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.

 

[Kioku]

Yeah hopefully, it's just there was alot shown and talked about at the time and little doubt in it's authenticity, promises and release dates were made, assurances given. And then it all turned into a steaming pile of Hykem.

It's not really a doubt here about 'fake' exploits for me, more about potential legal dangers. And I'd rather remain sceptical and then be pleasantly surprised, than get excited and risk potential disappontment.

Every day is a risk for disappointment. Honestly. I see your point, though. However what legal consequence could come of this? Unless copyrighted material were released free of charge, or the method used to acquire this method broke some varying laws, I think it's safe to assume it's fine.

 

[Maximilious]

Every day is a risk for disappointment. Honestly. I see your point, though. However what legal consequence could come of this? Unless copyrighted material were released free of charge, or the method used to acquire this method broke some varying laws, I think it's safe to assume it's fine.

There's speculation that Hykem met legal consequences to his work which caused his sudden "ghosting" of the community. But there have been instances such as this have lead to C&D's. It's no different from the runners of torrent websites and how they meet legal trouble due to the allowance of pirating to the masses. But given she has told Nvidia of the vulnerability and is waiting for the disclosure window, there shouldn't be any issues since we will all be protected by consumer and right-to-use laws (at least in the US).

The typical high-level (may not be totally accurate) timeline for things such as these are:

1. White Hat hacker find a vulnerability
2. White Hat discloses vulnerability to affected party (Nvidia in this case)
3. Affected party has X window to disclose the threat to it's vendors (Nintendo for example), based on severity of the threat - This is to give the affected party and/or it's vendors (based on what the product is or how it's used) time to develop a patch to the vulnerability. This one's a little different since it affects hardware, but the same rules apply.
4. Typically these windows are met, then they must disclose the vulnerability to the public and what it pertains
5. Shortly after public disclosure, the patch is pushed to the wild - Windows is a good example of this. Typically public disclosure will happen a week or days before patch Tuesday hits, and they push the hotfix out with the next round of updates (again, unless it's truly severe and they push an out of band update instead).

I imagine any Black or Grey Hat's out there can get into trouble by not disclosing the vulnerability to use for nefarious reasons (pirating games directly from Nintendo, hence my torrent example).

 

[Dan-the-Rebirth]

@ktemkin anyways thanks for all and please don't get to annoyed by the whining unfriendly kids here

 

[mr.sushi]

So they'll allow you to purchase any game even in lower firmware only to find out that you cannot download it without updating to the latest firmware? Sneaky bastards.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Same here, despite I have the "physical" game Xenoblade 2, I can't download DLC japanese voices... However, I didn't try... So, I'm waiting
Maybe some day, there will be a method

 

[normal19]

I just hope we learn what the name Fusee Gelee means when the disclosure is up..

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I just hope we learn what the name Fusee Gelee means when the disclosure is up..

It's French for "Frozen Rocket", it's an allusion to the fact that it's a coldboot solution and it's launching an exploit "over the Horizon" and "into the Atmosphere"

Also it's pronounced "fu-SAY juh-LAY", in case you're curious

 

[normal19]

It's French for "Frozen Rocket", it's an allusion to the fact that it's a coldboot solution and it's launching an exploit "over the Horizon" and "into the Atmosphere"

wow, clevelr

edit i figured it was ge-ley which reminded me of gelato

 

[ktemkin]

I actually really appreciate hearing other people's thoughts and feelings on the matter. I'm relatively new to the console hacking scene, even if I'm not new to hacking, and I'm not familiar enough with e.g. what happened with Hykem to understand the way those interactions have made people feel and have colored interactions between developers/hackers and the community.

That this is the same way the dramas with Hykem, Team Salt, and JustPingo began. Loads of hype, with the development looking really promising, a release date given a few months away or more, the developers answering questions which makes them lauded by all and celebrated, loads of hype with everyone being really excited, then no release, devs publicly quit or just fade away, and ensuing drama/memes.

In the Wii U's case, it severely stifled the scene. With a future release date set, and a developer that people believed in, what point was there in other people also pursuing hax? But that future date comes and goes, gets pushed back, comes and goes again, pushed back again .... and in the end, there's nothing. Squat. Zilch. And all that time someone else could have actually been developing something. After Hykem and Team Salt destroyed the scene, it got lucky again when the Brazillians came in with their release out of nowhere, and the scene suddenly came back to life and loads of people worked on multiple things and stuff actually started happening. But it all could have happened two years earlier if it wasn't for the aforementioned two.

I'm genuinely sorry that the community has had to go through that kind of disappointment in the past-- and I can understand how that could make you cynical. I really don't want to let anyone down or disappoint anyone. I've shared what progress I have with the full intention of following through and getting things to the public.

I can't actually see a reason I would delay, at the moment. The code and techniques we have for the exploit itself are already in a finished state; and if a technical reason did arise for me to do more work before a final 'release', I'd happily move development into the open after the disclosure window ends. I've made effort to make sure I'm not the only one with copies of the code, and have plans in the works to make sure that a release happens once the date comes even if I'm not the one doing it.

Closed development + a long future release date [i.e. not just a few days for polishing and writing documentation/instructions] is an awful combination that only hurts things. The person who starts it usually (or always?) ends up quitting the project, the amount of time that passes hurts the scene, and obviously it frustrates hundreds of potential users.

I agree that closed development is really undesirable whenever it can be avoided. Unfortunately, the nature of the work that enables homebrew-- and specifically the fact that homebrew is built atop unpatched vulnerabilities-- often do make open development something that has nasty side effects for future software versions. We also unfortunately now live in a world where a lot the Switch hardware is common to other platforms, too-- and that can complicate things related to e.g. bootROM vulnerability identification.

If I must be brutally honest, the thing that sways me to thinking history will repeat itself is, you could have released all this information under the Reswitched banner, and never put your name to it at all (and consulted with your colleagues on what they think should be communicated, to boot). Or, you know, just not said anything until the exploit notification period had elapsed and release was imminent. If being famous wasn't on your agenda, then you would have done this. So either you're interested in fame and all will go well [my fingers are crossed for this option] or you're interested in fame and there's going to be a lot of drama in this forum in a few months. Not having fame as a priority isn't possible.

I don't think this is a fair assessment of me or my person. I can understand why the culture in this scene and some of the events in the past would bias you towards thinking things are due to ego or a desire for 'fame', but honestly I couldn't care less if people have any knowledge of me specifically. I do care a lot about representation; and while I don't want to get into politics here and think that conversation would be derailing: when I've posted exploits as a group in the past, there's been a tendency for people to implicitly credit a single person for group work (e.g. to assume accomplishments belong exclusively to SciresM).

To address your other points: I did consult with a collection my colleagues to decide what information should be communicated and how; I did attribute the hack directly to @ReSwitchedTeam in the initial tweet; and I've referrred to it consistently as a ReSwitched hack. I don't see much value in also obscuring my role in it-- especially as it makes it difficult to know who to refer questions to. More than that, represnetation really matters to me: I'm not a stereotypical "hacker", and I think there's value in people seeing someone like me interacting positively with the community.

As I've said, I understand your skepticism, and you're welcome to offer up all of the criticism you feel I deserve; I don't begrudge you saying any of this at all. I would like it, though, if we could try to have more positive/constructive interactions in the future-- I very much appreciate your insight and would definitely appreciate suggestions going forward; and more so if they don't come with assumptions about my motive or character.

I would say I am about 65% sure, on the information I have seen so far, that come July or August, some unforseen problem is going to come up and the release date is going to be pushed back or put on hold indefinitely. And during that time, we won't see TX's solution, because they've put development on hold or canned it due to your communications to the public (as they wouldn't be making much money) and the other teams probably won't be actively working on anything, since it is a waste of time if they can wait for Reswitched's release and build on that.

I'm sorry you believe that. I've worked hard to make sure this is a positive thing for the community, and to try make sure no 'unforseen' things can block public disclosure. I don't think it's going to be super productive to try and assuage your skepticism, but I will say that known community members like SciresM, TuxSH and Aurora Wright have seen the exploit in action, have access to the details, and are working with me to help make this a good thing.

