From Team Xecuter:

This new 2.6 BETA of SX OS adds full support for Nintendo Switch firmware 7.x, including ALL functionality you expect when using our product. We've been pioneering our own unique and proprietary solution for defeating any future firmware protection and we're quite happy with the results so far.

This release is marked as BETA because we changed things drastically under the hood to streamline future firmware updates and some things may inadvertently behave differently.

That does not mean it hasn't been vetted at all, so give it a shot today!

Of course, we haven't been sitting idly behind the scenes either. A lot of our development resources and attention has been dedicated to bringing SX OS to those "unhackable" switches. We are working hard to bring the SX OS experience to all of you who are stuck with an "unhackable" switch. Stay tuned for more news!

Download here: -REMOVED-

 

[linuxares]

https://streamable.com/33vpv

You got multiple? Can I ask how you do that?

 

[xiaNaix]

The payload for Atmosphere and other solutions are signed with a PRIVATE KEY. Doesn't get any more "illegal" than that yet you all look the other way. The public key used in SX OS has been known widely for a while now. Double standard.

 

[DocKlokMan]

Correct, since Reboot to payload works for all the 3 big CFW, you only need to if you happen to turn your switch off or a super hard crash.
It's not a big issue if you discharge your Switch. It just takes forever to recharge it since it will enter RCM mode instantly when you plug power in, kind of an annoying feature for the Switch to be honest.

Has anyone confirmed the reboot to payload works in the new SX OS while still on FW 6.2? Or is it only implemented for FW 7.0.1+?

 

[linuxares]

Has anyone confirmed the reboot to payload works in the new SX OS while still on FW 6.2? Or is it only implemented for FW 7.0.1+?

The post just above showed it working x3

 

[Kubas_inko]

Has anyone confirmed the reboot to payload works in the new SX OS while still on FW 6.2? Or is it only implemented for FW 7.0.1+?

SX OS now has exosphere, so that's why it works. And yes, it works. But you need payload in /atmosphere folder.

 

[DocKlokMan]

The post just above showed it working x3

SX OS now has exosphere, so that's why it works. And yes, it works. But you need payload in /atmosphere folder.

Alright, I just wanted to make sure exosphere was in use on 6.2.0 and not just 7.0.1. Thank you.

 

[8BitWonder]

The payload for Atmosphere and other solutions are signed with a PRIVATE KEY. Doesn't get any more "illegal" than that yet you all look the other way. The public key used in SX OS has been known widely for a while now. Double standard.

Signing it with a private key is in no way distributing it.
If you feel that I'm wrong you're more than welcome to try deriving the tsec key from the current sept binary.

 

[linuxares]

Alright, I just wanted to make sure exosphere was in use on 6.2.0 and not just 7.0.1. Thank you.

Oh right, sorry. then I don't know. I can try when I get home.

 

[shabbypenguin]

Odd that GBATemp would ban SX OS because it reportedly contains a key that can ONLY be revealed using hexkyz's unpacker but not the tool that actually decrypts the binary and exposed the key.

Also odd that they still allow Atmosphere, who's source code clearly shows the seed keys required to generate the key.

This is a clear double standard.

thats like saying nintendo cant sue me for releasing a raspberry pi img that contains every single rom packed into it already. "how can you prove its their copyrighted code, it was just an img file!" if this were the case then 95% of torrents would be completely legal to share since they get packed into rar files.

its on nintendo to prove that there is copyrighted code within the file, they can by unpacking it and examining the contents. that means if gbatemp links to it they would be complicit in linking illegal content. it doesnt matter to judges if some idiot user doesnt know how to unpack the file, its still violating copyright.

 

[Essasetic]

Holy shit. SX OS is banned now?!

 

[DocKlokMan]

Oh right, sorry. then I don't know. I can try when I get home.

Works fine, just tested it before seeing your response. I can now boot back and forth between SXOS and Atmosphere without having to use my jig or inject any payloads, nice!

 

[Creatable]

The payload for Atmosphere and other solutions are signed with a PRIVATE KEY. Doesn't get any more "illegal" than that yet you all look the other way. The public key used in SX OS has been known widely for a while now. Double standard.

Signing things with a key that is private is in no way similar to distributing that key publicly, as the private key cannot be derived from the signed binary. Binaries signed with a private key are perfectly legal, and if they weren't I'm sure Atmosphere's Git repo would be down right now.

 

[linuxares]

Works fine, just tested it before seeing your response. I can now boot back and further between SXOS and Atmosphere without having to use my jig or inject any payloads, nice!

I know right! Even ReiNX 2.1 works the same! It's glorious day for CFW users!

 

[DocKlokMan]

You got multiple? Can I ask how you do that?

https://github.com/suchmememanyskill/Payload_Launcher

 

[xiaNaix]

Signing it with a private key is in no way distributing it.
If you feel that I'm wrong you're more than welcome to try deriving the tsec key from the current sept binary.

Signing it with a private key makes it "illegal" using the moral logic applied elsewhere.

How is that any different than what SX OS does, since their use of the key can ONLY be exposed by Heskin's unpacker, which apparently is not considered "illegal."

 

[linuxares]

Signing it with a private key makes it "illegal" using the moral logic applied elsewhere.

I need to stop using Windows then

 

[Essasetic]

Signing it with a private key makes it "illegal" using the moral logic applied elsewhere.

You don't know what you're talking about lol.

 

[Ev1l0rd]

Signing it with a private key makes it "illegal" using the moral logic applied elsewhere.

Uhm... where is said logic applied?

If you're referring to some GPLv2 violation, tivoization (which you're referring to I think?) wasn't a thing until GPLv3.

 

[Creatable]

Signing it with a private key makes it "illegal" using the moral logic applied elsewhere.

SX OS is not signed with a private key, it CONTAINS the private key. There's a massive difference.

 

[Essasetic]

This is legendary.