http://www.ktemkin.com/faq-fusee-gelee/

Kate has collected and answered the most common questions she's gotten regarding Fusée Gelée. Most notably she explains the three "types" of FG hacks, software, hardware (temporary) and hardware (permanent).

Enjoy!

Kate herself responded to this thread on page 26, thanks Kate!

There's a lot more here than I can easily respond to, so apologies if I miss posts or gloss over points.



This is correct-- while there likely will be software chains around for these things in the future, I don't see them as coming along as quickly as f-g. We don't have a non-coldboot exploit chain at all for 5.0.0-- and we haven't looked yet, as we've had other things to focus on and coldboot works. We do have one for 4.1.0, but it's centered around a couple of exploits that we don't want to burn-- we're hoping to use them to get an opportunity to poke around inside T214/Mariko.



I don't view you as particularly hostile, no. I don't know if challenge is generally a good thing-- sometimes you do have to accept that other people have different ethics or viewpoints from yourself and let that pass, especially if they're just doing stuff for fun-- but I don't view your post as hostile.



Jamais Vu (1.0.0 TrustZone hack) isn't my bug, but has been written up, and is just awaiting someone with the skills to have time to do a public interpretation. Déjà Vu is currently centered around the exploit I mentioned above, and we definitely want to hold onto that for as long as it's applicable. It's entirely a Switch bug, too, so I don't see it as being something that needs responsible disclosure.



For Déjà Vu, absolutely. (explained in last quote)



I don't agree that things like tweeting are ego. This is something I work on because I find it a lot of fun to hack on things, and there's definitely an aspect in which it makes me happy when seeing the results of things makes other people happy. There's also an aspect in which I hope that showing these things are possible inspires people to want to learn e.g. reverse engineering. This stuff is cool; and I want to share the excitement with others and lift them up as much as I can.

You don't have to believe me on that or like that that's my goal. I won't hold it against you if you don't.



I honestly support people updating when it makes sense; and I recognize that there's a conflict between holding back information and enabling others to make reasonable decisions about that. I don't like or feel good about secrecy, and I know it has implications. I've tried to be as clear as I can about the costs regarding updating without crossing the line into giving things away.



I think we've been pretty clear that 4.1.0 will eventually see a non-coldboot, software-only exploit with the same level of power. That's actually been posted on the ReSwitched Discord's FAQ for months, but I know the message gets skewed as its gets communicated over to other places. That's part of why I'm here, now-- I want to help clear things up.

The interactions between the operating system and the bootloader-- say on reboot-- are actually fairly limited; and knowing what any of them are is enough to point people at the particular section of bootrom that's vulnerable. That's why I'm not commenting on Fusée Gelée and how it relates to software-only solutions right now. I have said e.g. above that since there's no public way of getting the privileges necessary to run things, 4.1.0 isn't going to see a pure software solution that the public can use at the time that f-g is released. Software exploits will likely come in time; and it's possible we'll come up with things that are even easier than f-g.



I'm not sure if they'll take it seriously enough. I don't know how they are internally-- but I can't just assume they'll fail to do anything and skip disclosure. Honestly, I don't think a "security advisory" is really a bad thing, either-- there are definitely applications of Tegra chips that I and/or the public don't know about. If giving NVIDIA notice gives them time to explain exactly what's dangerous and allow their customers to remove and replace units from places where the vulnerability can cause harm, I consider that a win, and well worth delaying some public switch hacks by a few months.

I'll also say that my fear that vendors won't take the vulnerability seriously is a huge reason I'm so keen to get things out there-- and why I provided a date after which I'll tell the public what's going on that I've said was non-negotiable. I want to make sure this doesn't get hidden, and that people understand exactly what f-g can and can't accomplish, to minimize FUD while also letting people understand the actual risks are associated with using a vulnerable device.



It changes this from an exploit that's going to be usable before the affected people know it's a thing to something that people may have a chance to react to. Making the vulnerability public without disclosure really increases the odds someone is capable of using it to do bad.

I didn't really give NVIDIA a chance to sell-off stock; though. I've said publicly multiple times that there are bugs in Tegra processors well before NVIDIA reached out to me seeking disclosure. If anything, I think telling the public that these vulnerabilities exist while pursuing disclosure helps developers interested in using Tegra chips in the future ask the right question.



I've already said that while pure-software stuff is doable on 4.1.0; it'll be a wait. As far as I'm remembering, the only part of the chain that could require multiple tries to work is PegaSwitch, which is our browser-based entry point, and I haven't even tried the browser entry point that'll eventually be public to see how reliable it is. SciresM did the work to get our non-coldboot exploit working on 4.1.0; not me.



Yeah, that's hard-- especially as everyone has a different view as to how inconvenient things are. I don't know of a way to communicate this better without more details.

Incidentally, the 'inconvenience' verbiage came from SciresM and I discussing our respective views on updating. I think SciresM is more towards the opinion that people should hold back more often, where I'm more of the opinion that updating can be a good and reasonable option sometimes. The way we wound up phrasing things is a compromise between views.



(I'm going to assume this meant "on the hacking side". If not I'm not sure what hacking site you're referring to.)

Updating to latest just closes the possibility of using software exploits launched from Horizon, which can make setup more difficult. I know you'd like to know how much, but I unfortunately don't have a good way of qualifying that. As I've mentioned, if you're suffering from not being able to use your 3.0.1+ Switch, you probably do want to upgrade and just risk things being more inconvenient in the future. Worst comes to worst, if you decide you can't tolerate the inconvenience, you upgrade and then wind up having to figure out a modchip.

The downgrade protection fuses literally mean nothing to a system with f-g, which can entirely skip the downgrade check. Incidentally, SciresM actually accidentally bricked one of his systems in a way such that it was always failing the downgrade checks, and he's been able to use f-g to get that system up and running again.



I don't think that's clear at all, nor do I want to confirm or deny this. Sorry.



I think you're making a bunch of assumptions here, and that's maybe not a great idea. I'm not saying you're necessarily right or wrong; just that I don't think your assumptions are founded.



I don't think this contradicts. This is talking about vulnerabilities that aren't f-g; not because f-g doesn't work on 4.1.0, but because it's possible we may come up with vulnerabilities that are even nicer on 4.1.0 in the future.



I'm being as clear as I feel I can, and adding clarifications e.g. here where I think it helps. There will be different names for the the ways you can use f-g eventually; and I'll be fully open about everything once the summer rolls around and I'm not putting the disclosure timeline in jeopardy.



I know and have said about that this "bring your own exploit" business makes development exclusive, and that's exclusionary and I really don't like it-- I just don't see a way around it. I would love to get more developers and more perspective, and that's why my release date for f-g is tied to my disclosure timeline and not in particular to Atmosphère's release.




I've tried to point out approximately what the difficulty would be for some of the options to kind of provide this, but this is a hard thing to accomplish. In this case, providing details that are more specific really points a finger at vulnerability details, so there's not much I'm comfortable sharing. I've shared what I could-- as a data point, some of the other teams have outright stated that they think I've shared too much already and made things obvious. I don't agree or necessarily care about their opinons, but c'est la vie.



Well, this isn't the case. This has been disclosed to Nintendo, too-- as NVIDIA shares their vulnerability findings with downstream customers. It's more general malicious actors that I'd be worried about.



See above-- but I don't think I'd advise specifically updating to 4.1.0 unless that gives you enough access to the games you want.



I'm also super glad that we can do a lot of our work in the open. I hope there's a lot more of it in the future-- and I'd love to stream some of it.



I find the requirement disheartening as well, but I think this is the right way to do things, for now. I've explained my rationale above; feel free to ask questions.



I'm not sure why people are against communication, here. There were definite benefits to talking about f-g in the first place; including that it demonstrates that Tegra chips are vulnerable-- which hopefully influences buying decisions in the future and puts pressure on NVIDIA to seek as much of a fix as they can. After that there seemed to be definitely benefits to talking about more details, even in the limited sense that I'm able to. I've tried to give people more information than the nothing they would have had so they could have more of an idea whether it's be a good idea to e.g. pre-order a modchip or update their system. I know it can be frustrating to not get full disclosure, and that more information would help people to make a better or more conclusive decision, but full disclosure isn't an option until this summer. I don't think that's a reason to hold back information.



I don't have specific answers to your questions, unfortunately-- but I think it sounds like the main purpose of this Switch is as a gaming device and maybe you should upgrade and enjoy playing games with your son.



I don't think that asking for clarification is criticism. It might be rude to push me to answer something I said I wouldn't, but I don't think there's harm in answer.



I don't think I've said anything about opening the console or not. See above for my views on updating?



I'm not sure where you got this impression, or why you're confident about things enough to claim you know about the internal values or working of ReSwitched. This is also easily disprovable just from public information--Hedgeberg has tested out f-g on stream. I don't see it as great opsec to enumerate how many people have access to the vulnerability, but we've long had a policy of only giving exploit details to those who actually want to know them and are in a position where they can use them to help. This is a basic security precaution and not about trust.

I'm actually not sure how this is relevant to the broader discussion. Based on your post history, I can tell that you strongly support TX and the option they're providing, and you're welcome to that, but I think throwing around generic unfounded criticism of RS doesn't do much good and distracts from me answering community questions.



I don't think they're obviously more convenient, as they exist right now. They're both inherently however-tethered-you-consider-PegaSwitch, take a bunch of time to run, and rely on a pegaswitch entry point.



