Hacking Speculations about Switch 2 hacking

[gbazone]

I mean a few minor bugs were reported to the bug program already. But they've all been minor things. I mean ACE is very much possible (albeit through ROP and extremely limited). The ability to compromise the kernel is whats going to take a long time to figure out. I mean we know for a fact that the current build of HOS is free of any kernel exploits. However the hardware end has had minimal exploration.

Yeah. I just want bare metal Linux. I don't really give a damn about HOS at this point.

 

[RyanTheArchivist]

Yeah. I just want bare metal Linux. I don't really give a damn about HOS at this point.

Well Linux would require a bootrom exploit. Which well would likely have to result in some form of hardware exploit likely a modchip. However even modchips are significantly less likely this time around due to much better voltage regulation on the board.

 

[karmesin]

There are PLENTY of systems that have NEVER, EVER been hacked, and the Switch 2 is simply one of them. I was working in IT for the biggest software company in human history before the people who wrote your silly little textbook were even born. I went to the same high school as Kevin Mitnick and graduated two years after him, ffs. I know security. You clearly do not. Plenty of systems are imprenetrable. Many have been in use for DECADES without a single incident.

So dunno if you're ignorant or trolling, but... The Switch 2 will NOT be hacked. And, of course, it matters not one bit whether or not every other Nintendo and Sony handheld or console has been hacked. That is 100% irrelevant as to whether the Switch 2 will be. Which it won't. No amount of pointing to old hackable game machines of the past is going to change that one bit.

yea sure. Troll confirmed.

 

[x65943]

There are PLENTY of systems that have NEVER, EVER been hacked, and the Switch 2 is simply one of them. I was working in IT for the biggest software company in human history before the people who wrote your silly little textbook were even born. I went to the same high school as Kevin Mitnick and graduated two years after him, ffs. I know security. You clearly do not. Plenty of systems are imprenetrable. Many have been in use for DECADES without a single incident.

So dunno if you're ignorant or trolling, but... The Switch 2 will NOT be hacked. And, of course, it matters not one bit whether or not every other Nintendo and Sony handheld or console has been hacked. That is 100% irrelevant as to whether the Switch 2 will be. Which it won't. No amount of pointing to old hackable game machines of the past is going to change that one bit.

"The Switch 2 will NOT be hacked."

And people used to probably think humans would never land on the moon

You can't predict the future, and forever is a long time - at some point quantum computers may make all current cryptography meaningless

 

[RyanTheArchivist]

"The Switch 2 will NOT be hacked."

And people used to probably think humans would never land on the moon

You can't predict the future, and forever is a long time - at some point quantum computers may make all current cryptography meaningless

A better way to say it woulf be. We don't know when it will be. I mean with how things are looking its going to be a long while but its bound to happen eventually.

 

[FernandoRocker]

"The Switch 2 will NOT be hacked."

And people used to probably think humans would never land on the moon

You can't predict the future, and forever is a long time - at some point quantum computers may make all current cryptography meaningless

The Switch 2 has post-quantum cryptography. It uses a quantum-secure signature scheme (XMSS) in early boot chain.

https://switch2brew.org/wiki/BCT

 

[mathew77]

It uses a quantum-secure signature scheme (XMSS) in early boot chain.

 

[x65943]

The Switch 2 has post-quantum cryptography. It uses a quantum-secure signature scheme (XMSS) in early boot chain.

https://switch2brew.org/wiki/BCT

The hash based signatures go back to the 1970s, but are now being used because of the fear of quantum computers

But our current cryptography is also as of yet not broken - so it's not like this alone will necessarily affect whether the switch 2 is hacked or not in any reasonable amount of time

 

[FernandoRocker]

The hash based signatures go back to the 1970s, but are now being used because of the fear of quantum computers

But our current cryptography is also as of yet not broken - so it's not like this alone will necessarily affect whether the switch 2 is hacked or not in any reasonable amount of time

I'm aware of that, but I was just reply to your "quantum computers" comment.

 

[x65943]

I'm aware of that, but I was just reply to your "quantum computers" comment.

Although these algorithms are thought to be quantum proof, no one really knows

 

[afeufeufeu]

There are PLENTY of systems that have NEVER, EVER been hacked, and the Switch 2 is simply one of them. I was working in IT for the biggest software company in human history before the people who wrote your silly little textbook were even born. I went to the same high school as Kevin Mitnick and graduated two years after him, ffs. I know security. You clearly do not. Plenty of systems are imprenetrable. Many have been in use for DECADES without a single incident.

So dunno if you're ignorant or trolling, but... The Switch 2 will NOT be hacked. And, of course, it matters not one bit whether or not every other Nintendo and Sony handheld or console has been hacked. That is 100% irrelevant as to whether the Switch 2 will be. Which it won't. No amount of pointing to old hackable game machines of the past is going to change that one bit.

So many words, just to be wrong one day...

 

[karmesin]

There's something genuinely absurd about it. We have security companies whose entire reputation rests on protecting critical infrastructure. Devices with one job, like routing a data packet, guarding nuclear plants, companies with security budgets rivaling Nintendo's entire R&D spend. And their products have persistent, recurring vulnerabilities.

Meanwhile Nintendo, a gaming company, built a system that executes third-party code and stays secure. So why aren't we letting Nintendo build our servers? </sarcasm>

Don't bother explaining why this doesn't hold up as a serious position, because anyone who claims to know security while telling you something is unhackable has already disqualified themselves.

 

[x65943]

There's something genuinely absurd about it. We have security companies whose entire reputation rests on protecting critical infrastructure. Devices with one job, like routing a data packet, guarding nuclear plants, companies with security budgets rivaling Nintendo's entire R&D spend. And their products have persistent, recurring vulnerabilities.

Meanwhile Nintendo, a gaming company, built a system that executes third-party code and stays secure. So why aren't we letting Nintendo build our servers? </sarcasm>

Don't bother explaining why this doesn't hold up as a serious position, because anyone who claims to know security while telling you something is unhackable has already disqualified themselves.

Sorry but unless you:

1. Worked in IT for the biggest software company in human history
2. Went to the same high school as Kevin Mitnick

Then don't tell me the Switch 2 will be hacked

Sorry, but going to highschool with someone makes us simply infallible and 100% correct

 

[RyanTheArchivist]

There's something genuinely absurd about it. We have security companies whose entire reputation rests on protecting critical infrastructure. Devices with one job, like routing a data packet, guarding nuclear plants, companies with security budgets rivaling Nintendo's entire R&D spend. And their products have persistent, recurring vulnerabilities.

Meanwhile Nintendo, a gaming company, built a system that executes third-party code and stays secure. So why aren't we letting Nintendo build our servers? </sarcasm>

Don't bother explaining why this doesn't hold up as a serious position, because anyone who claims to know security while telling you something is unhackable has already disqualified themselves.

Well thata the thing. A major security flaw costs Nintendo millions in piracy. A company leaking user data is basically nothing to them.

 

[x65943]

Well thata the thing. A major security flaw costs Nintendo millions in piracy. A company leaking user data is basically nothing to them.

Companies aren't exempt from liability for user data being stolen

Many lawsuits over this with payments into the millions

Here is a Panera lawsuit where they settled for 2.5 million

https://www.restaurantbusinessonlin...5-million-settlement-data-breach-class-action

 

[SonyUSA]

The Switch 2 has post-quantum cryptography. It uses a quantum-secure signature scheme (XMSS) in early boot chain.

https://switch2brew.org/wiki/BCT

The new Xbox One hack gets in before any of the keys get transformed in any meaningful way. A similar hack would completely bypass the cryptography layers.

 

[karmesin]

The reputational cost of a single security failure like the Fortinet vulnerabilities frequently exceeds what piracy claims in losses for most companies, losses that are themselves inflated by deliberately overcounted, hypothetical revenue figures. And these devices don't just route packets; they gate VPN access to trade secrets, patents, and infrastructure that actually holds tangible value.

But of course every vendor has to claim they're unhackable. Nobody invests in a company that openly admits it's not sure its own products work. So the marketing runs, customers repeat it, and the whole industry runs on people choosing to believe it, which, honestly, is the only thing keeping the buying cycle moving at all. Luckily there are enough people who repeat those claims without question; usually with no foundational knowledge but an impressively large mouth, an even larger ego, and a confidence in their own competence that is inversely proportional to how much they actually know.

 

[SecureBoot]

Sorry but unless you:

1. Worked in IT for the biggest software company in human history
2. Went to the same high school as Kevin Mitnick

Then don't tell me the Switch 2 will be hacked

Sorry, but going to highschool with someone makes us simply infallible and 100% correct

I appreciate the callback here

 

[karmesin]

Sorry but unless you:

1. Worked in IT for the biggest software company in human history
2. Went to the same high school as Kevin Mitnick

Then don't tell me the Switch 2 will be hacked

Sorry, but going to highschool with someone makes us simply infallible and 100% correct

I'm absolutely certain I once shared a toilet seat at C3 with a hacker from Team Twiizers (you know, who cracked the Switch first). Also i share the same planet with 100% of all hackers and even watched a youtube video (once). Pretty sure i got quoted by a person before who knew someone who once read an article written by Linus Tovalds themselves!

That makes me more qualified than 99.9998% of everyone in this thread and i'm telling you: time will tell!

</sarcasm>

Post automatically merged: Mar 15, 2026

BTW, why is everyone so fixated on "post-quantum security" here?! This is XMSS usage, nothing more. The implications are far broader than that single property. A cryptographically relevant >2000-qubit entangled quantum computer is, by any realistic threat model, orders of magnitude less likely to be the attack vector than a conventional hardware flaw or implementation bug. On the contrary, XMSS introduces its own attack surface. stateful key management means a single mistake in index persistence leaks the private key far more practically than any quantum adversary ever will.

Most systems marketed as "post-quantum" fail against far more mundane vectors long before a quantum adversary becomes relevant. The phrase gets repeated without apparent understanding of the underlying threat model... or of what a quantum computer actually is and cannot yet do.

 

[RyanTheArchivist]

I'm absolutely certain I once shared a toilet seat at C3 with a hacker from Team Twiizers (you know, who cracked the Switch first). Also i share the same planet with 100% of all hackers and even watched a youtube video (once). Pretty sure i got quoted by a person before who knew someone who once read an article written by Linus Tovalds themselves!

That makes me more qualified than 99.9998% of everyone in this thread and i'm telling you: time will tell!

</sarcasm>

Post automatically merged: Mar 15, 2026

BTW, why is everyone so fixated on "post-quantum security" here?! This is XMSS usage, nothing more. The implications are far broader than that single property. A cryptographically relevant >2000-qubit entangled quantum computer is, by any realistic threat model, orders of magnitude less likely to be the attack vector than a conventional hardware flaw or implementation bug. On the contrary, XMSS introduces its own attack surface. stateful key management means a single mistake in index persistence leaks the private key far more practically than any quantum adversary ever will.

Most systems marketed as "post-quantum" fail against far more mundane vectors long before a quantum adversary becomes relevant. The phrase gets repeated without apparent understanding of the underlying threat model... or of what a quantum computer actually is and cannot yet do.

The problem is people are pissed they can't pirate games yet and will spout any nonsense they can about it until they can.