You can see SciresM using it here: https://twitter.com/SciresM/status/979311692151533569 -- note that he's had access to the details since the vulnerability was first found; the fact that he didn't try it until a couple of weeks ago more stems from differences in our build/development environments.

Also, note that I don't think there are any other major teams held up because of our release. Other teams have their own vulnerabilities and implementation that they're using to develop things-- as f0f have clearly demonstrated with their Linux work.

I want to do cool stuff with my Switch as much as the next girl so I will be incredibly happy to be wrong. In fact, everyone is welcome to quote this post come release and rub my nose in it as much as they want - because that means I'll have CFW on my Switch, so I'll be absolutely ecstatic and nothing will be able to bring me down.

I really hope people don't feel the need to come back and rub anyone's nose in anything. Given the history this scene's gone through, I think being skeptical is pretty valid; and I don't think anyone should hold your skepticism against you.

I'll be very, very happy to help enable you to hack on the Switch as soon as I can-- and I'll be super glad when that makes you ecstatic. I really want to release tools that help people to understand and modify and build on the system-- that's the common thread that ties this project together with my other education and reverse engineering work.

It does have echoes of the Hykem incident unfortunately, it even has a similar promised release if I recall correctly, summer/e3.

Oh. I didn't even think about the fact that promising a summer release date could kind-of-align things with E3. =\

That's a bit embarrasing. I'm really not all that into playing games myself, and so I didn't actually think about when events like E3 occur: I just picked an imprecise description of around when the disclosure window ends, with the goal being not to tie things to any specific day. I'd prefer to avoid things interacting with the E3 hype; but I think that with this it probably makes sense not to artifcially delay anything and just to release as soon as we can, even if E3's a thing.

@ktemkin The problem is alot of us got pretty burnt out by Hykem, so I don't think I'm alone when I say many of us would prefer not to know anything really untill something is released. You can't win here of course, one section can never have enough information, the other just wants the product not discussion.

Yeah, I can definitely understand being burned out by that. I definitely don't intend to get anyone's hopes up and then not deliver, and I'm trying as much as I can to align expectations and reality where I can fully talk about things. It just doesn't seem like pure silence is a good option, here, as I don't want people to think they have to urgently pre-order a modchip as the only solution.

Discourse about ethics and disclosure is all well and good, and I'm not going to lie it's exciting to get technical nuggets of info. But all it really does is build a shed load of hype,

I think hype itself is unfortunate-- and there's a fine line between when "excitement" becomes "hype". Hype's a bit hard to avoid in this community, too, as people get really emotionally invested in these systems. That can be both a blessing and curse.

and it more often than not leads to more speculation and questions than answers.

I think that's one of the risks of curiosity-- you start off with a really vaguely defined curiosity where you don't know the unknowns; but as you learn things, you start suddenly being aware of all the specific things you've yet to find out, and that can really get the questions flowing. Again, I think this comes down to being something that people wind up emotional about, and that's both a good and bad thing.

There is still a chance this could not come to anything. A legal cease and desist or actual legal action is fully possible. If Nintendo or Nvidia or whoever decide your work is going to cost them long-term why would they not? The fact this has supposed ramifications beyond a simple 'games console' makes that eventuality seem even more likely, or at worst would provide a perfect 'get out clause' not unlike the 'federal confiscation' of the work of Hykem.

I very much hope things won't come to that, as I've worked through a proper disclosure process, and it's NVIDIA's policy that reporters be allowed to publicly disclose after the disclosure window. Further, none of the details impinge on any of NVIDIA's intellectual property, so I don't think they have a legal case to request that I cease distribution of information. What's legal doesn't always align with what they try to threaten-- but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

Every day is a risk for disappointment. Honestly. I see your point, though. However what legal consequence could come of this? Unless copyrighted material were released free of charge, or the method used to acquire this method broke some varying laws, I think it's safe to assume it's fine.

What's strictly legal and what people are sued for aren't an exact match. Unfortunately, people often capitulate to threads of legal action when they don't have access to defense. I don't think this is going to be a problem for me; nor do I think I'm likely to be threatened with legal action.

 

[annson24]

I actually really appreciate hearing other people's thoughts and feelings on the matter. I'm relatively new to the console hacking scene, even if I'm not new to hacking, and I'm not familiar enough with e.g. what happened with Hykem to understand the way those interactions have made people feel and have colored interactions between developers/hackers and the community.

Yeah, I guess after those times, people begin to be skeptical but nevertheless, having some information is better than having none at all.

Also if I may ask, I'll be grabbing a switch on fw 2.3.0 today. Can you shed some light if I'm good as is or do I need to update to 3.0 first for and easier access to FG? It's fine if you can't answer this one and please disregard this question was asked already.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[ktemkin]

Yeah, I guess after those times, people begin to be skeptical but nevertheless, having some information is better than having none at all.

Also if I may ask, I'll be grabbing a switch on fw 2.3.0 today. Can you shed some light if I'm good as is or do I need to update to 3.0 first for and easier access to FG? It's fine if you can't answer this one and please disregard this question was asked already.

It's as good. No need to find a copy of Pokken to upgrade with.

 

[annson24]

It's as good. No need to find a copy of Pokken to upgrade with.

Thanks, was afraid that I would need to buy pokken first, good thing I don't have to. If that was the case, then I'll be better off just buying a triwing screwdriver instead and just do the simple hardmod than spending for another game.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted-355425]

dammit i'm sat on a sealed copy of pokken lol.

 

[Ghassen-ga]

It's as good. No need to find a copy of Pokken to upgrade with.

Hey kate, you mentioned in your faq that each firmware version is gonna have some advantages and disadvantages over the other when fusée glee is released , can you explain what does that actually means, why does it have to be kept a secret?

 

[Risingdawn]

I very much hope things won't come to that, as I've worked through a proper disclosure process, and it's NVIDIA's policy that reporters be allowed to publicly disclose after the disclosure window. Further, none of the details impinge on any of NVIDIA's intellectual property, so I don't think they have a legal case to request that I cease distribution of information. What's legal doesn't always align with what they try to threaten-- but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

Ah, I didn't know that about Nvidia. Well hopefully you won't have to worry about a bourgeoisie judicial system awarding justice to the highest bidder lol

Thanks for the replies anyway, I'll remain sceptical for the sake of my own sanity but hopefully it does all come together as planned.

 

[wolf_]

Unfortunately when I got the switch it was running 3.x and I read if its 3.01 or something there was no sense not to update to 4.1 so now I'm on 4.1 I know I'll have to use hardmod as if I read correctly the softmod for 4.1 is being held for possible use on the new line of switches

 

[Nezztor]

Hey guys, I need a little help here. I'm about to buy a switch (the red mario one). I'm pretty sure it's still in v3.0.0 but the odysey game included is only a download code. Is it possible to download the game without updating?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

No yet, only when CFW arrives if you dont care not playing mario while waiting until release of cfw then play only zelda

 

[normal19]

@ktemkin Are you going to update your faq with these replies? I think its important for people who know about it but not this thread to see your replies.

 

[annson24]

No yet, only when CFW arrives if you dont care not playing mario while waiting until release of cfw then play only zelda

Cr*p. I just got the switch w/ serial xaj700104xxx and just checked the firmare. It's v2.3.0 alright but the problem now is the BotW game that was bundled is 002 hence I need to update the switch to at least 4.0.1 to play my game. Fml

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Gnarmagon]

Cr*p. I just got the switch w/ serial xaj700104xxx and just checked the firmare. It's v2.3.0 alright but the problem now is the BotW game that was bundled is 002 hence I need to update the switch to at least 4.0.1 to play my game. Fml

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Just update, it's worthless to wait and to not enjoy BotW when an unpatchable Exploit is confirmed to release this summer.

 

[annson24]

Just update, it's worthless to wait and to not enjoy BotW when an unpatchable Exploit is confirmed to release this summer.

I guess you're right but heck if anybody wants to trade my zelda with their 000 one. I'll be glad to.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk