I've rephrased my earlier post because it seems there's a spell of confusion going around.
Here are the facts as provided by GW as of today
- GW says to stay on 9.0-9.20
- 9.x support is implemented via software update NOT hardware update.
What we can know from "GW says to stay on 9.0-9.20"
- Absolutely nothing at all.
- It could be that it's a more limited exploit, it could be to prevent confusion, it could be to prevent users on 4.x having to wait a long time for this new update
- Basically there are too many possibilities to form any single logical conclusion
What we can deduce from "9.x support is implemented via software update NOT hardware update."
The software update can either be a newer version of launcher.dat OR it could be a FPGA update
Assume that its a FPGA update
- Previously a FPGA update was done via the use of a launcher.dat which then flashed the newer instructions to the FPGA. It stands to reason that this will be the case this time round as well since it was used before.
- A FPGA update could be done via automatic flashing of an image on GW's mSD card IF there are some inbuilt routines in the GW card. This is unlikely to exist since GW opted for the launcher.dat method. It is also unlikely that GW would have the foresight to implement such a routine during the previous FPGA update as the launcher.dat method works well for them, there's no reason to go the extra mile
- HENCE, it is likely that a FPGA update will be done via a launcher.dat. This means kernel access.
- It could be possible that a FPGA update be done via a userland exploit like sspwn but extremely unlikely as userland exploits will not have the necessary permissions (i might not be correct on this but correct me if I'm wrong)
Next up, it's just a newer launcher.dat
- Still need a kernel exploit to launch launcher.dat
- Upside is that this will mean that 9.x will be able to do everything 4.x can.
Hence in conclusion,
- No matter if GW chooses to update FPGA or just replace a newer launcher.dat, it STILL REQUIRES a kernel exploit.
- This means that based on what GW has told us so far, it most definitely means it's a new 9.0-9.2 kernel exploit
But wait!
- Blah blah it could be blah blah
- GW has not shown this so it must mean blah blah
- Why would GW say blah blah if blah blah
- ALL THE ABOVE 3 points are just baseless useless meaningless speculation.
The conclusion that there is a new 9.x exploit is based on the fact that gateway has said it's a software update and hence determining the types of software update that are possible and then deriving the means to achieve the software updates, this conclusion can only be disproved IF GW has lied about it being a software update solution OR if miraculously a userland exploit has the necessary permissions to perform a FPGA update.
"the deriving of a conclusion by reasoning;
specifically : inference in which the conclusion about particulars follows necessarily from general or universal premises — compare"
I made a conclusion based on the premises that GW says that its a software update.
I've eliminated usermode exploit as a means of updating the card as IIRC usermode does not have any permissions beyond SDK and AFAIK, updating the FPGA will require elevated privileges which requires kernel access. I might be severely wrong on this BUT I know for sure that the majority of people here do not know if its possible to do such a thing with userland. THIS becomes speculative and hence I immediately disregard this as there is simply no way to tell for sure. Preupdating the card? Etc etc? This are all just tidbits pulled out of orifices without any substantiation. Not to say that it's impossible just that we can't know for sure since GW has not mentioned anything. Bam. More useless speculation.
My theory is based on reasoning derived from what we DO KNOW so far. I'm not saying that in the end it has to be the only possible explanation. I'm saying that until GW decides to release more information, it's the only logical explanation. This is what you're not getting. I'm insisting that my theory is accurate on the premises that what information gateway has provided as of late is true. This may change later on.
As of now, all other explanations are rendered meaningless because they are explanations pulled from thin air in a futile attempt to bring meaning to the current situation. Also, you fail to see that I do not admit that my theory is iron clad, I admit that the whole thing will fall apart with new conflicting information. As for you, you're just trying to minimalise the impact of my theory by calling me a small person and rude when all I have done so far is to refute other wild speculative theories that have little to no basis on facts.
