Hacking Why do you think Nintendo hasn't attempted to ban CFW users?

[funnystory]

When Nintendo started paying groups to lobby various countries to ban flash carts and make them illegal to own, they decided to alienate customers. Some countries have caved in and made it illegel already.

Nobody is going to give Nintendo bad publicity over banning CFW users other than maybe the EFF if they see the light in homebrew and FOSS (Free Open Source Software) alternatives like linux that can run on the 3DS.

It isn't really about their publicity,no one would blame nintendo for banning pirates that is their right. Nintendo is simply not in a financial position to ban consoles from their network. If they had a stronger financial position like sony they could afford to do so and I guarantee they would do so.

 

[linuxares]

To be fair, how many % of all 3DSes use pirated software? Hell, I still buy 3DS titles. I have just downloaded once I can't get a hold of anymore or for a resonable price (No, I won't pay 50€ for a game that is 5 years old and is digital only).

 

[driverdis]

To be fair, how many % of all 3DSes use pirated software? Hell, I still buy 3DS titles. I have just downloaded once I can't get a hold of anymore or for a resonable price (No, I won't pay 50€ for a game that is 5 years old and is digital only).

I still buy digital when convenient. I have a decent amount of games and the digital version of OOT3D was significantly cheaper than it's (discontinued at the time) cart version.

However, I refuse to rebuy games to play the ones I have on cart digitally, which is why I love CFW.

 

[GuyInDogSuit]

They're not Sony. Sony has the money to ban people, and unfortunately I'm one of them. As someone mentioned before, people like me who had legit purchases on the PSN store no longer have access to that, so they're just gonna pirate it anyway. Sony still earns a crapload of money from PS Plus and PSN sales regardless. Nintendo don't seem to give a shit about piracy or homebrew or any of that stuff. I mean, they TRY to patch exploits, but I think it's mostly to prevent people from fucking up their consoles with potential bricks. They can't detect what firmware you're using, and even if they could, why would they?

 

[Sumea]

I doubt it. They would have done it a long time ago if that was their intention, since it's not really that hard to do. This is just not the way Nintendo works.



In facts, it would have suffice to introduce an hash check of IOS. Easy to do. They didn't.

They would need to code that into the games themselves and not like people could not manipulate their CIOS to pass the hash check or hack the hash check out given how the Wii is, since it had no centralized OS and background processes.

 

[GBHAKC75]

They would need to code that into the games themselves and not like people could not manipulate their CIOS to pass the hash check or hack the hash check out given how the Wii is, since it had no centralized OS and background processes.

They could bring the code via OTA update, they don't need to put it in the games...
And yes, it could have been faked, but what if the check was done during update ? No time to patch it -> the console would have been banned BEFORE being able to patch the hash feature.

They could also bring signature-like check. Asymetric cryptography has been known for a long time...

 

[mikey420]

They can certainly see hack users. In fact want proof install badge arcade and load it using rxTools. Look at the in for on the bottom region of the screen as it loads. It will show the RX-E prefix.... Either way perhaps big N management has ultimately decided they just don't care

 

[Sumea]

They could bring the code via OTA update, they don't need to put it in the games...
And yes, it could have been faked, but what if the check was done during update ? No time to patch it -> the console would have been banned BEFORE being able to patch the hash feature.

They could also bring signature-like check. Asymetric cryptography has been known for a long time...

The wii works in a way where there is no firmware I said this many times. Only Home menu could have such code and hackers could just make their own new home menu with the feature patched out. Ingame there is only IOS blocked there is no firmware or anything on Wii that would be monitoring the IOS while you play, except the game itself. All that Wii has is the IOS and game program running on top of it, that program is home menu when you are in home menu, that program is the game when you are in game. The primitiveness and way how Wii is very similar to it's predecessor consoles is huge reason why there was no security updates, it already was from ground up made without a firmware or OS and when code execution had no signature checks either that made things way too easy for hackers.

 

[GBHAKC75]

The wii works in a way where there is no firmware I said this many times. Only Home menu could have such code and hackers could just make their own new home menu with the feature patched out. Ingame there is only IOS blocked there is no firmware or anything on Wii that would be monitoring the IOS while you play, except the game itself. All that Wii has is the IOS and game program running on top of it, that program is home menu when you are in home menu, that program is the game when you are in game. The primitiveness and way how Wii is very similar to it's predecessor consoles is huge reason why there was no security updates, it already was from ground up made without a firmware or OS and when code execution had no signature checks either that made things way too easy for hackers.

There is a bootloader. It could have been done during boot.

 

[Sumea]

There is a bootloader. It could have been done during boot.

Bootloader only boots the initial code; like said once it boots what it boots it no longer is present in memory, and bootloader was never updated by nintendo it only was compromised by hackers which nintendo addressed in later hardware revisions. Like said with Wii being the Wii, you could only maybe add the check in home menu and hackers would have removed it anyway so nintendo did not even bother - the best they could do was block any existing holes in main system menu which they did, until lettercarpetbomb which they addressed in Wii U's Wii system menu.

 

[GBHAKC75]

Bootloader only boots the initial code; like said once it boots what it boots it no longer is present in memory, and bootloader was never updated by nintendo it only was compromised by hackers which nintendo addressed in later hardware revisions. Like said with Wii being the Wii, you could only maybe add the check in home menu and hackers would have removed it anyway so nintendo did not even bother - the best they could do was block any existing holes in main system menu which they did, until lettercarpetbomb which they addressed in Wii U's Wii system menu.

A hash check doesn't have to be permanent. It could be done at the start and if one hash doesn't match, then the console refuses to boot/a ban "request" is sent to big N servers... Or even on the home menu. It would have been loaded at least once, and that would be enough to perform it before being patched.

 

[GuyInDogSuit]

A hash check doesn't have to be permanent. It could be done at the start and if one hash doesn't match, then the console refuses to boot/a ban "request" is sent to big N servers... Or even on the home menu. It would have been loaded at least once, and that would be enough to perform it before being patched.

Pretty much every example you've given shows how easily they could do it, yet they haven't. Hmmmmm. Wonder why? Guess they don't give a shit.

 

[Sumea]

A hash check doesn't have to be permanent. It could be done at the start and if one hash doesn't match, then the console refuses to boot/a ban "request" is sent to big N servers... Or even on the home menu. It would have been loaded at least once, and that would be enough to perform it before being patched.

There was no system for system bans on Wii as all online services were more or less game specific. There could been an eShop ban but kinda whatever for a user of a modified console.

All in all like said Wii was just not a system any of the logic from Xbox, PS3, 360 or so on apply, Neither was DS though it is more obvious on that system. Active security for nintendo at least came in 3DS and Wii U, which employ security checks, automatic updates on Wii U, 3DS'es wider online services, version checks etc.

I am not expert but all in all Wii was a gamecube not even on steroids, just a little high on speed. Because of that design they could only make a little better home menu, online etc. but they could not go much beyond and that cost especially in security. One thing also Nintendo would have had to do; IF bootloader stage IOS checker would been possible which is in the air; I do not know so I do not claim to know, but it would shown in bootup times and nintendo is a company that prioritizes user experience first and security afterwards.

Pretty much every example you've given shows how easily they could do it, yet they haven't. Hmmmmm. Wonder why? Guess they don't give a shit.

Or the ideas he puts out just were not possible with the Wii or not possible without compromising existing functionality.

 

[GBHAKC75]

There was no system for system bans on Wii as all online services were more or less game specific. There could been an eShop ban but kinda whatever for a user of a modified console.

All in all like said Wii was just not a system any of the logic from Xbox, PS3, 360 or so on apply, Neither was DS though it is more obvious on that system. Active security for nintendo at least came in 3DS and Wii U, which employ security checks, automatic updates on Wii U, 3DS'es wider online services, version checks etc.

I am not expert but all in all Wii was a gamecube not even on steroids, just a little high on speed. Because of that design they could only make a little better home menu, online etc. but they could not go much beyond and that cost especially in security. One thing also Nintendo would have had to do; IF bootloader stage IOS checker would been possible which is in the air; I do not know so I do not claim to know, but it would shown in bootup times and nintendo is a company that prioritizes user experience first and security afterwards.

Wii did have a little more developped system than GC. Yes, it's not even close to WiiU/3DS, but these checks could have been done. You're right about the bans, but they could perfectly made a sanity check during boot time by altering bootloader/homemenu. One time to do the check would have been enough, and they could make the system unrecoverable (except with BootMii on Boot2) easily.
There are technical (easy) ways to achieve that, so this is definitly not the issue here.

This is just NOT the way Nintendo works, and the lack of 3DS bans for CFW users is just another proof. They try to prevent the use of Homebrews/CFWs, NOT to punish users (which is IMO a way better thing to do, but pretty inefficient as we can see).

 

[tech3475]

With the wii, they tried updating boot2 once which ended up bricking consoles.

Chances are they didnt ban people because of the effort/risk/reward scenario, especially given how flawed/broken the wii was security wise.

I could imagine it getting negative press attention like when the 360 had a ban wave a few years back if they were to really try.

 

[Sumea]

Pretty much every example you've given shows how easily they could do it, yet they haven't. Hmmmmm. Wonder why? Guess they don't give a shit.

Wii did have a little more developped system than GC. Yes, it's not even close to WiiU/3DS, but these checks could have been done. You're right about the bans, but they could perfectly made a sanity check during boot time by altering bootloader/homemenu. One time to do the check would have been enough, and they could make the system unrecoverable (except with BootMii on Boot2) easily.
There are technical (easy) ways to achieve that, so this is definitly not the issue here.

This is just NOT the way Nintendo works, and the lack of 3DS bans for CFW users is just another proof. They try to prevent the use of Homebrews/CFWs, NOT to punish users (which is IMO a way better thing to do, but pretty inefficient as we can see).

I am sure bricking the console is out of question for nintendo. Not even sony will employ checks to basically brick your console if you have modified it and it even is illegal in some parts of the world AFAIK as modifying your system is legal more or less in most places in the world. AT LEAST MODIFYING ITSELF, not all things you can do with modified system tho.
Since Wii lacked any robust online services there was nothing to ban, and like said online "service" was per game as the game itself used it's own setup and all.

Even then any of these checks, I already said this, would been an band aid that hackers could rip off easily by just patching the checks out themselves which they could do, easily. Whole CFW on 3DS is based on patching out nintendo's signature checks and 3DS security is tons more advanced than that of the Wii.

IN HYPOTHETICALS:
Possible? Maybe?
Illegal if the outcome is bricked console? Maybe
Ban people from online? How exactly
And what's the point? Hackers will remove this anyway.

Like said; already, ALSO (making me repeat so much stuff here) nintendo DID focus on what was prudent; they did patch out banner exploit for the wii and few other things like that, though game specific exploits could not be patched out since Wii was wii we discussed how this works already, and there was no system to patch the games either. Letterbomb is last thing Nintendo seemed to do nothing about on the Wii itself but weirdly enough addressed it in Wii U, making hacking of the Wii U's virtual Wii possible with game specific exploits only.

 

[GBHAKC75]

I am sure bricking the console is out of question for nintendo. Not even sony will employ checks to basically brick your console if you have modified it and it even is illegal in some parts of the world AFAIK as modifying your system is legal more or less in most places in the world. AT LEAST MODIFYING ITSELF, not all things you can do with modified system tho.
Since Wii lacked any robust online services there was nothing to ban, and like said online "service" was per game as the game itself used it's own setup and all.

Even then any of these checks, I already said this, would been an band aid that hackers could rip off easily by just patching the checks out themselves which they could do, easily. Whole CFW on 3DS is based on patching out nintendo's signature checks and 3DS security is tons more advanced than that of the Wii.

IN HYPOTHETICALS:
Possible? Maybe?
Illegal if the outcome is bricked console? Maybe
Ban people from online? How exactly
And what's the point? Hackers will remove this anyway.

Like said; already, ALSO (making me repeat so much stuff here) nintendo DID focus on what was prudent; they did patch out banner exploit for the wii and few other things like that, though game specific exploits could not be patched out since Wii was wii we discussed how this works already, and there was no system to patch the games either. Letterbomb is last thing Nintendo seemed to do nothing about on the Wii itself but weirdly enough addressed it in Wii U, making hacking of the Wii U's virtual Wii possible with game specific exploits only.

I knew a lot of systems with sanity check at boot who just refused to boot if the system was altered. That's legal and not even considered as system modification, AFAIK.

Ban people from online was probably not possible on Wii, yes, but "punishing" users with altered was definitly possible and so far, not done, therefore my point (and I repeat myself one more time too) : THIS IS NOT THE "NINTENDO-WAY" TO HANDLE HB/PIRACY. They don't punish people from doing it, they're just trying to prevent it. So if they didn't, this is definitly not because it wasn't possible, but because they don't want to.

 

[linuxares]

I knew a lot of systems with sanity check at boot who just refused to boot if the system was altered. That's legal and not even considered as system modification, AFAIK.

Ban people from online was probably not possible on Wii, yes, but "punishing" users with altered was definitly possible and so far, not done, therefore my point (and I repeat myself one more time too) : THIS IS NOT THE "NINTENDO-WAY" TO HANDLE HB/PIRACY. They don't punish people from doing it, they're just trying to prevent it. So if they didn't, this is definitly not because it wasn't possible, but because they don't want to.

Funny enough, in a lot of european countries it's allowed by law to modify your product. But Nintendo in this case have no reason not allow us to continue using our devices. I would think in some countries that would actually be against the law. Like Steam banning someone for using Fraps instead of Shadowplay.

 

[GBHAKC75]

Funny enough, in a lot of european countries it's allowed by law to modify your product. But Nintendo in this case have no reason not allow us to continue using our devices. I would think in some countries that would actually be against the law. Like Steam banning someone for using Fraps instead of Shadowplay.

I know, I'm French (and it's allowed) . Well, they don't have reason, but other companies (Sony and Microsoft for example), did. Probably to "scare" people against CFW/piracy.

 

[linuxares]

I know, I'm French (and it's allowed) . Well, they don't have reason, but other companies (Sony and Microsoft for example), did. Probably to "scare" people against CFW/piracy.

I really would like a court order to check this up. Hell in my country it's not even a legal approval if "someone" clicks "I agree" since it doesn't have any legal binding to it. They have to prove it was me who pressed it and that's impossible.