"Developers". Those guys handle Pokemon's online protocol, I don't remember them actually tackling the system in any shape or form, so their word has no weight to the great majority of flash cart users.
Hacking So, no bricks reported yet for Gateway 2.1 Ω?
- Thread starter CraddaPoosta
- Start date
- Views 8,139
- Replies 63
Sorry if I'm going to sound like a noob but what do you mean by " editing the payload " ?
Urgh, this isn't good news guys. I thought Gateway might have learnt their lesson but in the end...
well basically if you mess the actual code and try to edit it, a accidental corruption of the payload would probably just crash the system, purposefully trying to bypass the security would cause additional code to be run....this code will not run unless the initial checks have been bypassed in a way that could only really be intentionally by someone hoping to copy their code
personally if its 100% guarentee'd that it will never effect a legitimate gateway user i don't really mind.....yeah it would be nice if it wasn't there....but gateway is the only team putting the time and effort into making these things possible....they are obviously going to try make sure people are deterred from buying knockoff clones, idk its not good, but at least it seems more secure and safer than their last attempt....still...it was april 1st
personally if its 100% guarentee'd that it will never effect a legitimate gateway user i don't really mind.....yeah it would be nice if it wasn't there....but gateway is the only team putting the time and effort into making these things possible....they are obviously going to try make sure people are deterred from buying knockoff clones, idk its not good, but at least it seems more secure and safer than their last attempt....still...it was april 1st
There's a very simple way to see if there's any bricking code in this release - wait for the cloners to clone it. If we see another brick wave, something's clearly the matter - it's really that simple. I'm willing to bet that regardless of firmware stability, Omega will be cloned and released under a myriad of different names shortly.
Perhaps the brick code is still there but unreachable by normal means, that is, untill some clone devs edit the code and mistakenly enable it.
You are ignoring the fact that there's the need of updating the FPGA of the clones. They have to figure this out first before just adapting the launcher to work for their carts.
Just to begin, contrary to the counterfeit of Gateway flashcards, the clones actually have a different hardware.
I was always one of those who was guardedly optimistic that Gateway wasn't actually "out to get" anyone, except for thieves who stole their code and their hard work, then subverted it for their own profit.
Still wasn't too cool with a brick code existing at all, but, I understand them protecting their property.
The same argument, honestly, could be used, though, if Nintendo started bricking people's consoles. I hate when I trap myself by my own logic.
At any rate, we all knew the stakes when we decided to void the warranty on our devices. Anyone who winds up with a brick from a device intended solely and only for piracy is less a "victim" and more a recipient of whatever karma that exists, I suppose.
Still wasn't too cool with a brick code existing at all, but, I understand them protecting their property.
The same argument, honestly, could be used, though, if Nintendo started bricking people's consoles. I hate when I trap myself by my own logic.
At any rate, we all knew the stakes when we decided to void the warranty on our devices. Anyone who winds up with a brick from a device intended solely and only for piracy is less a "victim" and more a recipient of whatever karma that exists, I suppose.
I hope you all are right on this. I also don't mind Gateway trying to protect their hard work. I just think loyal Gateway users shouldn't be dragged by force to this never ending war
yeah but the initial gateway FPGA was obviously hacked/dumped/RE'd the fpga is the "easy" part....yeah they can't update existing cards but they "could" just try releasing another clone with a newer FPGA update to go with it
I'm sure that where there's a will, there's a way. The launcher will definitely have to be modified as most clones don't even have a method of updating the ASIC chip without opening the cart, but if that will turn out to be impossible, we'll simply see a new wave of clones coming in as per usual when old ones become obsoleted.
You're entitled to believe whatever you want, but you're wrong. PP and its veteran members do much more than 'hack the GTS'.
Just because someone who is trusted didn't find the bricking code in the same spot doesn't mean there's no bricking code elsewhere. Do you really think Gateway would keep their malicious code in the same spot after it was revealed? Gateway's dev team is intelligent enough to mix up their bag of tricks instead of keeping everything the same (their MIPS VM is even more complex, too). As you already know, 2.02b's Diagnostics altered a region of RAM that is CRC'd on launch -> brick via the emmc. They've removed that since it caused bricks on their flashcart, and instead they have included it in routines which validate other regions (like decryption of the first arm9 payload, as the post I linked showed).
Hopefully Gateway learned from their 2.02b mistake - we'll see if there are no more bricks for their legitimate users
I am yet to see a single relevant scene release coming from that particular team, or any globally relevant hack for that matter. As far as I'm concerned, their primary interest is Pokemon, and I don't doubt that they fiddle around here and there, but the system itself is of little concern to them. Of course I can be entirely wrong here - there might be stuff going on behind the scenes that I'm not aware of, I'm merely saying that I haven't seen or heard of anything relevant they were working on.
lets not turn this in to another bitch fest.....either it is or it isn't or it will or it won't......only time will tell
I shouldn't really speak for them, but from what I gather, Bond697 and Slashmolder aren't very interested with the 'scene', ie piracy/homebrew. They're most focused on the information that comes from dumping the decrypted ROM. Their latest public status update on PP is over a month old, but as you can tell, they've gotten to the bottom of Gateway's payloads and have a really good understanding of how it works. Lots of 'behind closed doors' work which isn't shared. They aren't ones to seek out attention for their progress
Hopefully someone else will come along eventually and confirm that there still is bricking code in Ω, and that it isn't reachable by any legit user.
So in other words, they're not established scene developers which makes their credibility limited, but it's good to know that they've analyzed the situation. That said, I'd prefer to quote a more established source.I shouldn't really speak for them, but from what I gather, Bond697 and Slashmolder aren't very interested with the 'scene', ie piracy/homebrew. They're most focused on the information that comes from dumping the decrypted ROM. Their latest public status update on PP is over a month old, but as you can tell, they've gotten to the bottom of Gateway's payloads and have a really good understanding of how it works. Lots of 'behind closed doors' work which isn't shared. They aren't ones to seek out attention for their progress
Hopefully someone else will come along eventually and confirm that there still is bricking code in Ω, and that it isn't reachable by any legit user.
ITT means In This Thread. That's not what's happening in this thread... so.. yeah.
I'm afraid that I can't honestly go out and say that 2.1 Omega is 100% safe before it's confirmed safe by a legitimate course, that's how these things work. I don't want to put my name under something that will turn out to be incorrect or misleading, so the P.S.A remains unchanged until further notice. "Some guy says so" is not exactly a legitimate source.Define a "legitimate course".ITT means In This Thread. That's not what's happening in this thread... so.. yeah.
What makes [x] person any more trustworthy than someone from Project Pokemon who has already more than proven their worth? Are you just looking down on them because they're not Smealum/"scene" (warez lingo makes u look so kewl) "devs" and instead, fans of Pokemon?
I think enough evidence (including what appears to be decompiling or something in that one screenshot?) has been posted.
You're right! Some guy said so isn't a legitimate source so don't put that. The people at PP DO have names, you know!
Uh no... it just brings piece of mind when people who discovered the brick code in the first place say there isn't any in Omega.
The scene is a little older than petty squabbles over warez, your stance is terribly ignorant, but let's just skip that part of the discussion.
Legitimacy of a given source is gradable depending on the source's achievements in a given field. "Some guy" is not as legitimate as "established developer" simply because an established developer is just that - established. A word of a scene developer is further backed by said developer's reputation, it's quite simple, really. "Some guy" could give you a, in his opinion, very accurate theory about the Earth's gravitational pull, however if that person is just "some guy" and not an established physicist, his or her words have very little weight as evidence.
The Project Pokemon team hasn't "proven their worth" in the field of hacking systems, they've proven their worth in the fields of modifying save files and analyzing network traffic. On the same token I should give credit to someone's theory about the beginnings of cosmos because they're a well-known chef. That's not how specialization works, I'm afraid.
-
-
-
@
SylverReZ:
One of the sites that weren't blocked on the school's network was some file uploading sites. I would upload some games, write down the URL and take it to school one day. -
-
@
SylverReZ:
I did it when the teachers werent looking ofc. I even managed to take in a USB stick that wasn't allowed.
-
@
Bunjolio:
my school has a chrome extension called light speed filter agent and it legit blocks YouTube pfps since the file cdn(I think aka yt3.ggpht.com) is classed as mature -
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
SylverReZ:
It was easy to bypass some of the restrictions, as one of the admins left a registry key in the administrative shares drive, which allowed me to get around the blocking of some sites.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-