That's not correct-- everyone on a current hardware revision will be able to install and use CFW the day it's released, if they're willing to put in the effort and potentially take on some minor risk.



I'm actually not sure what you mean by this entire post? Sorry about that-- I'd love to address your ideas, but unfortunately I can't figure out your meaning.



That was about me having fun by trying to see if a DIY, cheap modchip option is reasonable. It turns out it is. As you've noted, it's not necessary on any firmware. I just really like the idea that the open exchange of knowledge -- especially when profit's not a motive -- can result in creation of neat options for the community. ^-^



Yep; that's exactly what it means.



I don't think this has been at all implied-- and you'd be hard pressed to find a way to make a solder-less Arduino option that even remotely fits in the Switch case.

I should also clarify that the DIY option isn't solderless.

If you have or are going to get the game anyway, you can. Those versions are pretty much interchangeable in the long-term.



Yep-- and it's possible at some point that we'll allow you to install Fake News without Puyo using f-g/Atmosphère. The original plan was to release Atmosphère for 1.0.0 first while we tried to figure out how to deal with Fusée Gelée, but we actually wound up with a disclosure schedule that was faster than we'd thought.

 

[sarkwalvein]

But then whats the difference between the DIY chip and using tweezers shorting? Or using the DIY chip still requires shorting the 2 pins with like tweezers?

Who knows... really, one can theorize, but it's just that, baseless theories.
Well, I know you want right that.
Perhaps with the twizzers you're able to install something that persists. But in case later something goes wrong and it all fails, you'll have to open it and use the twizzers again to enter a homebrew recovery mode a la boot2. Perhaps with the modchip you have this recovery mode without opening it twice.

 

[guily6669]

Then tiny golden expensive tweezers is the way to go until the softmode gets released or TX .

Damn 100$ tiny tweezers is too expensive, I'm gonna call my medic to give me one

 

[ShadowOne333]

There is a DIY chip, she mentioned that she will release how to build it at home your self... It was even me who asked her if it was some kind of DIY chip and she said I'm right, we will be able to make a chip homemade with cheap parts...

She said that the so called "chip" would be the hardmod equivalent of the hacks, but that hey were not necessary to achieve the hack itself.
She has the details on how to build one, but afaik that chip won't be released unless TX makes a premature release of sorts I believe.

From what I know, no chip is required at all for consoles up to 4.1.0. Consoles 3.0.1 and up might require the twezer stuff only once.
5.0.0 and onward remains to be seen, but since those are still vulnerable to the Tegra vulnerability, a chip would still not be needed.
It will only be optional for those that would like to thinker with the console in a hardware level, that's all.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

But then whats the difference between the DIY chip and using tweezers shorting? Or using the DIY chip still requires shorting the 2 pins with like tweezers?

That's a great question, and one that I doubt she's going to answer until after F-G releases. You could try asking her, though, I suppose

@ktemkin?

 

[guily6669]

I think she said she will release the info on how to build it anyway. I'm going with tweezers, though I don't like shorting out stuff without knowing at the hardware level what does it exactly do .

I also did a J-tag on my phone because there's seem to be some kind of protection after replacing the screen it won't boot, but I wonder how much time will the phone last with the soldering from one point of the board to a resistance, no one explained me if it damages the phone... (~SONY... what else!)

 

[Maximilious]

But then whats the difference between the DIY chip and using tweezers shorting? Or using the DIY chip still requires shorting the 2 pins with like tweezers?

The DIY will probably be a piece of metal connecting the two points together, and a piece of plastic holding the metal together. Maybe a spring included with a button you can install to the backplate to make them short on your own.

In the end, there's no difference other than convenience. Although Kate mentioned it only needs done once, she also mentioned having a hardmod (chip) can add some extra "fun", like possibly switching between NAND options at boot (Android, Horizon/Switch OS, or Ubuntu for example).

That's just speculation of course, we need to wait for her to release the details once the exploit can be revealed in full.

 

[guily6669]

Extra fun then modchip 4 me . Anyway I just want CFW until I can see what features TX will offer if it's something with more hardware features then later I go with TX.

 

[annson24]

Extra fun then modchip 4 me . Anyway I just want CFW until I can see what features TX will offer if it's something with more hardware features then later I go with TX.

1 theory I can think of as to what difference the modchip and the 2-points shorting hardmod has is that the non-modchip will have a few more steps to installing a CFW; but with the modchip it should be like plug and play.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[subcon959]

Extra fun then modchip 4 me . Anyway I just want CFW until I can see what features TX will offer if it's something with more hardware features then later I go with TX.

Funny isnt it, homebrew devs dont want to give much away cos its "not responsible" and TX dont want to give anything away incase it gets copied. Who are the only ones missing out cos of all this? The actual friggin users.

 

[guily6669]

1 theory I can think of as to what difference the modchip and the 2-points shorting hardmod has is that the non-modchip will have a few more steps to installing a CFW; but with the modchip it should be like plug and play.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

yeah she said something like that. Modchip will make it easier and do almost all steps by it self, so I think she is actually talking about a full DIY chip and not just 2 pins with a spring button like...

Funny isnt it, homebrew devs dont want to give much away cos its "not responsible" and TX dont want to give anything away incase it gets copied. Who are the only ones missing out cos of all this? The actual friggin users.

TX is probably still refining the hardware and maybe they are even still making software or they can also be making a CFW separated from reswitched CFW to be used with their chip, no one knows for sure...

But I agree not showing any info until its released, they are afraid of someone copying the chip until release, after release a lot of ppl will buy it right away, then yes we all know later a few others will be selling fake TX chips which after might brick the console and won't have TX support...

 

[TheCyberQuake]

Funny isnt it, homebrew devs dont want to give much away cos its "not responsible" and TX dont want to give anything away incase it gets copied. Who are the only ones missing out cos of all this? The actual friggin users.

Oh I'm sorry you've had to wait for a few months for the exploit. That's much worse than waiting years for exploits like we did with other consoles. I feel so bad for you /s

 

[smf]

Consoles 3.0.1 and up might require the twezer stuff only once.

I believe that she confirmed that tweezer method needs to be repeated every time you cold boot the console. So if the battery runs out, or the switch locks up then you need to redo it (hopefully the bus driver won't take any corners too fast when you have it apart). If you never let it run out of power or need to reboot it, then you could in theory just use the tweezer method once.

You can cut a track / pin instead though.

I don't follow what you're saying, the exploit enables coldboot functionality and is purely software-based

Shorting/cutting the wire stops it reading the flash and triggers recovery mode, I assume the software version of fusee gelee corrupts the flash instead. There is also a software exploit that isn't coldboot and just loads the cfw.

 

[StageProps]

That's a great question, and one that I doubt she's going to answer until after F-G releases. You could try asking her, though, I suppose

The modchip automates things a bit-- makes everything that much more convenient.
(Sorry, this is one of those questions I'm going to have to dodge a bit until release. It'll be clear soon.)

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I saw that, but we don't know what it automated. As I said, I don't expect a more detailed response until much later

 

[Ronhero]

I saw that, but we don't know what it automated. As I said, I don't expect a more detailed response until much later

If i had to guess on top of bridging the pins it would load whatever code is needed to write to the memory to automate the next step. So rather then needing to send the next payload it will do it for you.

This is just an assumption

 

[BL4Z3D247]

I believe that she confirmed that tweezer method needs to be repeated every time you cold boot the console. So if the battery runs out, or the switch locks up then you need to redo it (hopefully the bus driver won't take any corners too fast when you have it apart). If you never let it run out of power or need to reboot it, then you could in theory just use the tweezer method once.

You can cut a track / pin instead though.



Shorting/cutting the wire stops it reading the flash and triggers recovery mode, I assume the software version of fusee gelee corrupts the flash instead. There is also a software exploit that isn't coldboot and just loads the cfw.

Care to post where she said that you'd have to keep opening up the Switch to do the tweezers hardmod because she said this and it doesn't jive with what you're stating.

No, you're not going to need to disassemble your switch every time you want to boot it. I consider the 'inconvenient' process something I'd be willing to do on the main Switch the spouse and I use for games; and I definitely don't have the patience to take out all those tiny screws every time I want to boot.

 

[subcon959]

Oh I'm sorry you've had to wait for a few months for the exploit. That's much worse than waiting years for exploits like we did with other consoles. I feel so bad for you /s

Thanks, I appreciate the (fake) empathy.

FWIW, I don't even know why I care about this exploit. I've been buying all my games, and updating as needed, and probably wouldn't even install the CFW if it came out today as I'm convinced the ban hammer will be stronger than ever this time.

I do enjoy following the homebrew though, and am genuinely interested in seeing how far emulation goes on the Switch.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

If i had to guess on top of bridging the pins it would load whatever code is needed to write to the memory to automate the next step. So rather then needing to send the next payload it will do it for you.

This is just an assumption

That... Actually makes a lot of sense, I guess I didn't think that would be referring to the one boot rather than every boot

 

[Samus20XX]

The tweezers was a figure of speech to state how easy it is. also a reference to team twiizers.

check back a few pages, she says this.

 

[TheCyberQuake]

The tweezers was a figure of speech to state how easy it is. also a reference to team twiizers.

check back a few pages, she says this.

She also never said it involved snipping a pin, but rather that the end result would be similar to snipping a pin for one of the hardmod options