Homebrew SigHax Updates and Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter adrifcastr
  • Start date Start date
  • Views Views 532,088
  • Replies Replies 3,813
  • Likes Likes 43
Relatively doesn't go in my safety manual.

There's been bricks already, so it's not as safe as you say. For me safe is when you can be 100% sure NOTHING will fail.
Ok, no offence but thats just dumb.

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

Theoretically its (practically) impossible to have complete certainty that nothing will fail.
Actually, it's a near guarantee that anything will fail at a certain moment in time.
 
Relatively doesn't go in my safety manual.

There's been bricks already, so it's not as safe as you say. For me safe is when you can be 100% sure NOTHING will fail.
No matter what modifying nand will always have a chance to brick. Even a regular firmware update isn't 100% brick free.
 
you being alive has a risk
Me being born was the risk. Being alive is just the penalti.

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

Even a regular firmware update isn't 100% brick free.
Except if that happens you can complain to Ninty and you'll probably have a new console in the mail after you explain your situation and send the brick to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TimX24968B
Me being born was the risk. Being alive is just the penalti.

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


Except if that happens you can complain to Ninty and you'll probably have a new console in the mail after you explain your situation and send the brick to them.
Why are you even on this thread? You won't get 100% safety from any 3ds exploit.
 
Running 9.2 menuhax+Luma. If something happens to Luma, the console is safe, and I just have to restore a backup of it.
Yeah, even menuhax and Luma isn't 100% bro
It's just so unlikely it's almost 100%. It's the same for most other well developed exploits
 
Last edited by TheCyberQuake,
There's been bricks already, so it's not as safe as you say. For me safe is when you can be 100% sure NOTHING will fail.

There has not been any bricks from SafeB9SInstaller that I've heard of, and it would take something catastrophic happening to cause one. It's safe.

If you want to be bubble boy and live in a protected bubble your entire life, feel free, I don't give a shit, just keep your bubble away from me, thanks.
 
There has not been any bricks from SafeB9SInstaller that I've heard of, and it would take something catastrophic happening to cause one. It's safe.

If you want to be bubble boy and live in a protected bubble your entire life, feel free, I don't give a shit, just keep your bubble away from me, thanks.
Well said. Not experiencing the world for what it is, is worse than living my life worried about the smallest of things.
 
6 months ago:ph34r:...
Jesus.

No. No. No.
Just...no.

We know, a priori, from derrek & co that their estimate for the time to brute force the sighax signature using 10 CPUs and all the optimizations they could think of was 6 months.

We also know, via calculations on how fast we can do modular exponentiations on PC, this equates to about 2^50 signatures to check, using PERFECT code on PC.

This equates to 300 million years, at your claimed rate of ~10000 signatures/day.

The specifics of why your math is wrong is you're assuming generating the signatures to check takes zero time -- it takes a LOT of exponentiations to generate any signatures that even MIGHT be valid. ~16 bits for the 00 02 prefix, and then way more for the ASN.1 structure, since you're not overflowing the first length tag -- many of those must be valid, too, and we don't know which ones.

So, no, bruteforcing sighax is not possible without the bootroms.

@addi33 - Please update the OP to note that it's not possible, @Selver is wrong.

Today:
https://twitter.com/hedgeberg/status/865735328514134016

Happy to know that you were wrong :lol:
 
  • Like
Reactions: HamBone41801

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum