http://www.ktemkin.com/faq-fusee-gelee/

Kate has collected and answered the most common questions she's gotten regarding Fusée Gelée. Most notably she explains the three "types" of FG hacks, software, hardware (temporary) and hardware (permanent).

Enjoy!

Kate herself responded to this thread on page 26, thanks Kate!

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.

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



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.

 

[hippy dave]

Something else I just thought of that points to it following the same path as other things announced ahead of time and being closed development - if it was all ready to go, and they were just waiting for the disclosure period to be over, there would be a definite date, like 1 August or something. A developer gives a vague future release date only when they haven't finished development and they are estimating when it will be done since they just don't know. But here, with it all being finished and delaying on purpose, they should know exactly when they plan to release it. Yet another fishy sign.

The vulnerability will be disclosed immediately after the disclosure period. The software will be released when it's ready. Makes sense tbh.

 

[TheCyberQuake]

Something else I just thought of that points to it following the same path as other things announced ahead of time and being closed development - if it was all ready to go, and they were just waiting for the disclosure period to be over, there would be a definite date, like 1 August or something. A developer gives a vague future release date only when they haven't finished development and they are estimating when it will be done since they just don't know. But here, with it all being finished and delaying on purpose, they should know exactly when they plan to release it. Yet another fishy sign.

She has already stated public release isn't ready yet. The main thing needing to get done for that is thorough documentation of every install method.

 

[andijames]

Something else I just thought of that points to it following the same path as other things announced ahead of time and being closed development - if it was all ready to go, and they were just waiting for the disclosure period to be over, there would be a definite date, like 1 August or something. A developer gives a vague future release date only when they haven't finished development and they are estimating when it will be done since they just don't know. But here, with it all being finished and delaying on purpose, they should know exactly when they plan to release it. Yet another fishy sign.

You do realise a vulnerability needs software to exploit it right? And you can see publically atmosphere is being worked on still? Put 2 and 2 together. Never set a strict deadline otherwise you put yourself under undue pressure to get something done.

Seriously give them a break and go play a few games on your switch whilst we all wait.

 

[Viri]

The vulnerability will be disclosed immediately after the disclosure period. The software will be released when it's ready. Makes sense tbh.

I'm hoping the 3.0 exploit is the browserhax we use for the emulators

 

[Quantumcat]

The vulnerability will be disclosed immediately after the disclosure period. The software will be released when it's ready. Makes sense tbh.

Ok. So what date is that? None has been given. She even said the release of FG is not tied to Atmosphere: "my release date for f-g is tied to my disclosure timeline and not in particular to Atmosphère's release." So a project that is supposedly completed still has a vague release date.

Same to you \/

You do realise a vulnerability needs software to exploit it right? And you can see publically atmosphere is being worked on still

 

[andijames]

Bit still the original point stands. The exploit will be detailed once the window closes but will only be realistically useable in atmosphere.

 

[TheCyberQuake]

Ok. So what date is that? None has been given. She even said the release of FG is not tied to Atmosphere: "my release date for f-g is tied to my disclosure timeline and not in particular to Atmosphère's release." So a project that is supposedly completed still has a vague release date.

Same to you \/

She has already stated public release isn't ready yet. The main thing needing to get done for that is thorough documentation of every install method.

You missed my reply where I stated she's said it's not ready for public release yet, mostly because she needs to document every single installation method so we will have instructions on how to do it.

 

[Quantumcat]

You missed my reply where I stated she's said it's not ready for public release yet, mostly because she needs to document every single installation method so we will have instructions on how to do it.

She doesn't need to do that on her own - when she opens it to the public (not in a big release way but in a way that interested and informed people can access it), people will help (not to mention there's supposed to be a whole team behind it). And in any case, if it isn't ready for public consumption yet (for documentation reasons or anything else) why pretend that it is being held over just for the disclosure window? Why would the team not do things in the following order: 1. inform nvidia etc, 2. work on everything that needs to be worked on including documenting, then finally 3. announce info and say it is just waiting for the disclosure window to pass (in which they will know the date they are waiting for)?
Either it is being held over for development/documentation or it is being held over for the disclosure window. And I don't think the documentation is going to take so long that she doesn't know if it will be complete in June or in August. In development you can run into horrible problems that you just don't know how to solve and you never anticipated, so taking a month or two longer than expected would be common. But when you're writing, and you know what you're writing about, what unexpected problem can you have? Your notepad application gets a virus?
Either it is because development is not finished or she just wants the heaps of extra attention that comes from people continually asking, once June is here, "is it released yet? Is it released yet?" that she can milk until she finally decides to release it late August. If it was just for the disclosure window there could be a date, since it is what the team decides, not something unexpected that they can't anticipate.

 

[Draxzelex]

Dammit, QuantumCat beat me to it. I literally realized this as I was eating dinner. If Kate said just Atmosphere was being released in summer 2018, that would have been fine. It's still being actively worked on and a release window gives us and them time to work on it in a reasonable fashion. But Fusée Gelée is an exploit that already exists and cannot be patched out which is supposedly coming out at the same time. An exploit that will need time to be physically patched out. So she settled with Nvidia, Nintendo, and whomsoever may also be involved. So, here's the problem. Would they really agree to a release window of Fusée Gelée and not an actual date? And if it's a date, why give us a window? The release window makes sense for Atmosphere because it literally needs to be worked on. But Fusée Gelée is an unpatchable exploit that isn't being released solely for the sake of giving the companies time to fix it. There's a clear discrepancy here. Unless we work off the assumption that everyone involved accepted a release window rather than a release date (which is in of itself suspicious...).

tl;dr: Did she tell Nvidia and Nintendo summer 2018 as well? Also, I do trust Kate as I'm fairly confident we'll see SOMETHING this summer. I just am curious why there's such a big discrepancy here

 

[TotalInsanity4]

There are a lot of below average users, it's kinda how averages work. Maybe she has higher expectations about the abilities of the users?

I believe it's in the FAQ how she defines "dangerous." If not I'll search up the specific post here

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

Dammit, QuantumCat beat me to it. I literally realized this as I was eating dinner. If Kate said just Atmosphere was being released in summer 2018, that would have been fine. It's still being actively worked on and a release window gives us and them time to work on it in a reasonable fashion. But Fusée Gelée is an exploit that already exists and cannot be patched out which is supposedly coming out at the same time. An exploit that will need time to be physically patched out. So she settled with Nvidia, Nintendo, and whomsoever may also be involved. So, here's the problem. Would they really agree to a release window of Fusée Gelée and not an actual date? And if it's a date, why give us a window? The release window makes sense for Atmosphere because it literally needs to be worked on. But Fusée Gelée is an unpatchable exploit that isn't being released solely for the sake of giving the companies time to fix it. There's a clear discrepancy here. Unless we work off the assumption that everyone involved accepted a release window rather than a release date (which is in of itself suspicious...).

tl;dr: Did she tell Nvidia and Nintendo summer 2018 as well? Also, I do trust Kate as I'm fairly confident we'll see SOMETHING this summer. I just am curious why there's such a big discrepancy here

We know she disclosed the exploit to at least NVidia, probably Nintendo too. She wasn't paid anything, but she most likely did give them a very specific window of time where ReSwitched would promise not to release anything so they could notify major companies they supply and make changes hardware-wise. I'd imagine that sometime in summer is the end of the disclosure period she specified, unless they're giving themselves a bit more time to iron out Atmosphere

 

[Draxzelex]

We know she disclosed the exploit to at least NVidia, probably Nintendo too. She wasn't paid anything, but she most likely did give them a very specific window of time where ReSwitched would promise not to release anything so they could notify major companies they supply and make changes hardware-wise. I'd imagine that sometime in summer is the end of the disclosure period she specified, unless they're giving themselves a bit more time to iron out Atmosphere

If we work off the assumption she gave a window and not a date, this is how I imagined the scenario would play out. She told them you have the whole 3 months of summer to do something about it and if u don't, I'll release Fusée Gelée. This would mean that worst case scenario that they don't act, we would have to wait until summer 2018 passes and for fall 2018 to begin which would mark the release of Fusée Gelée. But my issue is, from Nvidia's perspective, isn't agreeing to a release window sort of, I don't know, precipitous? They're working with such a large timeframe, but why? Is it because they don't trust her? Is it because they don't know how long it will take to fix it? Is it both? Like, something doesn't feel right. Kate clearly feels there's something wrong with releasing this exploit into the wild without notice. So shouldn't the company responsible for fixing this exploit be a little more due diligent in addressing the exploit and decide on a date rather than a window? But that's conjecture I don't feel too comfortable delving into. I'd rather just wait for Kate to possibly explain the situation in more detail.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

If we work off the assumption she gave a window and not a date, this is how I imagined the scenario would play out. She told them you have the whole 3 months of summer to do something about it and if u don't, I'll release Fusée Gelée. This would mean that worst case scenario that they don't act, we would have to wait until summer 2018 passes and for fall 2018 to begin which would mark the release of Fusée Gelée. But my issue is, from Nvidia's perspective, isn't agreeing to a release window sort of, I don't know, precipitous? They're working with such a large timeframe, but why? Is it because they don't trust her? Is it because they don't know how long it will take to fix it? Is it both? Like, something doesn't feel right. Kate clearly feels there's something wrong with releasing this exploit into the wild without notice. So shouldn't the company responsible for fixing this exploit be a little more due diligent in addressing the exploit and decide on a date rather than a window? But that's conjecture I don't feel too comfortable delving into. I'd rather just wait for Kate to possibly explain the situation in more detail.

No, she said releasing Summer 2018, that means summer, not fall. NVidia would have been notified well before this, and the fact that there's already a hardware identifier for a chip revision in Switch firmware 5.0.0 indicates that they've had enough time to at least get to advanced prototyping phase with a hardware fix

 

[TheCyberQuake]

If we work off the assumption she gave a window and not a date, this is how I imagined the scenario would play out. She told them you have the whole 3 months of summer to do something about it and if u don't, I'll release Fusée Gelée. This would mean that worst case scenario that they don't act, we would have to wait until summer 2018 passes and for fall 2018 to begin which would mark the release of Fusée Gelée. But my issue is, from Nvidia's perspective, isn't agreeing to a release window sort of, I don't know, precipitous? They're working with such a large timeframe, but why? Is it because they don't trust her? Is it because they don't know how long it will take to fix it? Is it both? Like, something doesn't feel right. Kate clearly feels there's something wrong with releasing this exploit into the wild without notice. So shouldn't the company responsible for fixing this exploit be a little more due diligent in addressing the exploit and decide on a date rather than a window? But that's conjecture I don't feel too comfortable delving into. I'd rather just wait for Kate to possibly explain the situation in more detail.

A disclosure window has a set date. It's specified up to a specific date it won't be made public. We don't know what the date is, but disclosure windows always have a specific date and is called a window because it's a set period (or window) of time that the vulnerability won't be publicly disclosed by that person, not because the end date is not determined.
There could be multiple reasons not to publicly announce the exact time frame either.

 

[salamandrusker]

There are many discrepancies. the first the method is so easy that a child with tweezers can do it or make a bridge but I need to have a lot of documentation although the exploit is already ready ... to see simple method with a lot of documentation to do it ?? katty katty you see the duster ... haha we will all be eating chestnuts in halloween and there will be nothing published I hope to make a mistake but this loses a lot of force with contradictions and silence. If the creators of the exploit were Russian this would have already come to light, they are the best example cluster with hackchi2

 

[Quantumcat]

The vulnerability will be disclosed immediately after the disclosure period. The software will be released when it's ready. Makes sense tbh.

No it does not, the disclosure period finishes at some random time in summer. If it is a period of time that has been decided upon by them, they would know a date, not some random time in a three month period. Like are they going to toss a d90 each day of summer to decide if it will be released that day? And Kate already said the release of FG is not at all tied to Atmosphere being completed.

 

[subcon959]

If it is a period of time that has been decided upon by them, they would know a date

I don't get it, why are you assuming KT doesn't know the date?

 

[salamandrusker]

I don't get it, why are you assuming KT doesn't know the date?

simply because it does not make sense to hide it and has not published it

 

[TotalInsanity4]

simply put there is no point hiding it and has not published it

English please (use Google Translate if need be)

Edit: and to that effect, there's also no reason to publish it as of the current time, especially if they're trying to time the release with Atmosphere

 

[salamandrusker]

English please (use Google Translate if need be)

sorry jeje already did

 

[subcon959]

simply pk there is no point hiding it and has not published it

Again, how do you know there's no point? There are probably lots of reasons. Maybe an NDA was involved?