Hacking Gateway update regarding rumors

[the avenger]

i would think not since the cards are read only with unflashable FPGAs

 

[MrOldboy]

Edit : would it be possible for them to brick the "clone" cards as opposed to Consoles ?

I've asked this and I think this is key in all of this. It seems either harder or not possible to brick the clone card from what people have said. If GW couldn't find a way to brick the clone card, this might have been what they thought was the best way to deter clone cards. I still wouldn't agree with that decision, but at this point I'm more interested in the thought process GW went through.

 

[someonewhodied]

I've asked this and I think this is key in all of this. It seems either harder or not possible to brick the clone card from what people have said. If GW couldn't find a way to brick the clone card, this might have been what they thought was the best way to deter clone cards. I still wouldn't agree with that decision, but at this point I'm more interested in the thought process GW went through.

It was probably collateral info from when they were trying to prevent accidental updates.

Remember what they said? "We've already bricked multiple units testing this"

What if they just included that faulty code as the anti-copying?

 

[MrOldboy]

It was probably collateral info from when they were trying to prevent accidental updates.

Remember what they said? "We've already bricked multiple units testing this"

What if they just included that faulty code as the anti-copying?

I wish we knew what they were thinking. Even if the release a statement addressing these things it will mean almost nothing since no one will trust them. All people can do now is wait for 2.0 and then hope its clean and safe to use. I'll probably stick with an older GW version until 2.0 is deemed safe by the "expects". If they release 2.0 that is.

 

[gamefan5]

I wonder if Gonintendo actually does some research before they post news. Dumb article: http://www.gonintendo.com/?mode=viewstory&id=220496

I even had to reply (I'm 8bit101.)

 

[ground]

What code? You mean that post a page or two back of the Intel assembly code that someone found using Google Image search?

I wonder if it is possible that Gateway left some experimental code in their beta firmware for writing the firmware back and had it disabled. But then the clones accidentally re-enabled it. I suspect the multirom code used by MT was based on hidden and experimental multirom code in early Gateway versions. In apps and games, the developments often leave unused code in the released product because it would involve too much testing and effort to remove it.

no I ment the code in launcher.dat That code 2pages back was from google I know

 

[frown]

they did.
- R4team put a file online which was bricking the 3ds's.

Alright. True. Bad choice of words. I should've said, the bricking code did not originate from R4i.

- The file gateway put online didn't brick the 3ds if the file was used in the right way like it was supposed to)

I will also pick at wordplay a little bit here. (No offense )
I wouldn't say there's a "right way" to use their files, as the GW team is not bound or protected by any laws, including copyright.
Once the code is outside of their hands. It is outside of their control and authority as to what happens with it.
If used the way as they intended for it to be used, it won't (shouldn't?) brick, but it still seems malicious to me that they would include such a thing to harm endusers.

R4team said the weren't cloners and they were developing their own software, so gateway can't held be responsible for the things the r4 software does. (ok theoretically they can, but it is the responsibility of the r4 team, they toke the money so they have to figure out their own stuff what they are selling).

I agree. They [R4i] have proven to be liars and plagiarists, and what they do to support their product is, of course, solely their own responsibility.
I think that Gateway's retaliation was reprehensible though, and since they [Gateway] wrote the code, imo it puts them largely at fault.

In the end, neither party is innocent. D:

 

[Arras]

It was probably collateral info from when they were trying to prevent accidental updates.

Remember what they said? "We've already bricked multiple units testing this"

What if they just included that faulty code as the anti-copying?

That seems unlikely. I doubt any code that was intended to prevent updates would zero out the entire NAND and set the eMMC size to zero... then again, you sure as hell prevent updates that way.

 

[someonewhodied]

That seems unlikely. I doubt any code that was intended to prevent updates would zero out the entire NAND and set the eMMC size to zero... then again, you sure as hell prevent updates that way.

You could make it temporarily think that the nand is zero bytes, and that would make an error appear when trying to update. The thing is they may have made it do so permanently instead of just a temporary change.

 

[gamesquest1]

Just a theory but could they not of been playing with the idea of resizing the nand chip size to like the bare minimum required to have 4.x installed but absolutely no space at all to store any updates.....thus preventing any update from being able to run on sysnand....pretty much ever, then when they decide to scrap the feature for beta, they just changed the nand size to 0 in the code as a placeholder.......no bad intent more an unfortunate accident which has a ton of stuff pointing at themselves

 

[Arras]

Just a theory but could they not of been playing with the idea of resizing the nand chip size to like the bare minimum required to have 4.x installed but absolutely no space at all to store any updates.....thus preventing any update from being able to run on sysnand....pretty much ever, then when they decide to scrap the feature for beta, they just changed the nand size to 0 in the code as a placeholder...

Memory does not work that way, unless it's set up to constantly defragment itself. The update being stored exactly at the end of the NAND with no important data after that whatsoever would be very unlikely. Otherwise they would have to build in a defrag utility for the 3DS NAND, and defragging flash memory is basically equivalent to murdering it.

 

[gamesquest1]

Memory does not work that way, unless it's set up to constantly defragment itself. The update being stored exactly at the end of the NAND with no important data after that whatsoever would be very unlikely. Otherwise they would have to build in a defrag utility for the 3DS NAND, and defragging flash memory is basically equivalent to murdering it.

Well I'm not pretending to be an expert here just wondering if it could of just been a unfortunate accident rather than actual malicious intent....idk....seems like figuring out a way of bricking the EMMC would be a lot more work than just messing up the nand....much more than required to just prove a point to the clones and their users, a simple brick would of been perfectly sufficient in this case (still not nice) but it would of had pretty much the same impact as these these brick except the added eMMC brick kinda feel like kicking the users while they are down which would be unnessisary......has the eMMC brick actually been 100% verified or still just a he said that he said that she said in this foreign forum situation

 

[Rob Blou]

Seriously, people can argue as much as they want but bricking a 3ds is not ok. You can put analogies, say they're just defending themselves but it's just not ok! they could have done many other things (corrupt save, launcher, cart, nand on the SD etc) but not only are they making the users pay but they are giving them no way to reflash the Nand with a hardware mod. This is insane and even though I only own a GW and I always defended them on this forum, this is a complete dick move and if this code is still in final 2.0 I'll tell everybody I know to stay away from their product!

 

[Huntereb]

I know to stay away from their product!

Mine is upstairs in a drawer, but I'd feel much safer if it was in the shed now that I think about it.

 

[Rob Blou]

I'm pretty sure if you open a GW there's antrax inside to make sure you don't try to clone their hardware

 

[Rob Blou]

why do we have to fight or insult other members? Just talk about your opinion on GW ... not on other members sheesh

 

[randomxiii]

Seriously, people can argue as much as they want but bricking a 3ds is not ok. You can put analogies, say they're just defending themselves but it's just not ok! they could have done many other things (corrupt save, launcher, cart, nand on the SD etc) but not only are they making the users pay but they are giving them no way to reflash the Nand with a hardware mod. This is insane and even though I only own a GW and I always defended them on this forum, this is a complete dick move and if this code is still in final 2.0 I'll tell everybody I know to stay away from their product!

Are you gonna tell people to stay away while playing Pokemon X/Y? People may be getting the opposite intended effect

 

[inuyasha555]

It was probably collateral info from when they were trying to prevent accidental updates.

Remember what they said? "We've already bricked multiple units testing this"

What if they just included that faulty code as the anti-copying?

While we did succeed in preventing accidental updates for our test 3DS unit, it took trial and error to get it in that state, and we bricked the unit many times before succeeding.

They only had one unit bricked which means 1 of 2 things.

The code was meant to prevent updates which means they found a way to reverse this brick.
The brick was something else totally.

 

[Kayday]

While we did succeed in preventing accidental updates for our test 3DS unit, it took trial and error to get it in that state, and we bricked the unit many times before succeeding.

They only had one unit bricked which means 1 of 2 things.

The code was meant to prevent updates which means they found a way to reverse this brick.
The brick was something else totally.

Also, this was released as a beta firmware which means there are still some bugs to iron out. Did R4i release theirs as official firmware?

 

[crazyace2011]

what if gateway didn't have anything to do with the bricking. what if the clone card makers made a change to the launcher.dat file it changed another value else were causing the brick when a user using a clone firmware. just because the value is there doesn't mean gateway intended on it to brick the clone card users 3ds. basically gateway put the gun on the table and the clone teams picked it up and pulled the trigger.