Hacking 3DS 11.5 system update incoming

[Father Crilly]

Off-topic slightly - I'm on 11.4 and I'm trying to update a cartridge based game, but it tells me to update to 11.5 before I can download the game update. I can download the game's latest update to my PC, is there any way to install it to my SD card without updating?

 

[Deleted member 414991]

Off-topic slightly - I'm on 11.4 and I'm trying to update a cartridge based game, but it tells me to update to 11.5 before I can download the game update. I can download the game's latest update to my PC, is there any way to install it to my SD card without updating?

Why won't you update? It doesn't have any cons.

 

[Father Crilly]

Why won't you update? It doesn't have any cons.

The less stability the better.

 

[Deleted member 414991]

There's literally no cons. Nothing was patched like ctr-httpwn was in 11.4. Just update.

 

[Izeman]

So Nintendo DO HAVE the ability to release an update that breaks BS9?

Actually I’m not so deep in hacking knowledge to answer that.

 

[Quantumcat]

Someone has actually hacked a N2DSXL in the wild however. B9S installed. Lemme find the GBATemp thread...

Here
https://gbatemp.net/threads/i-got-an-n2dsxl.474326/

 

[Deleted member 414991]

Here
https://gbatemp.net/threads/i-got-an-n2dsxl.474326/

shameless self-promotion

 

[GerbilSoft]

So Nintendo DO HAVE the ability to release an update that breaks BS9?

They could add a second FIRM update path that isn't currently patched by CFW in order to replace the B9S FIRM with original FIRM. This would cause affected systems to be reverted back to stock.

However, the system could be rehacked using DSiWareHax, hardmod, or (eventually) ntrboothax, and then more write-protect patches can be added to the CFW to block the second path.

The sighax vulnerability, which is used by boot9strap, cannot be fixed. The relevant code is permanently stored in mask ROM on the CPU. Nintendo could have taken the time to fix it in the New 2DS XL, but they didn't for some reason.

 

[Deleted member 414991]

That would be illegal. They can't legally replace the boot.firm on your sd card.

 

[GerbilSoft]

That would be illegal. They can't legally replace the boot.firm on your sd card.

1. I was referring to the FIRM partition in CTR NAND.
2. Exactly which law states that they can't replace boot.firm on the SD card? As far as I know, the only applicable terms is the EULA *you* agreed to with regards to not using unauthorized software modifications.

 

[Quantumcat]

The sighax vulnerability, which is used by boot9strap, cannot be fixed. The relevant code is permanently stored in mask ROM on the CPU. Nintendo could have taken the time to fix it in the New 2DS XL, but they didn't for some reason.

The 2DS XL was announced before we had b9s so it was probably too late in the development cycle to alter the design.

 

[Deleted member 414991]

It's not the EULA that makes it against the law. And b9s priority loads the boot.firm from the sd card.

 

[Quantumcat]

1. I was referring to the FIRM partition in CTR NAND.
2. Exactly what law states that they can't replace boot.firm on the SD card? As far as I know, the only applicable terms is the EULA *you* agreed to with regards to not using unauthorized software modifications.

They can't start altering user's personal data. I don't know if it is illegal or not but it would cause a public relations nightmare. It just isn't done.

 

[Deleted member 414991]

nvm

 

[PrincessLillie]

Nintendo could have taken the time to fix it in the New 2DS XL, but they didn't for some reason.

It would have impacted the stability.

 

[GerbilSoft]

They can't start altering user's personal data. I don't know if it is illegal or not but it would cause a public relations nightmare. It just isn't done.

"boot.firm" isn't necessarily personal data. They can easily claim that they detected it as malware (as most anti-virus vendors do with regards to keygens etc).

Never mind that the only recourse affected users would have is a class-action lawsuit, and considering that the class-action lawsuit against Microsoft regarding disc scratching on the Xbox 360 was tossed, a suit over boot.firm would get nowhere.

 

[Deleted member 414991]

You can't remove files from the sd card of someone without their permission. It's just flat out illegal. Any personal files of someone can't be altered if they don't give consent.

 

[Quantumcat]

"boot.firm" isn't necessarily personal data. They can easily claim that they detected it as malware (as most anti-virus vendors do with regards to keygens etc).

Never mind that the only recourse affected users would have is a class-action lawsuit, and considering that the class-action lawsuit against Microsoft regarding disc scratching on the Xbox 360 was tossed, a suit over boot.firm would get nowhere.

It isn't the legal side that they'd be worried about. It would be people being outraged and causing a public relations nightmare. Nobody wants to think that they could put personal pictures or documents on their SD card and have Nintendo look at them or delete them or modify them. Even if that isn't the case, general users won't understand Nintendo is only modifying one particular file to slow down hackers. Facts won't get in the way of a good uninformed media beat-up.

 

[GerbilSoft]

It isn't the legal side that they'd be worried about. It would be people being outraged and causing a public relations nightmare. Nobody wants to think that they could put personal pictures or documents on their SD card and have Nintendo look at them or delete them or modify them. Even if that isn't the case, general users won't understand Nintendo is only modifying one particular file to slow down hackers. Facts won't get in the way of a good uninformed media beat-up.

Hasn't been a problem for Microsoft. (Windows 10 Telemetry, Windows 10 intentionally installing broken drivers, Microsoft themselves going through users' emails without consent, etc.)

(And before you mention Google for the last part: That was automated scanning; Microsoft actually looked through a user's emails without a warrant to find a Windows 8 leaker.)

 

[Quantumcat]

Hasn't been a problem for Microsoft. (Windows 10 Telemetry, Windows 10 intentionally installing broken drivers, Microsoft themselves going through users' emails without consent, etc.)

(And before you mention Google for the last part: That was automated scanning; Microsoft actually looked through a user's emails without a warrant to find a Windows 8 leaker.)

Edit: @jupitteer is right. None of the things you mentioned involved modifying user data.