Homebrew SigHax Updates and Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter adrifcastr
  • Start date Start date
  • Views Views 531,336
  • Replies Replies 3,813
  • Likes Likes 43
lmao I'm done.

The sigpatch doesn't exploit the bootrom itself, the actual bootrom exploit exploits it, lmao.
All the sigpatch does is use the exploited bootrom to it's advantage, to enable FW signing.

Have a nice day!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jtvjan and cheuble
I just posted that and you said I was rude.
totally confused with everything now, half the users here say my op is correct he other ones say I completely messed it up

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

Just ignore the people who don't release exploiting a bug in the bootrom is a bootrom exploit
k thanks
 
lmao I'm done.

The sigpatch doesn't exploit the bootrom itself, the actual bootrom exploit exploits it, lmao.
All the sigpatch does is use the exploited bootrom to it's advantage, to enable FW signing.

Have a nice day!
We aren't touching the bootrom, it's readonly anway, all we are doing is exploiting the fact it only requires half assed signatures to load the firmware which can be brute forced since its only a couple bytes that are required
 
lmao I'm done.

The sigpatch doesn't exploit the bootrom itself, the actual bootrom exploit exploits it, lmao.
All the sigpatch does is use the exploited bootrom to it's advantage, to enable FW signing.

Have a nice day!
I think the misunderstanding here is the fact that an exploit, in your definition, can only mean taking over control of the code. That is not the case, defeating the bootrom's ability to verify firmware code as correctly signed is definitely exploiting a flaw in the bootrom itself.
 
Last edited by zoogie,
I think the misunderstanding here is the fact that an exploit, in your definition, can only mean taking over control of the code. That is not the case, defeating the bootrom's ability to verify firmware code as correctly signed is definitely exploit a flaw in the bootrom itself.
We aren't touching the bootrom, it's readonly anway, all we are doing is exploiting the fact it only requires half assed signatures to load the firmware which can be brute forced since its only a couple bytes that are required

Fine btw @KevinX8 added your post to my signature actually that was really funny
 
it basically turns this
300px-Nintendo-3DS-AquaOpen.png

into this
F8332699-01.jpg
pretty much
 
What's up with the scene lately? Everyone has become such naysayers. Like this is cool stuff! Another means of booting into CFW? And even faster than A9LH! That's cool as hell!
I don't remember this much pissing and moaning when A9LH was revealed.
 
What's up with the scene lately? Everyone has become such naysayers. Like this is cool stuff! Another means of booting into CFW? And even faster than A9LH! That's cool as hell!
I don't remember this much pissing and moaning when A9LH was revealed.

Some have been spoilt for choice with CFW and means of putting it on their 3DS'.

They'd no doubt be a little more humble if things like this were held back until it's needed instead of just throwing it into the basket of current CFW installation methods etc.
 
Some have been spoilt for choice with CFW and means of putting it on their 3DS'.

They'd no doubt be a little more humble if things like this were held back until it's needed instead of just throwing it into the basket of current CFW installation methods etc.
Or we could just be happy that we are getting somewhere. This is actually big stuff! We will have even more control over the system than ever before!
People are acting like this is some small project they could have done in a few hours, instead of the major achievement that took years to accomplish.
 
Last edited by The Catboy,
lmao I'm done.

The sigpatch doesn't exploit the bootrom itself, the actual bootrom exploit exploits it, lmao.
All the sigpatch does is use the exploited bootrom to it's advantage, to enable FW signing.

Have a nice day!
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read all day.

The boot ROM has a vulnerability in its RSA signature verification; therefore, something that takes advantage of it is a boot ROM exploit. What else would it be, an Internet Explorer exploit?

...unless you're trying to say that the only possible "boot ROM exploit" is a way to dump the boot ROM.

EDIT: Oh, so you're trying to be pedantic by claiming the signature patch itself isn't an "exploit", but the program used to generate the patch is. Or something like that; I don't speak fluent noob.
 
Last edited by GerbilSoft,

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum