Hacking 3DS Custom Code Execution?

[luigi90210]

Okay.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2012-26308.pdf

It's exactly the same thing Ars Technica cites, so I don't see what the problem was, but whatever.

Read the DMCA sometime. If it circumvents copy protection it's illegal unless an exemption has been granted, which for game consoles, it hasn't, as evidenced by the Library of Congress ruling. See 4B:

if you would have read the entire document again, instead of reading snippets it says it does not forbid achieving interoperability is illegal on any device other than a tablet

Joint Creators asserted that the proposed exemption is unnecessary and beyond the scope
of the rulemaking because Section 1201(f) of the Copyright Act already defines “the contours of
acceptable circumvention related to interoperability.”

TLDR
it is not defined if "tablets" are protected under that specific exemption but it is not stated that achieving interoperability on a non exempted item is illegal as well

all that says is that there is no specific exemption for "tablets" because the term is too vauge

here is section 1201 subsection f of the copyright act

Reverse Engineering. — (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term “interoperability” means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

TLDR if someone who legally obtained a nintendo 3ds reverse engineered the software and found a way to achieve interoperability and circumvention of security systems in place does not infringe under this title and is considered fair use

releasing the software to do it as well is also considered fair use as determined in the californian kid's case(as i read into it some more, he was found guilty of DMCA but only because he could not claim fair use when doing the modification to other's xboxs) because it is considered fair use in copyright act section 1201 subsection F and you do it to your personally owned and legally obtained console, it is considered fair use as well since it is your personally owned software
http://www.allyourlawarebelongtous.com/“matthew-crippen-i-fought-the-dmca-and-i-won”/

if you have anything else to post please do so, im enjoying this legal debate(maybe i should become a lawyer instead of becoming a car mechanic XD)

im also trying to keep this a friendly debate as well, please dont take anything the wrong way

 

[PercentSevenC]

if you would have read the entire document again, instead of reading snippets it says it does not forbid achieving interoperability is illegal on any device other than a tablet



TLDR
it is not defined if "tablets" are protected under this section of the copyright law but it is not stated that achieving interoperability on a non exempted item is illegal as well

all that says is that there is no specific exemption for "tablets" because the term is too vauge

here is section 1201 subsection f of the copyright act

TLDR if someone who legally obtained a nintendo 3ds reverse engineered the software and found a way to achieve interoperability and circumvention of security systems in place does not infringe under this title and is considered fair use

releasing the software to do it as well is also considered fair use as determined in the californian kid's case(as i read into it some more, he was found guilty of DMCA but only because he could not claim fair use when doing the modification to other's xboxs) because it is considered fair use in copyright act section 1201 subsection F and you do it to your personally owned and legally obtained console, it is considered fair use as well since it is your personally owned software

if you have anything else to post please do so, im enjoying this legal debate(maybe i should become a lawyer instead of becoming a car mechanic XD)

im also trying to keep this a friendly debate as well, please dont take anything the wrong way

Yes, I quoted a snippet, because that is all that was needed. By all means read the rest of that section, because it explains the decision in much greater detail. It also outlines a number of reasons why 1201(f) may not apply to game consoles. 1201(f) is pretty narrow in scope, unfortunately, and since geohot's case was dropped, we didn't get any clarification on the matter, but based on the Library of Congress decision, it probably doesn't apply. I certainly wouldn't count on it. Especially when EULAs and things are involved, meaning that you may not actually have legal right to use the software if you are trying to reverse engineer it.

The fact of the matter is that you could easily find yourself in legal hot water by releasing console hacks that work around encryption, especially when distributing them, and even more especially if they facilitate copyright infringement. Even if you do manage to get yourself acquitted, dealing with a trial like that, the time and expense and heartache, is not something most people want to deal with, particularly anyone with actual responsibilities. You can't demand someone else take that risk just so you can get free games with slightly more ease than you otherwise could.

Incidentally, if this debate weren't proof enough, anyone who takes legal advice from random strangers from the internet (myself included, of course) deserves what they get.

 

[luigi90210]

Yes, I quoted a snippet, because that is all that was needed. By all means read the rest of that section, because it explains the decision in much greater detail. It also outlines a number of reasons why 1201(f) may not apply to game consoles. 1201(f) is pretty narrow in scope, unfortunately, and since geohot's case was dropped, we didn't get any clarification on the matter, but based on the Library of Congress decision, it probably doesn't apply. I certainly wouldn't count on it. Especially when EULAs and things are involved, meaning that you may not actually have legal right to use the software if you are trying to reverse engineer it.

The fact of the matter is that you could easily find yourself in legal hot water by releasing console hacks that work around encryption, especially when distributing them, and even more especially if they facilitate copyright infringement. Even if you do manage to get yourself acquitted, dealing with a trial like that, the time and expense and heartache, is not something most people want to deal with, particularly anyone with actual responsibilities. You can't demand someone else take that risk just so you can get free games with slightly more ease than you otherwise could.

Incidentally, if this debate weren't proof enough, anyone who takes legal advice from random strangers from the internet (myself included, of course) deserves what they get.

idk about that one, i am about 90% sure that 1201(f) would apply given the definition under the copyright act, i read through the entire document posted regarding the smartphone exemption and 1201(f) and all it really defines is that the "tablet" exemption couldn't be made because the word tablet is too vague and it has not been determined that 1201(f) can be applied in the exact context that was stated and it is to be later determined

http://www.allyourlawarebelongtous.com/“matthew-crippen-i-fought-the-dmca-and-i-won”/
ok so i think i found a better example of DMCA being beaten by a modder/hacker who was probably doing much worse than what releasing an exploit would do(installing the modification for people) and from the looks of it, 1201(c) was used to defend Matthew as well as the iphone jailbreak case which was argued that it applies to video game consoles and in turn the prosecution ended up dropping the case

to touch on EULA being violated though, that would be under contract law and unless apple, microsoft, nintendo, acer, motorola, samsung, ect. want to sue everyone who hacked into their device and violated the EULA , they legally can, but if they do, it still will not make jailbreaking, hacking, CFW, ect. illegal, at most they would get a small settlement which financially speaking, would cost them more than it would bring in money just from all the legal fees associated with suing someone in small claims court and from a business standpoint, is just bad for business over all

also im not demanding anyone release anything, im just stating that using piracy as an excuse is mediocre and clearing the air that it is not illegal to circumvent security measures used to protect DRM as proven in 2 court rulings and 1 lawsuit(that i know of)
unfortunately we live in a society where you are guilty until proven innocent, and if you are suspected of breaking copyright laws, you can and will be jailed until your trial, you could counter sue the city and federal government for a wrongful arrest if you are found innocent but that will only take more time that could be better used for other things
i do agree with you though, none of this debate should be taken as legal advice and you should always consult an attorney before taking any legal action

 

[Ericthegreat]

long

Most people agree all of this is "gray area".

 

[luigi90210]

Most people agree all of this is "gray area".

it is indeed a grey area, we live in a grey world with black and white rules
i believe it is very much reliant on what you are doing with the exploits/unlocks/hacks to determine legality or not(IE if you are playing homebrew games or something else legal, you will be fine, but if you are clearly doing illegal things like piracy, than you will get in trouble) but that is never the case

 

[McHaggis]

You all seem to be implying that the DMCA applies to everyone, which isn't true. It is applicable only to the USA. There's little point arguing about it because it's not relevant to the people who posted the video and therefore it's pretty much off topic.

 

[luigi90210]

You all seem to be implying that the DMCA applies to everyone, which isn't true. It is applicable only to the USA. There's little point arguing about it because it's not relevant to the people who posted the video and therefore it's pretty much off topic.

just because you dont live in the Us doesnt mean others here dont and just because it doesnt affect you personally, doesnt mean it wont affect others

quite the contrary it is relevant because the creator of the exploit here on this thread has stated that they refuse to release the hack because of legal issues and the fact they they do not want to support piracy, all of which our discussion is on topic, and ironically, all the worry the creator has, comes from a lawsuit that was filed in the USA...

if you know DMCA doesnt apply to you then dont comment on how it doesnt apply to you, the information stated on this thread will in fact help someone else out, and give them a general idea about DMCA laws, whether they are in the US, or a country where DMCA like laws have been implemented

 

[McHaggis]

just because you dont live in the Us doesnt mean others here dont and just because it doesnt affect you personally, doesnt mean it wont affect others

quite the contrary it is relevant because the creator of the exploit here on this thread has stated that they refuse to release the hack because of legal issues and the fact they they do not want to support piracy, all of which our discussion is on topic, and ironically, all the worry the creator has, comes from a lawsuit that was filed in the USA...

If his GBATemp profile is to be believed, the video uploader is from Russia, so citing the DMCA or existing cases that took place in the USA as an argument against his decision not to release what he has is not useful to him. Or this thread (ergo, off topic). Also, you admitted that you're not qualified to give legal advice, so posting a few excerpts from the DMCA doesn't really help people in the USA, either. Anyone thinking of releasing a hack and worried about the legal ramifications should seek counsel from a professional in the field.

 

[lightenup]

some of you working on the same contacted me and partially shared their progress status.. and many recently started to take a closer look at the GW releases. Well, I am confident that smth (good?) will come 'soon'(if good but, not collobarated with yellows8/neimod it still will take at least half a year, maybe much longer). Interestingly (no idea, if it was meant in earnest, but let's assume it for now): all of those working on this, plan to release a strictly homebrew loader.. thats basically something with similar protection as GW, but providing a changed/other API for the cleartext homebrew software only. Such a loader would never load warezed/Nintendo ROMs.
Anyway - I am out of the picture and its time for the final good bye: My 3ds time was short&fun. All the best & Cheers!

btw: since some asked - most of the source code that displayed the cube is available for free here (should have credited that): http://www.alterawiki.com/wiki/NEEK_VGA_Design_Examples (spinning cube)

 

[TheBlueSky]

Thanks lightenup!

It is also a pleasure to read the nand flash dump thread and the joint collaboration/participation from everyone. It is fun and interesting! You are one talented guy!

 

[IMRAN_PETER]

some of you working on the same contacted me and partially shared their progress status.. and many recently started to take a closer look at the GW releases. Well, I am confident that smth (good?) will come 'soon'(if good but, not collobarated with yellows8/neimod it still will take at least half a year, maybe much longer). Interestingly (no idea, if it was meant in earnest, but let's assume it for now): all of those working on this, plan to release a strictly homebrew loader.. thats basically something with similar protection as GW, but providing a changed/other API for the cleartext homebrew software only. Such a loader would never load warezed/Nintendo ROMs.
Anyway - I am out of the picture and its time for the final good bye: My 3ds time was short&fun. All the best & Cheers!

btw: since some asked - most of the source code that displayed the cube is available for free here (should have credited that): http://www.alterawiki.com/wiki/NEEK_VGA_Design_Examples (spinning cube)

many thanks,man...

Wish & hope u stay with the Scene longer. Scene needs a talented person(including neimod & yello8) like u, man. Anyway, take care of yourself.

 

[williamcesar2]

I miss ''Geohot''

 

[Xexyz]

I miss ''Geohot''

Do you remember Blackra1n and Limera1n?

 

[williamcesar2]

Do you remember Blackra1n and Limera1n?

of course!

 

[yifan_lu]

I know I'm late to this party, but can someone explain to me why this is real? I'm a bit skeptical because OP stated that they did not have a memory dump, which means that either they discovered a brand new exploit or had lots of help from someone with a RAM dump. (EDIT: I just thought of another possibility. The red card itself could be injecting some code into the system [although unlikely], if so, another way would be to replace this data by RE the red card, which I'm guessing is also obfuscated). Secondly, the "source" of the cube (http://www.alterawiki.com/wiki/NEEK_VGA_Design_Examples), which btw, I couldn't seem to find actually source code, just some compiled binaries, seems to be targeted for a processor called NIOS II, which appears to be a custom SoC that is not ARM based, meaning that even if OP had direct framebuffer access, they would not have been able to run the code.

I'm not trying to call anyone out (I don't know who OP is or what their history is), just voicing my skepticism since there appears to be 12 pages of people talking about the ramifications of such a hack rather than the validity of such a hack.

EDIT: To be clear, I do NOT think this is a fake.

 

[Deleted User]

No point in discussing this anymore. The authors have removed their video, so let's close this thread and move on

 

[Xexyz]

No point in discussing this anymore. The authors have removed their video, so let's close this thread and move on

someone reuploaded the video.

 

[yifan_lu]

No point in discussing this anymore. The authors have removed their video, so let's close this thread and move on

I believe that even though OP deleted the video, it is still a discussion worth having. OP doesn't decide when the conversation ends just by deleting the video. I think the community is interested in running code, and I am personally interested in the explanation to the problems I found.