Online play yes updating no the games cert isnt checked as soon as you go online for online content cert and D.I.D is checked against your account if its a digital copy and it comes back as zero d.i.d they'll ban you because they know you didnt pay for the game .Wonder if it's just the eshop or games too?
I did update, but my efuses weren't burned, so, time for downgrading back to 4.1.0says nobody..
I dont think thats coming in September I think that's gonna be out way after Mariko.If a warmboot isn’t going to be released before september, I think I would rather update my switch, as I don’t really see the value of hacking it for now.
Hey Dr.doom tell them you initialized your console (doing this does delete all error logs) i can confirm it does on 3.0I dont think thats coming in September I think that's gonna be out way after Mariko.
It will, in fact we already do. Its called Fusee Gelee. Its how we've been loading all of our favorite CFWs, including Atmosphere, to date. If you're referring to untethered coldboot, see below:Will it have coldboot?
I tried but the report that was sent prior still had a bunch of system module errors that only get called from trying to redirect game carts they are getting good at catching stuff . But the logs mismatched is something they are looking for so I'd just keep the dirty logs itll take them longer to ban you .Hey Dr.doom tell them you initialized your console (doing this does delete all error logs) i can confirm it does on 3.0
I'm sorry I have a question about that. Does this mean 3.0.2 is out of luck? It has to be 3.0.1 and lower?It will, in fact we already do. Its called Fusee Gelee. Its how we've been loading all of our favorite CFWs, including Atmosphere, to date. If you're referring to untethered coldboot, see below:
I would say yes because he used lower than sign for < 3.0.2 and not the lower than or equal to sign for ≤ 3.0.2. They have 2 different interpretations.I'm sorry I have a question about that. Does this mean 3.0.2 is out of luck? It has to be 3.0.1 and lower?
Dang. I am 3.0.2. Should I just do nofuse update?I would say yes because he used lower than sign for < 3.0.2 and not the lower than or equal to sign for ≤ 3.0.2. They have 2 different interpretations.
I've noticed a lot of problems on 3.X firmwares and the fuseless updating gives you all the benefits of downgrading while being on 5.1. The only downside to it is that you must use AutoRCM which is manageable if you keep the console in sleep mode or power down using Hekate/manual shutdown. Do not power down from Horizon when using AutoRCM as it will reboot the console into RCM shortly after.Dang. I am 3.0.2. Should I just do nofuse update?
ok so you werent banned for deleteing logsI tried but the report that was sent prior still had a bunch of system module errors that only get called from trying to redirect game carts they are getting good at catching stuff . But the logs mismatched is something they are looking for so I'd just keep the dirty logs itll take them longer to ban you .
I tried but the report that was sent prior still had a bunch of system module errors that only get called from trying to redirect game carts they are getting good at catching stuff . But the logs mismatched is something they are looking for so I'd just keep the dirty logs itll take them longer to ban you .
nope the way I cleared themok so you werent banned for deleteing log.
So umWill this allow new games to be played without updating the system firmware?
And is AutoRCM supported in Fusee?
Does Fusee backup sysNAND and anything else it touches before mod?
No they said they have another coldboot exploit to see why their dongle didn't work and that you could normally cannot see that in RCM mode so they said that for the people watching that they have a coldboot exploit themselves to check up on stuff like this wich you can't with an RCM exploit since that had been patched. They never ever said they were gonna release that exploit but everybody started ripping it out of context and made those claims. I advise you to read again what they saidThey announced last month that they are working on a warm/coldboot for the new patched switchs
Actually, I did a breakdown of this earlier in another thread and they never stated they had a coldboot or warmboot. In fact, its possible they have both according to their official statement.No they said they have another coldboot exploit to see why their dongle didn't work and that you could normally cannot see that in RCM mode so they said that for the people watching that they have a coldboot exploit themselves to check up on stuff like this wich you can't with an RCM exploit since that had been patched. They never ever said they were gonna release that exploit but everybody started ripping it out of context and made those claims. I advise you to read again what they said
I'll leave the original statement here for reference as I break it down point by point.TX said:Dear fans, we hope you're all enjoying your weekend!
Recently, it has come to our attention there's a new revision of the Nintendo Switch in the wild which is incompatible with our SX Pro product. This isn't simply an incompatibility with SX Pro but rather appeared to be a fix of the infamous "USB RCM" exploit.
Naturally, we had to locate one of these new Switch units to get to the bottom of this. Our new Switch unit arrived to us at firmware version 5.1.0 and what we found out is the following (sorry, time to get a bit technical):
One of the IPATCH entries in the fuse set (entry #3) has been replaced with a new patch. The old patch patches the bootrom location 0x10fb3c with the value "00 20" (mov r0, #0 in thumb), and the new patch patches the bootrom location 0x10769a with the value "00 21" (mov r1, #0 in thumb). This new patch effectively zeroes out the upper-byte of the wLength field in the USB RCM endpoint 0 handling code.
Those who are paying attention probably wonder how we know the exact details of this IPATCH entry change, since we can't read out the fuses without our precious USB RCM exploit, right? It is a classic chicken and egg problem.
The answer is obvious: There is more than one coldboot bootrom exploit, and it is not just the warmboot one.
So don't fear: we will deliver a solution for these new "unhackable" switches in due time!
Thank you for attention.
-- Team-Xecuter - Rocking the Switch in 2018 and beyond! --
They never stated that. They said that there are more coldboot and warmboot exploits then we originally thought.
TX said:There is more than one coldboot bootrom exploit, and it is not just the warmboot one.
Also, it has been stated by other hackers that you don't need a coldboot exploit to access the changes made to the bootrom.
Just on the record, you can read the Switch's fuses from userland by pwning the nvservices sysmodule, which has fuse MMIO access.
— Michael (@SciresM) July 29, 2018
(Re: "we can't read out the fuses without our precious USB RCM exploit, right? It is a classic chicken and egg problem.")
Quick note on Gateway (TX for the fam) and the """"unhackables"""":
— Mike Heskin (@hexkyz) July 29, 2018
While it's true that multiple bootrom vulns exist (including *multiple* warmboot ones, contrary to what was implied) you don't need one to dump the ipatches.
To be safe, I'm going to assume what you meant by this and just clarify it for others, if not yourself. They meant that the unit arrived to them with firmware 5.1 NOT came out of the box with firmware 5.1
TX said:Our new Switch unit arrived to us at firmware version 5.1.0
Snippets of this analysis also included how the claim TX had isn't applicable to Mariko and was kept for future reference. Also in case anyone wants to quote me on this, this is not aimed at discrediting TX nor believing they will fail to deliver on a product for the patched consoles nor Mariko. This is to shed some light on some of the points they touched and how possibly vague they were.This means that Mariko Units have still not hit the market meaning whatever exploit(s) they have may or may not work on those because they do not exist yet. Everything else you said though I agree with and it just makes me skeptical. I have no reason to doubt TX will deliver a solution but the information that they are presenting is unclear and misleading at best.