Hacking SX Brickcode is Worse Than Expected, Can Trigger From Use

  • Thread starter Thread starter V-Temp
  • Start date Start date
  • Views Views 60,956
  • Replies Replies 445
  • Likes Likes 37
Told you people would be quick to defend Team TX for putting their dickish brick code/DRM into their own product lol. People sure love defending them.

Why is it so bloody hard for people to grasp this?
You need a serious break from the internet. Just how heavily you attack people over the stupidest shit is astounding. Not to mention, you sure do love throwing "sycophancy" around for every occasion. Chill. The. Fuck. Out.

Gonna start calling you retrofox...
 
Last edited by Kioku,
Told you people would be quick to defend Team TX for putting their dickish brick code/DRM into their own product lol. People sure love defending them.

Why is it so bloody hard for people to grasp this?

He was correcting you. This is about the possibilities of consoles getting bricked. Not from being banned from using the eShop or online games. Big difference. Many people don't care about getting banned (at least if you can still update games), but nobody wants a paperweight.
 
Told you people would be quick to defend Team TX for putting their dickish brick code/DRM into their own product lol. People sure love defending them.

Why is it so bloody hard for people to grasp this?
I can answer that! And the problem is: Backup loader.

Imagine if a open source solution came before tx... No one would be talking about tx nor using their products, it would have been a huge win for the community devs.
 
The amount of people defending these practices is honestly terrifying.

It's not about whether it'll brick anyone during practical use. It's not about whether they charge money for what is honestly not much more than a slightly modified version of nx-hbmenu. It's about principle. If your code has the potential to damage my hardware, I don't want it anywhere near my Switch. Period.
 
The amount of people defending these practices is honestly terrifying.

It's not about whether it'll brick anyone during practical use. It's not about whether they charge money for what is honestly not much more than a slightly modified version of nx-hbmenu. It's about principle. If your code has the potential to damage my hardware, I don't want it anywhere near my Switch. Period.
Then don't mod your Switch. Period.

I understand that creating something so obscure like a brick code to prevent modification of software is an issue. Gets even worse when it's to protect stolen code. However, the way it got blown up is also a big issue.
 
Last edited by Kioku,
  • Like
Reactions: lukhart
The amount of people defending these practices is honestly terrifying.

It's not about whether it'll brick anyone during practical use. It's not about whether they charge money for what is honestly not much more than a slightly modified version of nx-hbmenu. It's about principle. If your code has the potential to damage my hardware, I don't want it anywhere near my Switch. Period.
Read my reply above. Wanna know why people keep defending them? The answer is pretty simple...
 
Why? There are open-source alternatives out there that don't have the potential to brick anything.
Those open sources are nowhere near stable is why and could "Potentially" brick our switch as well we just haven't put any effort finding out how like we are on the SX OS
 
Those open sources are nowhere near stable is why and could "Potentially" brick our switch as well we just haven't put any effort finding out how like we are on the SX OS
The difference between the two is that one has community oversight and is being developed by people who do not have a vested interest in destroying my hardware. The other is SX.
 
The difference between the two is that one has community oversight and is being developed by people who do not have a vested interest in destroying my hardware. The other is SX.
"Vested interest" oh dear lord stop...
 
  • Like
Reactions: cearp
The difference between the two is that one has community oversight and is being developed by people who do not have a vested interest in destroying my hardware. The other is SX.
The difference is that one is open source and the other is a paid product with an anti piracy measure. With the given facts only triggers when someone tampers with the product and only 1 person has done this and only 1 person got bricked
 
"Vested interest" oh dear lord stop...
What about this doesn't say vested interest to you? While it is a defense against crackers, the fact remains that atmosphere doesn't need anything like this.

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

The difference is that one is open source and the other is a paid product with an anti piracy measure. With the given facts only triggers when someone tampers with the product and only 1 person has done this and only 1 person got bricked
Again, it's about principle. I'm not going to support something that, along with being the product of minimal effort, has the potential to brick its own paying customers.
 
Last edited by ultramario1998,
You need a serious break from the internet.
Give it an hour or two and he's gonna act all apologetic and claim to take a break from the temp and goes back to being a toxic brick in less than 24 hour afterwards like the dozen other times he pulled that shit. "Throw a fit" fox will never change.

What about this doesn't say vested interest to you? While it is a defense against crackers, the fact remains that atmosphere doesn't need anything like this. [...] I'm not going to support something that, along with being the product of minimal effort, has the potential to brick its own paying customers.
And while that's perfectly fine, let's face it. You didn't want to "support" TX to begin with riding the atmosphere train. There's gonna be a chance that atmosphere will brick your Switch too one way or another. Be it through one line of bad code or through manual user error. There is no known case of SX OS bricking a switch through normal use so we don't know whether or not TX will reimburse legit customers which is why I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt.
 
Last edited by LysergCooltyp,
  • Like
Reactions: lukhart and Kioku
Told you people would be quick to defend Team TX for putting their dickish brick code/DRM into their own product lol. People sure love defending them.

Why is it so bloody hard for people to grasp this?

I have an SX Pro on the way and ordered the license last night and been playing away with it. All my backups work and no complaints. I could care less about T-X putting brick code in their payload. I could care less if Atmosphere has brick code in their CFW. Since there's only one, confirmed, report of a brick (caused by tampering with their software) out of over 100,000 installs, not going to worry about it in the least.
 
And while that's perfectly fine, let's face it. You didn't want to "support" TX to begin with riding the atmosphere. There's gonna be a chance that it's gonna brick your Switch too one way or another. Be it through one line of bad code or through manual user error. There is no known case of SX OS bricking a switch through normal use so we don't know whether or not TX will reimburse legit customers which is why I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt.
Okay, that's fair. From my perspective, however, going the atmosphere route is far safer, since again, no active brick code. Plus, there will be several utilities that can help recover in case of an Atmosphere-caused brick, whereas SX simply encrypts your nand (we know the "default" pass, although hexkyz's first brick was just encrypted from random garbage pulled from the stack, so who the heck knows), so people without the know-how are left completely at TX's mercy.
 
Since this thread is 17 pages long i'm not gonna browse through all that and just ask - did he specify anywhere *how* it can be triggered through plain use? If not then as far as I'm concerned he's just full of shit (and no i don't care who he is)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mikuru and Kioku
Since this thread is 17 pages long i'm not gonna browse through all that and just ask - did he specify anywhere *how* it can be triggered through plain use? If not then as far as I'm concerned he's just full of shit (and no i don't care who he is)
There's supposedly a writeup coming, but if you want to brick your own switch to prove them wrong, the details are here.
 
The difference is that one is open source and the other is a paid product with an anti piracy measure. With the given facts only triggers when someone tampers with the product and only 1 person has done this and only 1 person got bricked
Since this thread is 17 pages long i'm not gonna browse through all that and just ask - did he specify anywhere *how* it can be triggered through plain use? If not then as far as I'm concerned he's just full of shit (and no i don't care who he is)

This. All I'm trying to say is that the "brick code" isn't nearly as bad as people are making it out to be. At least from the information we currently have. There's been only one brick, which was expected and caused by tampering with the files.

I'm NOT defending their business practices. Hell up until it was confirmed that the code base they used wasn't even theirs, I didn't even care. Until we have more information about what may cause an accidental brick, it's just misguided fear mongering.
 
What about this doesn't say vested interest to you? While it is a defense against crackers, the fact remains that atmosphere doesn't need anything like this.

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


Again, it's about principle. I'm not going to support something that, along with being the product of minimal effort, has the potential to brick its own paying customers.
That brick code is there for a reason and it got demonstrated when other people get bricked then I'll get back to you on that. Principle means nothing if the product your selling loses value b/c it was stolen for free usage . Atmosphere wont have backup support
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kioku
There's supposedly a writeup coming, but if you want to brick your own switch to prove them wrong, the details are here.

"Prove us wrong by doing this what the developers didnt intend you to do with this"

I'm not a fan of the brick code myself but they should just add an asterisk everywhere and a footnote that all their bricks are triggered through *unintended use*
 
Last edited by devpanda,
  • Like
Reactions: tbb043

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum