Fusée Gelée FAQ by Kate Temkin

notimp · Apr 11, 2018

Waiting on information to become "disclosable" for the sake of a company getting a leg up to produce a commercial product that makes it useless --

Seeing a higher virtue in the principle of open source (there is - and I even mean apart from "free"), and then - not even sharing the basic working principle, so people could understand what you are working on - so you as a figure with a clear name out in the open, can do this as an accepted piece of work that allows someone else - with a profit motive - a headstart to closing down what you opened.

People are now recommending to themselves to just wait, in silence - because the payoff will come, guaranteed - in the afterlife, If you buy a screwdriver now.

(Playing with concepts here - for many people it will come in a few months).

If we are talking about open source principles in the notion of FOSS - none of this makes any sense.
If we are talking about open source principles in the notion of the publicly known person, that does something "charitable" and is getting "reputation credit" for it - it makes some sense.
-

On the principle of "if you are given something for free, you should be thankful, kind, and polite". This operates on the notion of "you don't know how long it might last" - which is in basic strokes the "charity principle". If you want to operate under that - be my guest, its the fastest way for people to loose ethics, morals and self worth.

Here is the principal I usually prefer to work from. Its basically the assumption, that all the unpaid work gets not done because of "charity", but because its fun, because it leads to better concepts and outcomes, if a few people do it at once. Especially if your cost of production is zero, after the initial concept and product development stages. You say "it is" and for approximately two, tree million people "it is".

To put it simple, the economics of open source are so "insane", that if you can do it (also financially), and have fun doing it, not only do you get something thats better than you could have created on your own, and that fixes a need you had - the entire world gets it as well. For free.

At which point the notion that you could be missing out on charity - *poof* just isn't there conceptually.

Then there is concept on how you have to talk to those people.

In person - again, jovial-ly polite, with a wink in the corner of your eye, and an appreciation of what they have done. In about the same vain, as appreciating an artists creation.

In the public - in the face of a few hundred people, that were taught, that facebook was the model of the internet life - and always smiling, always being polite, and always appearing so god darn conservative - it hurts - you tell them when people can tell them literally anything, reverse their entire public positions, make hard to uphold statements - of suspect moral value, that only are agreed upon out of some kind of fear of missing out... - that this doesn't help any open source project at all.

Nor does "we just have to silently sit here, and not say anything for a while - maybe smile a little" and good things will come.

The guy raising hell in a handbasket (with moderation), probably cares more about the project being a success than the silent guy with a smile next to him, that mostly is happy - because he got told he now can go out and buy something.

Also - creating more confusion, with a public release, then promising to clear it up as soon as your "gag order" ends,..

Not such a good idea. Maybe have one ore two people voicing that as well. As long as they arent trying undermine you by generating this opinion only - let them voice things.

The 12 people already trying to lobby for a "sanatized environment" in which every one just has to show "believe" and "be a little polite" maybe shouldnt be the only guidelines available for liberal - and especially hacker communities.

Here is your psychology self test. If you sound more conservative than your dad, in telling everyone to not criticize things openly - chances are, you dont have a hackers mindset, or a liberal political orientation.

Live and let live. Also keep your facebook likes at home - if only I would be able to decide. They are no good here. motivation doesnt need to be derived from quantifyable mass approval.

The more "high level" the work or career path of a person is/has become - the more concepts like altruism, or being remembered for what you did - become deciding factors over any amounts of likes you could give them. You get "rare" (but 0 cost reproducable) stuff for free. Of course you like that. Thats basically a given.

Now wheres the challenge in that?

TDLR; critical voices wont mess this up for you. If they act somewhat reasonable - and are not in it for criticisms sake alone.

Uh, and I very much like to read my own words here --- UH, those words are so great. I'm really motivated, to write more, so I could read them...

(Not sure, how people think that this works as motivation.

) (Here is the trick: If someone really likes his own words, he doesn't need you - does he? Would probably write a diary then..

