Hardware About NATIVE_FIRM and downgrades

[gnmmarechal]

I couldn't find the questions forum, if there is one. As such, I'll ask my question here. Is there any specific reason why we didn't downgrade ONLY NATIVE_FIRM from 9.3-10.3 to 9.2 and instead we downgraded the whole system with sysUpdater?

 

[iAqua]

I couldn't find the questions forum, if there is one. As such, I'll ask my question here. Is there any specific reason why we didn't downgrade ONLY NATIVE_FIRM from 9.3-10.3 to 9.2 and instead we downgraded the whole system with sysUpdater?

I'm not exactly sure, but probably due to frankenfirms being really unstable and all the updated titles could mess with it.

 

[zoogie]

I couldn't find the questions forum, if there is one. As such, I'll ask my question here. Is there any specific reason why we didn't downgrade ONLY NATIVE_FIRM from 9.3-10.3 to 9.2 and instead we downgraded the whole system with sysUpdater?

Try it and find out.

 

[gnmmarechal]

Try it and find out.

I will, once I hardmod my DS.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I'm not exactly sure, but probably due to frankenfirms being really unstable and all the updated titles could mess with it.

but doesn't a9lhax protect NATIVE_FIRM at boot and prevent updates to just that specific file? While allowing you to update to the latest FW?

 

[iAqua]

I will, once I hardmod my DS.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


but doesn't a9lhax protect NATIVE_FIRM at boot and prevent updates to just that specific file? While allowing you to update to the latest FW?

But you wouldn't have a9lh.

 

[gnmmarechal]

But you wouldn't have a9lh.

Sure, but I meant, if A9lh protects NATIVE_FIRM against updates, then it means you'd have a 10.6 sysNAND with an older NATIVE_FIRM. Why would downgrading NATIVE_FIRM not work? You'd end up with a 9.3-10.3 system with an older NATIVE_FIRM as well.
That is my point.

 

[iAqua]

Sure, but I meant, if A9lh protects NATIVE_FIRM against updates, then it means you'd have a 10.6 sysNAND with an older NATIVE_FIRM. Why would downgrading NATIVE_FIRM not work? You'd end up with a 9.3-10.3 system with an older NATIVE_FIRM as well.
That is my point.

I believe softbricks have been caused due to updated titles, 2.0 wouldn't understand all of the files.

 

[tvall]

if i understand correctly, titles like homemenu and such require certain versios of native_firm. version doesnt mach = title doesnt load. a 3ds without a home menu or settings or anyting isnt very useful.

 

[gnmmarechal]

if i understand correctly, titles like homemenu and such require certain versios of native_firm. version doesnt mach = title doesnt load. a 3ds without a home menu or settings or anyting isnt very useful.

Oh, I see. Thank you. Then, how does a9l allow you to have an old NATIVE_FIRM alongside say, 10.6 FW?

 

[tvall]

the checks are only for versions, not revisions. so i think on 10.6 you cna go all the way down to 9.6 firm or something

 

[gamesquest1]

Afaik 10.3-10.6 was the first FW version susceptible to such an attack as with every other FIRM update the version has been increased, for whatever reason with 10.4-10.6 the FIRM number was kept the same and only the revision code was updated, the problem with that is that the 3ds only verifies the version number and the revision number doesnt matter