Hacking Emunand vs Sysnand A9LH

[Hayleia]

People need to learn not being so scared, lol. Touching your sysNAND's not gonna kill it.

We're among a9lh users here, go tell that to menuhax users
JK

That's a terrible way to think about things lol.
Our planet would be in a terrible condition if more people thought like that.

Of course you shouldn't apply this to everything in life. But here, it's more "it ain't late in terms of functionalities so don't change it".

People telling you about Nintendo ever breaking your 3DS, not possible. Certain CFWs block FIRM1/FIRM0, so an update will never be able to touch it.
"But what about when NATIVE_FIRM gets updated?" You'll get the same result as if you were running emuNAND. Your NAND will not boot until CFW devs update it to work with the latest FIRM. If you're feeling impatient, flash an older NAND backup, almost the same way you'd do on emuNAND.

Yes and no. Because the NAND restoration as a very low percentage of failing, but if it does fail while you're (the "you" isn't you but the user, I just say "you" because it's easier to write than "the user" everytime) restoring sysNAND and a9lh (or if you flash weird stuff because you're not the smartest person on Earth), you're done. While if you never touch your sysNAND once a9lh works, even without being scared of Nintendo and stuff, you avoid every problem. Even in the case all your backups are corrupted and your emuNAND is corrupted (because you made a lot of dumb choices in life ), you can create a new one. But you can't create a new sysNAND.

So yeah, even in the case of shit happening due to the user's fault (not Nintendo's, not CFW authors, but the user), nothing bad can happen as long as it is in emuNAND. So of course, "don't be dumb" is a valid argument, but "no need to avoid being dumb when I can just be safe" is a better one to me

 

[Gcentrex]

I'm using AuReiNand as CFW and I know what you are referring to...but what if, someday, Nintendo find a way to overpass the protection of overwriting the NATIVE_FIRM with an update?

On the same note, what if Nintendo found a way to bypass emuNAND redirection, so that update your installing is flashed to sysNAND instead

Samething your saying really

 

[Mistie]

Well...Yes, it isn't an advantage

Yes, but if the NATIVE_FIRM is updated while you are on emuNand you are always able to reinject an emuNand backup with decrypt9 in 5-10 minutes and continue to play (only offline) with your cias. If the same thing happens while you are on sysNand, you have to wait until a new exploit will be found (months-if not years).

Not true. Just reinject a backup just like you would on emuNAND

 

[Supster131]

We're among a9lh users here, go tell that to menuhax users
JK


Of course you shouldn't apply this to everything in life. But here, it's more "it ain't late in terms of functionalities so don't change it".


Yes and no. Because the NAND restoration as a very low percentage of failing, but if it does fail while you're (the "you" isn't you but the user, I just say "you" because it's easier to write than "the user" everytime) restoring sysNAND and a9lh (or if you flash weird stuff because you're not the smartest person on Earth), you're done. While if you never touch your sysNAND once a9lh works, even without being scared of Nintendo and stuff, you avoid every problem. Even in the case all your backups are corrupted and your emuNAND is corrupted (because you made a lot of dumb choices in life ), you can create a new one. But you can't create a new sysNAND.

So yeah, even in the case of shit happening due to the user's fault (not Nintendo's, not CFW authors, but the user), nothing bad can happen as long as it is in emuNAND. So of course, "don't be dumb" is a valid argument, but "no need to avoid being dumb when I can just be safe" is a better one to me

I mean, if you're "dumb" (the "you" isn't you but the user), then sure, stay on emuNAND. But if you know what you're doing, it shouldn't really matter what NAND you're using.

 

[Hayleia]

I mean, if you're "dumb" (the "you" isn't you but the user), then sure, stay on emuNAND. But if you know what you're doing, it shouldn't really matter what NAND you're using.

True story. But even though I understand there shouldn't be problems after switching NANDs, if I can even avoid non-existing problems, I still choose to be extra-safe if I don't lose anything in the non-process.

 

[ValouIka]

Emunand, safer and in case of nintendo pull an update who can erease A9LH (i don't know if it's possible)

 

[Manuel9181]

Don't update?

Don't you see this site filled with "can I update emuNAND to firmware x.x?" When a new firmware is released. More people are jumping towards sysNAND. So if someone with sysNAND updates and it's safe, then we'll update.

Also, it's not really worth Nintendo's time, they would have probably figured out if your using an emuNAND, but it's not worth their time. They'd rather patch out entry points for new users.

Kk, but perphaps a day you are particularly stupid (and outofluck) to update your sysNand without checking if it safe. Personally, I prefer to keep using my emuNand until switching to the sysNand will have some REAL benefits 'cause install gba games that are 8-16 mb only once, IMO, doesn't justifie the risk.
Said this, everyone is free to do whatever he wants with his things and in NOWAY I want to say that you are wrong and I am right (after the installation of a9lh I was tempted to proceed switching my Nands too )... We have just 2 different ways to approach the same thing

 

[Hayleia]

Said this, everyone is free to do whatever he wants with his things and in NOWAY I want to say that you are wrong and I am right (after the installation of a9lh I was tempted to proceed switching my Nands too )... We have just 2 different ways to approach the same thing

This. The extra-safety we get by staying on emuNAND is as useful and useless as saving space by installing VC once only. Then it's just a matter of where you feel the most comfortable.

 

[subcon959]

I feel like it's actually a huge step forwards to be able to safely use sysNAND rather than an emuNAND. It shows we have progressed to a point were things are getting safer and cleaner. Less bleeding edge.

I think it might be a bit too early to confidently say it's entirely safe yet. It's definitely still bleeding edge until more is known.

EDIT: BTW, I've hard-modded my 3DS but I still choose to use emuNAND because it's just easier to restore if tinkering goes wrong.

 

[Manuel9181]

On the same note, what if Nintendo found a way to bypass emuNAND redirection, so that update your installing is flashed to sysNAND instead
Samething your saying really

You will be done in both scenarios.

Not true. Just reinject a backup just like you would on emuNAND

As I've already written: How can you proceed to reinject your sysNand without Decrypt9 if not via an HardMod?
If the update overwrite the NATIVE_FIRM you can't launch decrypt9 at boot with a9hl. The emuNand isn't a valid option because you can't enter on it (your sysNand will be 10.X-1X.X). Decrypt9 can be used only on firmwares below 9.2 using HBL, while you will be 10.X - 1X.X

 

[Supster131]

You will be done in both scenarios.


As I've already written: How can you proceed to reinject your sysNand without Decrypt9 if not via an HardMod?
If the update overwrite the NATIVE_FIRM you can't launch decrypt9 at boot with a9hl. The emuNand isn't a valid option because you can't enter on it (your sysNand will be 10.X-1X.X). Decrypt9 can be used only on firmwares below 9.2 using HBL, while you will be 10.X - 1X.X

You don't get it, do you?

We aren't launching Decrypt9 through sysNAND, we're launching Decrypt9 before sysNAND boots up! This is why people are saying you can brick with A9LH and you'll still be safe without a hardmod. You'll simply restore a sysNAND backup.

 

[Manuel9181]

You don't get it, do you?

We aren't launching Decrypt9 through sysNAND, we're launching Decrypt9 before sysNAND boots up! This is why people are saying you can brick with A9LH and you'll still be safe without a hardmod. You'll simply restore a sysNAND backup.

I know that we are launching it BEFORE the sysNand boots up (thanks to a9hl), but if a future nintendo update will overpass the AuReiNand's protection and overwrite the NATIVE_FIRM of your NAND (where the a9lh is placed) you will LOSE the possibility to lauch Decrypt9.
No A9HL placed on the NATIVE_FIRM anymore thanks to the update -> Noway to launch Decrypt9 BEFORE the sysNAND boots up

 

[Supster131]

I know that we are launching it BEFORE the sysNand boots up (thanks to a9hl), but if a future nintendo update will overpass the AuReiNand's protection and overwrite the NATIVE_FIRM of your NAND (where the a9lh is placed) you will LOSE the possibility to lauch Decrypt9.
No A9HL placed on the NATIVE_FIRM anymore thanks to the update -> Noway to launch Decrypt9 BEFORE the sysNAND boots up

The thing is, an update to the NATIVE_FIRM will not remove A9LH, it'll just temporarily break the CFW. Just as it has done to emuNAND in the past. Once these CFW support the latest FIRM, we can update the files on our SD card to be able to boot into emuNAND/sysNAND with the latest FIRM.

If we were really impatient, as me and some others have stated, we can simply restore a sysNAND backup.

 

[DeslotlCL]

a9lh? nah, im perfectly fine booting to my rxtools 2.6 cfw from menuhax.

 

[Manuel9181]

The thing is, an update to the NATIVE_FIRM will not remove A9LH, it'll just temporarily break the CFW. Just as it has done to emuNAND in the past. Once these CFW support the latest FIRM, we can update the files on our SD card to be able to boot into emuNAND/sysNAND with the latest FIRM.

If we were really impatient, as me and some others have stated, we can simply restore a sysNAND backup.

K, all my argument was based to the assumption that the a9lh would be removed from the NATIVE_FIRM with an update able to overpass the AuReiNand's protection. Nothing to say if not that I'm curious to see if Nintendo will do something to try to patch it.

 

[deinonychus71]

Edit: You see, people don't understand how using sysNAND (with something like AuReiNAND) works. This is why everyone's so scared. You're assuming you'll lose A9LH, when you won't. FIRM1/FIRM0 is blocked by the CFW. Nintendo will never be able to remove A9LH from our systems.

We didnt have to deal with many updates so far, while we think that it cannot be patched, I would simply not underestimate Nintendo on that one.
Again, if by any chance, Nintendo can override the firms, you're done. On Emunand, you just have to restore your emunand to its previous state. If a hack can set up a9lh through a simple 3dsx, Nintendo can potentially do it too, and override it.

I dont understand why people don't want to at least give a warning about that, really.

Use SysNAND if you want but please be cautious when updating > 10.6, double check here first.

 

[Manuel9181]

We didnt have to deal with many updates so far, while we think that it cannot be patched, I would simply not underestimate Nintendo on that one.
Again, if by any chance, Nintendo can override the firms, you're done. On Emunand, you just have to restore your emunand to its previous state.

I dont understand why people don't want to at least give a warning about that, really.

Use SysNAND if you want but please be cautious when updating > 10.6, double check here first.

Edit: You see, people don't understand how using sysNAND (with something like AuReiNAND) works. This is why everyone's so scared. You're assuming you'll lose A9LH, when you won't. FIRM1/FIRM0 is blocked by the CFW. Nintendo will never be able to remove A9LH from our systems.

Actually this was written by @Supster131

 

[shinyquagsire23]

The thing is, an update to the NATIVE_FIRM will not remove A9LH, it'll just temporarily break the CFW. Just as it has done to emuNAND in the past. Once these CFW support the latest FIRM, we can update the files on our SD card to be able to boot into emuNAND/sysNAND with the latest FIRM.

If we were really impatient, as me and some others have stated, we can simply restore a sysNAND backup.

Actually if the NATIVE_FIRMs on NAND, FIRM0 and FIRM1 are overwritten due to an update, that will entirely purge k9lhax.

 

[deinonychus71]

Actually this was written by @Supster131

Sorry, I messed up when cleaning the quote

 

[Supster131]

Actually if the NATIVE_FIRMs on NAND, FIRM0 and FIRM1 are overwritten due to an update, that will entirely purge k9lhax.

Aren't FIRM0/FIRM1 blocked though?

I know people keep talking about the NATIVE_FIRM, but take this a scenario: I installed A9LH on a friend's 3DS a few days ago. He had a small SD card so I opted in using sysNAND for him. His 3DS started off on 9.2, I then updated it to 10.6, which uses a different NATIVE_FIRM compared to 9.2, but A9LH was still installed.

Wouldn't the same apply in the future?