Hacking Suppose someone makes a CFW for 2.1?

[Salamencizer]

So, to get our OTP, we have to be on 2.1, which doesn't support CFW currently, which is the reason we can't boot into 2.1 EmuNand. So if someone develops a CFW which works with 2.1, we probably would not need to do the dangerous flashing of 2.1 EmuNAND to sysNAND?
Also, there would be no need of using the browser to run arm9 code to dump OTP, because that could be done using CIAs.

 

[Deleted member 366698]

So, to get our OTP, we have to be on 2.1, which doesn't support CFW currently, which is the reason we can't boot into 2.1 EmuNand. So if someone develops a CFW which works with 2.1, we probably would not need to do the dangerous flashing of 2.1 EmuNAND to sysNAND?
Also, there would be no need of using the browser to run arm9 code to dump OTP, because that could be done using CIAs.

It would be the best thing in the world truth is that iirc we could boot a 2.1 emunand but not retrieve the otp. I believe the explanation is on 3dbrew

 

[wurstpistole]

You can't get OTP on EmuNAND, you need SysNAND on 2.1 for this.

 

[Salamencizer]

It would be the best thing in the world truth is that iirc we could boot a 2.1 emunand but not retrieve the otp. I believe the explanation is on 3dbrew

Hmmm, can you link me to it? Is that because of the OTP lockout?

 

[Swiftloke]

You see, by the time emuNAND could be booted, even with a9lh, the OTP would be locked by sysNAND. That's why we have to flash 2.1 to sysNAND; that way, the OTP won't be locked.

 

[Deleted member 366698]

Hmmm, can you link me to it? Is that because of the OTP lockout?

Yes and I believe its so early on boot that the emunand can't retrieve it
https://www.3dbrew.org/wiki/OTP_Registers

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

You see, by the time emuNAND could be booted, even with a9lh, the OTP would be locked by sysNAND. That's why we have to flash 2.1 to sysNAND; that way, the OTP won't be locked.

Exactly

 

[Salamencizer]

Yes and I believe its so early on boot that the emunand can't retrieve it
https://www.3dbrew.org/wiki/OTP_Registers

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


Exactly

Hmmm, oakay
Thought that booting into emunand completely reboots the console into EmuNAND...

 

[astronautlevel]

Hmmm, oakay
Thought that booting into emunand completely reboots the console into EmuNAND...

It performs a firmlaunch but it doesn't clear REG_SYSPROT9, which is what locks out OTP.

It's worth noting that nintendo completely rewrote the FIRM between 2.1 and 3.0 which is why writing a CFW which supports emunand patches on 2.1 is so incredibly difficult. None of our existing patches for EmuNAND works with it

 

[Thelostrune]

I don't understand why you would even want EmuNAND at 2.1. There's nothing more worth there than what's in 4.5, which I'm pretty sure is only for MSET anyway.

 

[sj33]

I don't understand why you would even want EmuNAND at 2.1. There's nothing more worth there than what's in 4.5, which I'm pretty sure is only for MSET anyway.

The OP explained the reasons why, and subsequent posts explained why it wouldn't work. The 2.1 EmuNAND idea was suggested by the OP as an alternative to downgrading SysNAND to 2.1. Unfortunately it wouldn't work.

 

[Ryccardo]

I don't understand why you would even want EmuNAND at 2.1. There's nothing more worth there than what's in 4.5, which I'm pretty sure is only for MSET anyway.

For fun?
This attitude (and easy access to cia-less piracy systems) is going to be bad for long-term archival, mark my words!

 

[Lumince]

I would have felt safer installing a9lh on my N3DS XL if the modified nand.bin could have been flashed to emunand to see if it booted first xD That way you have even a better chance to see if it was successful. Sounds pointless but having an emunand 2.1 boot up or just black screen could be the median to the very small group of people that had their 3ds's black screen from the unbricking part mess up when a9lh first became a thing.

 

[Khangaroo]

Still, why not use it to see if 2.1 downgraded properly (especially on N3DS)?

 

[Cuphat]

It would be nice only to confirm that it isn't bricked, but otherwise wouldn't be useful.

 

[The Catboy]

There is no point to running a CFW on 2.1. EmuNANDs can't get the OTP because it boots after the point where we would be able to get the OTP.
Honestly, just use OTPHelper, it checks everything before flashing it to the sysNAND, making it a lot safer to flash.

 

[mathieulh]

You need to be running the 2.1 FIRM from sysnand, running it from Emunand will have no effect considering by the time you start the emunand your OTP area would already have been locked.

Also FIRM needs to be signed, so you can't "customize" it.

 

[SirByte]

Booting the 2.1 EmuNAND is just to confirm it's not bricked before flashing it to SysNAND then booting it in order to obtain the OTP. Luckily OTPHelper does what it can with checksums, but absolute certainty it cannot provide.

 

[ShadowOne333]

Even though we can't get the OTP from emunand 2.1, the ability to boot into an emuNAND in 2.1 would be really helpful so that people can double-check that the NAND downgrade was successful and to diminish the chances of a brick when flashing the 2.1 NAND.

I am still baffled as to why no CFW currently supports emunand in 2.1, it'd such an amazing feat.

 

[astronautlevel]

I am still baffled as to why no CFW currently supports emunand in 2.1, it'd such an amazing feat.

It's worth noting that nintendo completely rewrote the FIRM between 2.1 and 3.0 which is why writing a CFW which supports emunand patches on 2.1 is so incredibly difficult. None of our existing patches for EmuNAND works with it

 

[Khangaroo]

Why not just make it boot vanilla?