 3DS with revised hardware to block the exploit. Of course, we need a way to run SafeSighaxInstaller in the first place, which would probably be done with DSiWareHaxx or an ARM9 exploit.
The reason why I thought we couldn't install Sighax on 11.3 was because of a quote from the "What the heck is SigHax???" part of the SigHax discussion thread...
"So since there will be SigHax it is safe to Update past 11.X when Nintendo releases System Updates then?
No. if you haven't installed arm9loaderhax to your 3DS System do NOT UPDATE past 11.2"
Okay, I see where your coming from.I would assume that's only because it's easier to install Sighax with A9LH already installed. Updating to 11.3 without A9LH, and thus removing any possibility of easily obtaining ARM9 access, makes installing something that requires ARM9 a whole lot more difficult.
But we can't use Sighax to sign or install anything without installing Sighax first; hence SafeSighaxInstaller. Sighax is an ARM9 payload, not a computer program.@kittensauce (afaik) sighax will let us sign our own firmware so we can install it with hardmod. Safesighaxinstaller will just make it easier
You are wrong on so many levels. SigHax won't sign anything, it'll skip the signature checking on boot to allow us to run unsigned code before the OTP is disabled, thus not needing to downgrade to 2.1 anymore to install CFW. SigHax is also not a payload it's an bootrom exploit, it's going to be installed directly to the NAND.But we can't use Sighax to sign or install anything without installing Sighax first; hence SafeSighaxInstaller. Sighax is an ARM9 payload, not a computer program.
You are wrong on so many levels. SigHax won't sign anything, it'll skip the signature checking on boot to allow us to run unsigned code before the OTP is disabled, thus not needing to downgrade to 2.1 anymore to install CFW. SigHax is also not a payload it's an bootrom exploit, it's going to be installed directly to the NAND.
Also for people on 11.3, as I understand it you won't need A9LH to install SigHax. You will need either a hardmod or a second 3DS with CFW and DSiWareHax(not to downgrade) for NAND R/W access. Having A9LH will only make it easier to install.
For more information about SigHax go here... https://gbatemp.net/threads/sighax-updates-and-discussion-thread.454821/
Yeah, there's a lot of misconceptions with SigHax. That's why I posted the link, everything we know of SigHax at this time is in that thread.This is what i was trying to say.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It doesn't really skip the signature checking; instead, it "tricks" it into believing that everything is signed - despite that (of course) not being the case. As the thread you linked states, Sighax creates a signature that compares itself with itself (thus, all code has a "valid" signature).You are wrong on so many levels. SigHax won't sign anything, it'll skip the signature checking on boot to allow us to run unsigned code before the OTP is disabled, thus not needing to downgrade to 2.1 anymore to install CFW. SigHax is also not a payload it's an bootrom exploit, it's going to be installed directly to the NAND.
lol I guess it depends on how you define "so many levels", in my opinion four levels of wrong is a pretty dramatic failure to understand the topic at hand...By the way, I wouldn't say I was wrong on "so many" levels. Maybe one or two, but definitely not more that four.