Hi, I'm trying to use Decrypt9 to rescue my saves after following
this guide to the letter and installing arm9loaderhax. The link I inserted leads to the page describing the first time you backup your SysNAND, before any formatting occurs... which I, of course, did. After the whole process, my SysNAND is based on that original backup (with some modifications mandated by the guide, but), and I specifically "restored EmuNAND" using that exact original file, knowing that the right NAND is essential for accessing encrypted title/save data.
Something possibly strange is going on, though, and I don't understand how to overcome it.
Because the guide took me through a few formats, there were two extra /Nintendo 3DS/<id0>/ folders with just basic system settings from downgrades and such. That's normal, and I deleted them without a problem.
What's weird is that after the arm9loaderhax install, and after returning to normalcy using my original sysnand.bin backup, my system is installing to/recognizing the same /Nintendo 3DS/<id0>/ folder... but not the same /<id1>/ folder! It created a new one inside <id0>; now, there are two. If I install anything, it goes to the new one. When I used Decrypt9's recommended SD Decryptor (SysNAND or EmuNAND dir) function, it output decrypted files from the new <id1> folder to D9Game.
Here's what I tried after that initial discovery: I copied my original <id1> folder's contents to D9Game and used the less-recommended SD Decryptor/Encryptor function, figuring this would force Decrypt9 to acknowledge and decrypt its contents.
Once they were decrypted, I wasn't entirely sure what to do with them; SaveDataFiler didn't see them in D9Game, of course, so I tried copying a certain title's .sav and overwriting the same title's .sav in the new, in-use <id1> folder. SDF said it was broken, and so did the game ("Save data corruption detected, deleting save data").
So I figured I would run the SD Decryptor/Encryptor function again, with the vague thought that it would encrypt the old <id1> contents to be recognizeable by my current system. It's running right now. I plan to try the overwriting method again as soon as the encryption is done, but with 25 GB to process each time, a quick testing cycle is impossible. I'd like to know if I'm headed in the right direction, and if not, what direction that would be.
This is not a bug report; it's purely a selfish help request for my use case, but going through Decrypt9's readme, various internet-wide searches and thread/forum/answer board searches for the word "save" yielded no applicable answers, so I understand if the community and developers feel this is inappropriate, but appreciate any help you're willing to provide.