- Joined
- Jan 11, 2016
- Messages
- 6,032
- Trophies
- 1
- Age
- 24
- Location
- 日本
- Website
- www.facebook.com
- XP
- 3,229
- Country
Just double checked the 3dbrew page. Under enhanced-arm9loaderhax, it saysFor the fifth time, they temporarily replace arm9loaderhax(_si).bin with a nintendo made payload that removes a9lh. The now useless arm9loaderhax(_si).bin would be restored to what it was originally to avoid legal trouble due to altering user-placed files without the users' consent.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
They can't be sued for removing/replacing user-placed files on NAND. They can for doing the same to SD cards.
and under arm9loaderhax,Since this is a combination of a trick with the arm9-bootrom + arm9loaderhax, and since you have to manually write FIRM to the firm0/firm1 NAND partitions, this can't be completely fixed.
Writing an incorrect key to NAND will cause arm9loader to decrypt the ARM9 kernel as garbage and then jump to it.
This allows a hardware-based attack where you can boot into an older exploited firmware, fill all memory with NOP sleds/jump-instructions, and then reboot into executing garbage.
They aren't fixing a9lh. They are uninstalling it. There's a difference.Just double checked the 3dbrew page. Under enhanced-arm9loaderhax, it says and under arm9loaderhax,
The nintendo-made a9lh payload would replace firm0 and firm1 entirely.sdcard is still your property. all it takes is one system with a modified a9lh that deals with that case badly and that could cause a brick.
the safe way is a firm protection bypass.
That would be a guaranteed brickThey aren't fixing a9lh. They are uninstalling it. There's a difference.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
The nintendo-made a9lh payload would replace firm0 and firm1 entirely.
If that's true, they DO need to bypass firm0/firm1 protection.You can't muck around user file. That's a CFAA violation. Even to temporarily replace it. They still accessed your system without your authorization. Of course they could change their EULA to try to make it legal first, but either way they'll be sued.
Yes.Don't most CFW protect SAID partitions anyway though?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes.
It's called a hardware revision. It's not going to happen on a six year old console they are going to discontinue next year.If that's true, they DO need to bypass firm0/firm1 protection.
No, they just need to change the way firm0/1 is updated, which doesn't require a hardware revision.It's called a hardware revision. It's not going to happen on a six year old console they are going to discontinue next year.
If they did, it would be a terrible business decisionIt's called a hardware revision. It's not going to happen on a six year old console they are going to discontinue next year.
You can't fix a faulty hardware design, without a hardware revision. It's like trying fix a broken dam with prayer. Good luck with that.No, they just need to change the way firm0/1 is updated, which doesn't require a hardware revision.
The code for updating firm0/1 can be updated. It's not ROM.You can't fix a faulty hardware design, without a hardware revision. It's like trying fix a broken dam with prayer. Good luck with that.
Have fun with that.The code for updating firm0/1 can be updated. It's not ROM.
How about you do your research instead of outright dismissal with no context?Have fun with that.
With the majority of tools and resources being open sourced Big N' devs are having a field day
They're too stupid to do anything though