)

reaper527 · Apr 11, 2018

Timburpton said:
Is it just me or is it correct to interpret that upgrading to later FW will just result in delayed release of FG and CFW. I seem to get the distinct impression that FG works on all circulating switches no matter the FW just that the time frame differs

the complexity involved will also likely change since the newer the firmware, the more exploits have been patched. as such, you might be able to use an entry point to get FG/CFW going easily with all software on one firmware, but require a 3rd party modchip on a newer one.

ultimately, we won't know for sure how things look until enduser releases start to come out and we can see how everything works.

leonmagnus99 · Apr 11, 2018

kate did post something on twitter mentioning a very cheap switch modchip.

what was that about?
and will every fw need it, even 3.0 and below? or will only 3.1+-4.1/5 need that?

edit: just saw it in the other switch thread, seems that no fw will need any modchip, good stuff.

Kerbangman · Apr 11, 2018

notimp said:
Waiting on information to become "disclosable" for the sake of a company getting a leg up to produce a commercial product that makes it useless --

Seeing a higher virtue in the principle of open source (there is - and I even mean apart from "free"), and then - not even sharing the basic working principle, so people could understand what you are working on - so you as a figure with a clear name out in the open, can do this as an accepted piece of work that allows someone else - with a profit motive - a headstart to closing down what you opened.

People are now recommending to themselves to just wait, in silence - because the payoff will come, guaranteed - in the afterlife, If you buy a screwdriver now. (Playing with concepts here - for many people it will come in a few months).

If we are talking about open source principles in the notion of FOSS - none of this makes any sense.
If we are talking about open source principles in the notion of the publicly known person, that does something "charitable" and is getting "reputation credit" for it - it makes some sense.
-

On the principle of "if you are given something for free, you should be thankful, kind, and polite". This operates on the notion of "you don't know how long it might last" - which is in basic strokes the "charity principle". If you want to operate under that - be my guest, its the fastest way for people to loose ethics, morals and self worth.

Here is the principal I usually prefer to work from. Its basically the assumption, that all the unpaid work gets not done because of "charity", but because its fun, because it leads to better concepts and outcomes, if a few people do it at once. Especially if your cost of production is zero, after the initial concept and product development stages. You say "it is" and for approximately two, tree million people "it is".

To put it simple, the economics of open source are so "insane", that if you can do it (also financially), and have fun doing it, not only do you get something thats better than you could have created on your own, and that fixes a need you had - the entire world gets it as well. For free.

At which point the notion that you could be missing out on charity - *poof* just isn't there conceptually.

Then there is concept on how you have to talk to those people.

In person - again, jovial-ly polite, with a wink in the corner of your eye, and an appreciation of what they have done. In about the same vain, as appreciating an artists creation.

In the public - in the face of a few hundred people, that were taught, that facebook was the model of the internet life - and always smiling, always being polite, and always appearing so god darn conservative - it hurts - you tell them when people can tell them literally anything, reverse their entire public positions, make hard to uphold statements - of suspect moral value, that only are agreed upon out of some kind of fear of missing out... - that this doesn't help any open source project at all.

Nor does "we just have to silently sit here, and not say anything for a while - maybe smile a little" and good things will come.

The guy raising hell in a handbasket (with moderation), probably cares more about the project being a success than the silent guy with a smile next to him, that mostly is happy - because he got told he now can go out and buy something.

Also - creating more confusion, with a public release, then promising to clear it up as soon as your "gag order" ends,.. Not such a good idea. Maybe have one ore two people voicing that as well. As long as they arent trying undermine you by generating this opinion only - let them voice things.

The 12 people already trying to lobby for a "sanatized environment" in which every one just has to show "believe" and "be a little polite" maybe shouldnt be the only guidelines available for liberal - and especially hacker communities.

Here is your psychology self test. If you sound more conservative than your dad, in telling everyone to not criticize things openly - chances are, you dont have a hackers mindset, or a liberal political orientation.

Live and let live. Also keep your facebook likes at home - if only I would be able to decide. They are no good here. motivation doesnt need to be derived from quantifyable mass approval.

The more "high level" the work or career path of a person is/has become - the more concepts like altruism, or being remembered for what you did - become deciding factors over any amounts of likes you could give them. You get "rare" (but 0 cost reproducable) stuff for free. Of course you like that. Thats basically a given. Now wheres the challenge in that?

TDLR; critical voices wont mess this up for you. If they act somewhat reasonable - and are not in it for criticisms sake alone.

Uh, and I very much like to read my own words here --- UH, those words are so great. I'm really motivated, to write more, so I could read them... (Not sure, how people think that this works as motivation. ) (Here is the trick: If someone really likes his own words, he doesn't need you - does he? Would probably write a diary then.. )

Kind of getting the jist what your saying Notimp but the Google translation is sort off making it sound a bit odd

I'm guessing your using Google translation.

TheCyberQuake · Apr 11, 2018

notimp said:
Waiting on information to become "disclosable" for the sake of a company getting a leg up to produce a commercial product that makes it useless --

Seeing a higher virtue in the principle of open source (there is - and I even mean apart from "free"), and then - not even sharing the basic working principle, so people could understand what you are working on - so you as a figure with a clear name out in the open, can do this as an accepted piece of work that allows someone else - with a profit motive - a headstart to closing down what you opened.

People are now recommending to themselves to just wait, in silence - because the payoff will come, guaranteed - in the afterlife, If you buy a screwdriver now. (Playing with concepts here - for many people it will come in a few months).

If we are talking about open source principles in the notion of FOSS - none of this makes any sense.
If we are talking about open source principles in the notion of the publicly known person, that does something "charitable" and is getting "reputation credit" for it - it makes some sense.
-

On the principle of "if you are given something for free, you should be thankful, kind, and polite". This operates on the notion of "you don't know how long it might last" - which is in basic strokes the "charity principle". If you want to operate under that - be my guest, its the fastest way for people to loose ethics, morals and self worth.

Here is the principal I usually prefer to work from. Its basically the assumption, that all the unpaid work gets not done because of "charity", but because its fun, because it leads to better concepts and outcomes, if a few people do it at once. Especially if your cost of production is zero, after the initial concept and product development stages. You say "it is" and for approximately two, tree million people "it is".

To put it simple, the economics of open source are so "insane", that if you can do it (also financially), and have fun doing it, not only do you get something thats better than you could have created on your own, and that fixes a need you had - the entire world gets it as well. For free.

At which point the notion that you could be missing out on charity - *poof* just isn't there conceptually.

Then there is concept on how you have to talk to those people.

In person - again, jovial-ly polite, with a wink in the corner of your eye, and an appreciation of what they have done. In about the same vain, as appreciating an artists creation.

In the public - in the face of a few hundred people, that were taught, that facebook was the model of the internet life - and always smiling, always being polite, and always appearing so god darn conservative - it hurts - you tell them when people can tell them literally anything, reverse their entire public positions, make hard to uphold statements - of suspect moral value, that only are agreed upon out of some kind of fear of missing out... - that this doesn't help any open source project at all.

Nor does "we just have to silently sit here, and not say anything for a while - maybe smile a little" and good things will come.

The guy raising hell in a handbasket (with moderation), probably cares more about the project being a success than the silent guy with a smile next to him, that mostly is happy - because he got told he now can go out and buy something.

Also - creating more confusion, with a public release, then promising to clear it up as soon as your "gag order" ends,.. Not such a good idea. Maybe have one ore two people voicing that as well. As long as they arent trying undermine you by generating this opinion only - let them voice things.

The 12 people already trying to lobby for a "sanatized environment" in which every one just has to show "believe" and "be a little polite" maybe shouldnt be the only guidelines available for liberal - and especially hacker communities.

Here is your psychology self test. If you sound more conservative than your dad, in telling everyone to not criticize things openly - chances are, you dont have a hackers mindset, or a liberal political orientation.

Live and let live. Also keep your facebook likes at home - if only I would be able to decide. They are no good here. motivation doesnt need to be derived from quantifyable mass approval.

The more "high level" the work or career path of a person is/has become - the more concepts like altruism, or being remembered for what you did - become deciding factors over any amounts of likes you could give them. You get "rare" (but 0 cost reproducable) stuff for free. Of course you like that. Thats basically a given. Now wheres the challenge in that?

TDLR; critical voices wont mess this up for you. If they act somewhat reasonable - and are not in it for criticisms sake alone.

Uh, and I very much like to read my own words here --- UH, those words are so great. I'm really motivated, to write more, so I could read them... (Not sure, how people think that this works as motivation. ) (Here is the trick: If someone really likes his own words, he doesn't need you - does he? Would probably write a diary then.. )

Most people here haven't been blindly following though. Most of us have just been given fairly good reason to believe them. Most of us will and have called out a devs bs when it's actually warranted.
We just don't feel right now that it is warranted. Nothing wrong with honest debate and reasoning.

guily6669 · Apr 11, 2018

leonmagnus99 said:
kate did post something on twitter mentioning a very cheap switch modchip.

what was that about?

Maybe it means its something kinda more homemade like buy a few stuff and solder them together to make the chip, or use any other already common cheap chip that is out there, no idea...

TotalInsanity4 · Apr 11, 2018

guily6669 said:
Maybe it means its something kinda more homemade like buy a few stuff and solder them together to make the chip, or use any other already common cheap chip that is out there, no idea...

The fact that she mentions no soldering required and that it's not dangerous to the Switch to me implies that it'll be Arduino-based

guily6669 · Apr 11, 2018

I wouldnt want to buy a arduino my self... But maybe it could... On the PS4 now they modded a cheap wifi module chip to hack it without requiring the PC\android.

I want by software on my 3.02, but I'm still waiting to see what TX will bring to the table, they might actually have more features in it than just a chip to hack and install software, no idea.

I remember the cool LCD on the Xbox original.

ktemkin · Apr 11, 2018

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

SH3RLOCK said:
@ktemkin, first thank you and @SciresM for being the most communicating team of switch hackers.
So did I understand right, that there won't be a software-only exploit for >3.0.0 (at release of F-G/Atmosphère)? In this case I probably need to buy some hardware (Screwdrivers).
As a software developer I'm also interested in the Homebrew scene, I think I can't start developing before F-G (V4.1)? Or will a userland-only exploit be released before F-G/Summer?

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.

Onibi said:
Hi and welcome! Not sure which hostility you mean, there has been some different ones going around. Mine personally is less hostility then challenge. If I see a behavior that I can't really explain or agree with I will challenge it and imply negative motives to get a comprehensive response out of people Typically that works quite well. Don't misunderstand my challenge of your motives as hostility towards you personally thou. I wish you nothing but good and absolutely congratulate you to your findings.

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.

Onibi said:
Hmm. Glad to hear this. However, this does not really explain why neither the Trustzone exploit nor the bootrom bug, or various kernel bugs are public. Literally, we got no public access to the system so far

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.

Onibi said:
Is the Trustzone exploit expected to be useful for the hardware revision? Then I would at least understand that ...

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

Onibi said:
Well, tweeting, that's kinda ego I don't even mind some ego, and I can understand it. It's when it feels like that the "nth release" so far was tweets or not super comprehensive FAQ or less then informative interview that it becomes tiring. I mean it literally is telling others what they can't have, no

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.

Onibi said:
Very ambiguous sometimes ... and not always when needed. The issue is that people who wait would for example like to play, and thus update.

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.

Onibi said:
For example: I absolutely get why @SciresM initially advised to stay lower. Because he didn't have the higher FW bugs. I also get why later he said: "Stay low" later - IMO he was actually planing to release stuff per firmware once the TZ bug was found. So while he would work on FW 2.0 he could release the exploit for 1.0.

But by now the playfield it different. You guys are going with the bootrom (thanks!). So it would be very helpful to make clear without ambiguity if people have a reason to stay on a lower firmware (for the software exploit). I mean, the bootrom can barely be altered (fuses + micro asm updates) so it's super hard to decipher from the FAQ what 4.1.0 is going to have trouble with. I mean either on 4.1.0 you got the software stack compromised to pull of the same exploit or you don't. If you don't, I would make it clear, if you do and there is an issue then I don't think that naming the complexity will hurt anybody, no? Why the secrecy there for example? Whos gonna gain from that knowledge? That's likely on the nintendo software stack, no? So it does not help tegra bootrom issue hunters, no?

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.

Onibi said:
My point on this would be that I actually question if this type of disclosure is not hurting more people then you assume it potentially helps. Right now, I am convinced nvidia is selling affected devices and potentially even still printing them.
The whole thing is based on the assumption that actions are being taken, instead I think they are just going to push the issue to the next layer in a typical security advisory message to their customers. They will have to deal with it, and they likely will do nothing because the issue is not directly impacting. Sure the media center can be hacked, but you need access to it, and software exploit(s). You think they will take this serious enough?

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.

Onibi said:
If anything being nice and quite about it is giving nvidia just more time to be layed-back about implementing the change and selling off their stock, no?

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.

Onibi said:
While I get the point, it's made a bit mute by the fact that you and SciresM claimed the software exploit will work on 4.1.0. See that's the issue. Either it works on 3.0.0+ or it doesn't. If it does, then by now I think it would be helpful to tell people to update to their FW of choice (below XYZ). If it requires running the exploit potentially X times until it works, just say that. If it requires some game, then saying "requires some game for now" is fine too, no?

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.

Onibi said:
The issue is that "inconveniences" are not measurable by itself. It could be a lot or a little. Anything that at least would put it on a scale of hardness would help. Is it Sophie's choice or passing on an offer from Microsoft as developer?

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.

Onibi said:
What are you missing by updating on the hacking site? I don't understand. Isn't the fuse check the only think that will keep you from running any software? And if you can run any software, what's the difference? This is an example of a choice of words which make me and others question if we misunderstood something.

(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.

Onibi said:
It"s clear that you will only really need to be "modded" during flash. So saying that is helpful as clarification

That also makes clear what the different hardmod options truly are:
- "Hardware assisted" is simply a non permanent hardmod. Correct? You can short something (and that will allow you to reach recovery and flash?)
- You can (of course) also make it permanent (and reach recovery as needed?)

Once that is more clearly separated we know that software up to 4.1.0 means truly just software, thus people can make a choice to update even if they don't want to open their device.

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

Onibi said:
I think what people care about is not if the exploit is tethered, but if they will have a persistent coldboot solution. I doubt such a solution would need to be tethered after the initial flash ... Most people, even me don't care how the initial boot code gets where it is supposed to be going. Just that it gets there and stays persistently until a reflash is needed.

To say it differently: Can I power on my flashed OFF device in the subway without the need of a laptop?

Arrggg? Are you talking about triggering the exploit or about running the resulting bootcode (Package1?) afterwards? Because, really most here do not care too much about the exploits inner workings on triggering something. Don't get me wrong, I certainly would listen for hours on an aesthetic level, and maybe even to learn something, but the majority of your audience want to know their daily interactions.

So not persistent? It will not flash untrusted early bootcode (P1) to the device?

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.

Onibi said:
This contradicts the FAQ and earlier expressed inconvenience, no? It also implies that F-G is NOT working on 4.1.0 ...?
This is a good example of the curve balls in the FAQ as well. When you read A and then here B you end up not knowing what things meant. I hope by expressing my thoughts above on what I think it means you can correct my errors and in turn we get a cleared up public picture of the SotA

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.

Onibi said:
I think it would be super important to more clearly differentiate between software and hardware, exploit execution ("flash" process) and the end result, and overall the use of different names if things are different. Bootromhax, exploits to get there, etc.

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.

Onibi said:
PS: I still would prefer to see the exploit release asap. Not just for the FW launch. I think you are missing out on developers and community creation if you deliver too much of a product. There are quite a few sub-projects in the FW that could be tackled in a nice open github based community by other people. Esp. on the higher layers.

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.

Onibi said:
Just as a helpfully meant suggestion: Instead of expressing what does not need to be done, it would be helpful to express what needs to be done (to the level of detail you feel comfortable with).

Quantumcat said:
This is exactly what I was thinking, but didn't want to get into it anymore. Saying what isn't needed is just talking to hear the sound of one's own voice and not supplying any real information at all.

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.

TotalInsanity4 said:
I don't know that that's so much the case as they want to avoid putting any Nintendo coders on the scent. But yes, that would be nice

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.

Onibi said:
This also sounds like an advice to update to 4.1.0 or at least not a challenge of 4.1.0 convenience at all, which seems to contradict the statement before
Can you clarify what should make anybody stay low? Esp. since if it is gone on higher FWs it implies that it can be disclosed, no?

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.

Onibi said:
Overall very nice to hear. The gaming scenes certainly need more people that share your views. I mean @SciresM and @TuxSH are also providing the code openly. So overall, my picture of anybody that shows such openness is very good.

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.

Onibi said:
I guess that makes the non-disclosure of the TZ exploit and the bootromhax (hehe, see) even more frustrating and not as easy to understand.
Do you have no exploit other then the bootrom (assuming you stick to the disclosure of he bootrom bug as-is) that has been fixed and thus can be released to developers? TZ?

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.

Quantumcat said:
What was the point of saying anything in that case.

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.

yomer said:
@ktemkin I'm currently on 3.0.0, I can't afford to get another Switch, and I promised my kid to start playing Mario Odyssey(which requires at least v3.0.1) with him soon.

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.

subcon959 said:
I don't think asking for better clarity is a bad thing, or should be seen as criticism, although I understand everyone is different and others may prefer to practice quiet genuflection instead.

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.

subcon959 said:
I'm still not entirely sure, for example, why when it's stated that everyone on current hardware will get coldboot cfw this summer (without needing to open the console or buy a particular game) that there's still reluctance to green light updating to latest firmware. The inconvenience point seems to be non-issue the more that gets revealed.

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

json said:
I'm not so sure you can even still call them a "team". The ReSwitched team does not even trust its own members with the bootrom vulnerability and only 2 people of the whole team are in the know AFAIK (SciresM and ktemkin).
If you can't trust your own team that's just... sad.

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.

Memoir said:
Honestly? It's sounding like the other two exploits are easier or more convenient than FG. The end result sounds the same.

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.

Timburpton said:
Is it just me or is it correct to interpret that upgrading to later FW will just result in delayed release of FG and CFW. I seem to get the distinct impression that FG works on all circulating switches no matter the FW just that the time frame differs

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.

notimp said:
Seeing a higher virtue in the principle of open source (there is - and I even mean apart from "free"), and then - not even sharing the basic working principle, so people could understand what you are working on - so you as a figure with a clear name out in the open, can do this as an accepted piece of work that allows someone else - with a profit motive - a headstart to closing down what you opened.

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.

leonmagnus99 said:
kate did post something on twitter mentioning a very cheap switch modchip.

what was that about?
and will every fw need it, even 3.0 and below? or will only 3.1+-4.1/5 need that?

edit: just saw it in the other switch thread, seems that no fw will need any modchip, good stuff.

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. ^-^

guily6669 said:
Maybe it means its something kinda more homemade like buy a few stuff and solder them together to make the chip, or use any other already common cheap chip that is out there, no idea...

Yep; that's exactly what it means.

TotalInsanity4 said:
The fact that she mentions no soldering required and that it's not dangerous to the Switch to me implies that it'll be Arduino-based

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.

Kioku · Apr 11, 2018

ktemkin said:
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.

Wow. You're something else. Very communicative as to what's going on. I like that.

TotalInsanity4 · Apr 11, 2018

ktemkin said:
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.

I suppose I forgot that you said it'd actually fit in the Switch

i just mentally connected "maker board" with Arduino I suppose lol

So, I suppose the permanent hardmod is a bit more "dangerous" than the other methods, to use your terminology from the FAQ?

mythamp · Apr 12, 2018

Hi Kate, thanks for participating and bringing more clarity. I had a question, my switch came with 3.0.2, should I just upgrade to 4.1.0 as you have stated anything above 3.0.1 is in the same state as 4.1.0? Have you tested 3.0.2 with your exploits? I know you have recommended older firmware is preferred but if the exploits have been closed beyond 3.0.1 might as well upgrade to 4.1.0 using Kirby Star Allies, no?

Earth4Heaven · Apr 12, 2018

Memoir said:
Wow. You're something else. Very communicative as to what's going on. I like that.

I was thinking the same thing. Great communication, and I'm also glad she included that "forcing me" line.

Xandroz · Apr 12, 2018

Any one with a 1.0.0 could sum up the situation for me because i got lost Honestly.

What is our situation with puyo now
we were supposed to get atmosphere before other firmware as we used the 1.0 exploit, but from my understanding it needs more work as michele is busy with atmosphere at the moment, and we will all get initially FG implementation untill further developments.
so we are all getting it at the same time after the disclosure period.
and from then further implmentations will take place.

thanks again for keeping up with all the questions.

TheCyberQuake · Apr 12, 2018

Again I like to reiterate, we aren't blindly following RS. They've just given us plenty of reason to believe them, both with their communication and past work.
Many people here are saying "they shouldn't talk about things until they are ready to release", but if that happened things would go silent and then people would ask "why haven't they said anything? Have they stopped development? Is the team disbanded?"
I would rather have communication than not. Frankly most of those complaining about it are just being impatient.
Like just chill. We are getting a bootrom exploit and cfw before the two year mark for the console, which is one of the fastest I've seen a console hacked to this extent.

TheCyberQuake · Apr 12, 2018

Xandroz said:
Any one with a 1.0.0 could sum up the situation for me because i got lost Honestly.

What is our situation with puyo now
we were supposed to get atmosphere before other firmware as we used the 1.0 exploit, but from my understanding it needs more work as michele is busy with atmosphere at the moment, and we will all get initially FG implementation untill further developments.
so we are all getting it at the same time after the disclosure period.
and from then further implmentations will take place.

thanks again for keeping up with all the questions.

1.0.0 will require puyo for an initial install of the fake news exploit.
You also may get access to atmosphere first, as well as you will likely have access to a pure-software F-G install when that comes.

Xandroz · Apr 12, 2018

my puyo has been in the customs for the past 10 days i dont know what they think its a hentai adult movie or what

ktemkin · Apr 12, 2018

mythamp said:
Hi Kate, thanks for participating and bringing more clarity. I had a question, my switch came with 3.0.2, should I just upgrade to 4.1.0 as you have stated anything above 3.0.1 is in the same state as 4.1.0? Have you tested 3.0.2 with your exploits? I know you have recommended older firmware is preferred but if the exploits have been closed beyond 3.0.1 might as well upgrade to 4.1.0 using Kirby Star Allies, no?

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

TheCyberQuake said:
1.0.0 will require puyo for an initial install of the fake news exploit.
You also may get access to atmosphere first, as well as you will likely have access to a pure-software F-G install when that comes.

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.

Ronhero · Apr 12, 2018

Thanks for the info @ktemkin

I guess for now i will sit on my 1.0 and 2.x and see when it is released. Once released I'll just weigh my options to update since it puts me in a more desirable place that i can always update to a software based cold boot solution

aut0mat3d · Apr 12, 2018

Thanks Kate for your Will and Time to give Infos and answer for our Questions, i really appreciate that! *thumbsup*
@gbatemp Members involved here:
Please mention that you are binding a essential ressource (Kates Time) with this thread.
This is the Reason why i do my first post at #520. I am totally aware that there many many open questions and rumors - everyone who is interested in custom firmware holds its breath and going to get blue till Summer

So, please dont stress Kate too much

She's a real person with a real live and her free time and motivation are not endless ressources....

Personally i am staying here @3.0 until CFW gets released - had to borrow my sons switch to play Mario wich i bought at release date

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Certified Geek

GbaTemp is my Drug

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord

GbaTemp is my Drug

Member

猫。子猫です！

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Certified Geek

Certified Geek

Well-Known Member

Member

Too Weird to Live, Too Rare to Die

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum