› Foros › PlayStation 3 › Scene
Maedula 20 minutes ago in reply to Mathieulh
Got it...lv2 == GameOS! Thanks for your technical insights and explanations!
In this case it sounds like next we can expect the GameOs dump to be uploaded by somebody soon. So two dumbs, which need to be reversed and made usable for the community.
1.Hypervisor:
a. finding a software-based hack, which is enabling other devs to get lv0/lv1 access to contribute without the need of the hardware based glitch-attack.
b. modifying HV to allow full HW access by default
2. GameOS
a. hack the OS to run unsigned code (for emus, etc out of GameOS. PSP-like Homebrew launch)
Are there any efforts to split up the work being done on the PS3? I guess the organisational part is a bit behind the technical efforts...right?
Mathieulh 12 minutes ago in reply to Maedula
1 person liked this.
There is a whole group working on this. No one here will be providing such dump for obvious reasons though.
ShockKid 9 minutes ago in reply to Mathieulh
"whole group" ? who is that group? have they a name? are you included in that group?
Mathieulh 7 minutes ago in reply to ShockKid
It's a group, it is private, it doesn't have a name, I wont elaborate.
junno escribió:tengo la ps3 en 3.10 es inferior a la 3.1.3 verdad?
Koolk escribió:[...]Si la Slim no sirve, con la FAT si esto funciona, muchos la venderán por el triple que la compraron.
anderpr escribió:Koolk escribió:[...]Si la Slim no sirve, con la FAT si esto funciona, muchos la venderán por el triple que la compraron.
no creo, eso mismo se pensaba con el xploit de la x360, y la verdad es que no ha sido así.
pupila1992 escribió:junno escribió:tengo la ps3 en 3.10 es inferior a la 3.1.3 verdad?
ese mensaje que as leido proviene de el IPHONE! por si no lo sabes geohotz fue el que saco el tema este para hackearlo.
por favor borrar el comentario ese por que estais liando a personas como junno.
un saludo
pupila1992 escribió:junno escribió:tengo la ps3 en 3.10 es inferior a la 3.1.3 verdad?
ese mensaje que as leido proviene de el IPHONE! por si no lo sabes geohotz fue el que saco el tema este para hackearlo.
por favor borrar el comentario ese por que estais liando a personas como junno.
un saludo
KarrDS escribió:Acabo de leer en el Twitter de Geohot que los que tengan el firm inferior al 3.1.3 que no actualicen porque esa versión jode todo hackeo.
"By the way, if you haven't updated to 3.1.3, don't. It adds very little of value and breaks jailbreaks and unlocks."
Joder, no sé que versión tengo en la PS3...voy a mirar pero a la voz de ya!
Edito: Bien por miiiii tengo la 3.15!!!! suput....
ganzano escribió:Dumping PS3 Hypervisor and Bootloader with Atmega8 at 16Mhz
Hi guys, I used an Atmega8 running at 16Mhz (I had a couple lying about from the BT Vision project I was working on) and knocked up a small prog to do the same as the other chips and dump out the PS3 Hypervisor and Bootloader. [...]
anderpr escribió:Koolk escribió:[...]Si la Slim no sirve, con la FAT si esto funciona, muchos la venderán por el triple que la compraron.
no creo, eso mismo se pensaba con el xploit de la x360, y la verdad es que no ha sido así.
I somewhat didn't want to disclose it but now the cat is out of the box anyway so here it is: Lv2 was dumped a week ago (thx to geohot)
nakrax escribió:nose si habeis leido lo que ha puesto math hace unas horas en twitter... parece interesanteI somewhat didn't want to disclose it but now the cat is out of the box anyway so here it is: Lv2 was dumped a week ago (thx to geohot)
junno escribió:ojala y en unos dias tengamos un CF aunk como seria el metodo para ponerlo?abria k soldar o algo o seria como en psp o xbox?
pupila1992 escribió:junno escribió:ojala y en unos dias tengamos un CF aunk como seria el metodo para ponerlo?abria k soldar o algo o seria como en psp o xbox?
evidentemente no se sabe! no lo digo en plan borde pero no podemos sacar la bola de cristal, la mia la mande al SAT y aun no me ha llegado.
cuando salga algo se dira, pero si se tiene que hacer el pulso de 40ns por hardware hasta que se consiga por software vamos a necesitar ese circuito.
un saludo
litoworld escribió:Amigos y Colegas.....les dejo éste link con la información de un nuevo sistema de seguridad patentado por SONY........veo que es por encryptación en 6 niveles...(link:'http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20100037068#ixzz0feEg2cT4')
Abstract:
A method, system, and computer-usable medium are disclosed for controlling unauthorized access to encrypted application program code. Predetermined program code is encrypted with a first key. The hash value of an application verification certificate associated with a second key is calculated by performing a one-way hash function. Binding operations are then performed with the first key and the calculated hash value to generate a third key, which is a binding key. The binding key is encrypted with a fourth key to generate an encrypted binding key, which is then embedded in the application. The application is digitally signed with a fifth key to generate an encrypted and signed program code image. To decrypt the encrypted program code, the application verification key certificate is verified and in turn is used to verify the authenticity of the encrypted and signed program code image. The encrypted binding key is then decrypted with a sixth key to extract the binding key. The hash value of the application verification certificate associated with the second key is then calculated and used with the extracted binding key to extract the first key. The extracted first key is then used to decrypt the encrypted application code.
Read more: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/2010003 ... z0fiat8S7l
Al parecer inutilizaría la vulnerabilidad encontrada por HeoHOTZ........
litoworld escribió:litoworld escribió:Amigos y Colegas.....les dejo éste link con la información de un nuevo sistema de seguridad patentado por SONY........veo que es por encryptación en 6 niveles...(link:'http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20100037068#ixzz0feEg2cT4')
Abstract:
A method, system, and computer-usable medium are disclosed for controlling unauthorized access to encrypted application program code. Predetermined program code is encrypted with a first key. The hash value of an application verification certificate associated with a second key is calculated by performing a one-way hash function. Binding operations are then performed with the first key and the calculated hash value to generate a third key, which is a binding key. The binding key is encrypted with a fourth key to generate an encrypted binding key, which is then embedded in the application. The application is digitally signed with a fifth key to generate an encrypted and signed program code image. To decrypt the encrypted program code, the application verification key certificate is verified and in turn is used to verify the authenticity of the encrypted and signed program code image. The encrypted binding key is then decrypted with a sixth key to extract the binding key. The hash value of the application verification certificate associated with the second key is then calculated and used with the extracted binding key to extract the first key. The extracted first key is then used to decrypt the encrypted application code.
Read more: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/2010003 ... z0fiat8S7l
Al parecer inutilizaría la vulnerabilidad encontrada por HeoHOTZ........
Para complementar , la patente es media complicada de explicar, pero en pocas palabras, es algo así:
La clave 1 está encriptada por la clave 2
La clave 2 está encriptada por la clave 3
La clave 3 está encriptada por la clave 4
La clave 4 está encriptada por la clave 5
El juego de PS3 está protegido por 5 claves
La clave 5 está encriptada por la clave 6
Es algo así como candado tras candado tras candado tras candado tras candado tras candado tras candado tras candado. Comentan que si todas las claves están cifradas de forma diferente entonces es el fin del homebrew y las aplicaciones caceras, ya que sería imposible descifrar una de ellas. Si hasta la clave principal de la PSP aún no se desencripta, mucho menos esperaríamos algo para la PS3. Suena vaga la información, así que trataré de conseguir más detalles apenas pueda.
derekgp escribió:gracias por los manuales
ss_id_attribute[%d] in ss_id_defs.h is invalid.
In security_policy_manager::request: {0x%llx, 0x%llx}, 0x%llx
security_policy_manager::initialize is not called
m_acm is NULL
SS ID %lld is invalid
In security_policy_manager::request: access_control_if::lookup failed: ret = %d, (default deny)
In security_policy_manager::request: access_control_if::lookup failed: ret = %d
true false result: %s
In security_policy_manager::register_rule: entry is NULL
action %lld is invalid
cannot specify internal service in SPP
cannot specify default rule in SPP
access_control_if::add_entry failed: In security_policy_manager::load_additional_policy: security_policy_manager::initialize is not called SCE_CELLOS_SS_SPM secure_profile_loader_if::get_contents_size new failed
secure_profile_loader_if::get_contents read_size %d != size %d
In security_policy_manager::load_additional_policy: received acm: 0x%02x In security_policy_manager:: load_additional_policy: register_rule failed: ret = %d
access_control_if::cancel_changes access_control_if::commit_changes failed: In security_policy_manager::load_internal_policy: already initialized. why call me?
m_internal is NULL
access_control_if::initialize failed: load_internal_policy: register_rule failed, access_control_if::commit_changes In security_policy_manager::initialize: initialize is already called
security_policy_manager::load_internal_policy p p ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿp p ÿ p p ü ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿðÿÿüÿÿÿp p p p ÿ p p p p p p 9 p p * p p p p N ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ p p p 1 p p þ p p ü p p ý ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿðÿÿþÿÿÿp P p p p p p D p p M In ss_init_repository::get_node_value:
name: { 0x%llx, 0x%llx}
timeout occured
. get_repository_node_value succeeded
value: {
In ss_init_repository::get_node_value:
remove_repository_node failed
In ss_init_repository::create_node: creating...
create_repository_node succeeded
In ss_init_repository::create_node: create_repository_node failed
In entry::remove_from_queue: head() returns NULL
In entry::remove_from_queue: not found
In entry::remove_from_mngq: listhead must not be NULL
In entry::remove_from_mngq: not found
In entry::insert_to_mngq: head must not be NULL
In entry::insert_to_mngq: already in mngq
In access_control_if::get_acm_entry_num: not initialized
invalid section: %d
In access_control_if::cleanup_rule_entry: entry::remove_from_mngq failed: ret = %d
entry::remove_from_queue failed: ret = %d
access_control_if::get_memory(%d)
get_memory: no more memory... call pme_malloc()
In access_control_if::remove_rule_entry_list: object_entry::get_rule_entry_list_head failed: In access_control_if:: remove_rule_entry_list: entry::insert_to_mngq failed: In access_control_if::remove_object_rule_entry: access_control_if::remove_rule_entry_list failed: In access_control_if::copy_all_rule_of_section: oe is NULL
object_entry::get_rule_entry_list_head In access_control_if::get_acm: access_control_if::copy_all_rule_of_section buffer should not be NULL
nentry should be greater than or equal to %llu
object_hashtable::get_first_object_entry failed: access_control_if::copy_all_rule object_hashtable::get_next_object_entry In access_control_if::remove_object_entry: object_hashtable::get_object_entry failed: there is no object in NORMAL state
access_control_if:: remove_object_rule_entry failed: ret = %d
In access_control_if::lookup: object_hashtable::get_object_entry returns NULL object_entry
object_entry::match_rule_entry failed: In access_control_if::cleanup_object_entry: object_hashtable::remove_object_entry failed: In access_control_if::register_new_rule: oe is NULL In access_control_if::register_new_rule: new failed In access_control_if::register_new_rule: object_entry::add_rule_entry failed: ret = %d
entry::insert_to_mngq failed: ret = %d
section broken?
In access_control_if::register_new_object: oe is not NULL
object_hashtable::add_object_entry failed: In access_control_if::add_entry: entry must not NULL
mask should not be {0, 0} if the section is PRIMARY, SECONDARY or TERTIARY
mask should be {0, 0} if the section is DEFAULT
access_control_if::register_new_object In access_control_if::add_entry: oe is NULL
access_control_if::register_new_rule failed: In access_control_if::initialize: already initialized
expected_object_num should not be 0
object_hashtable::initialize failed: In access_control_if::initialize: initialized
In access_control_if::initialize: new failed
In access_control_if::remove_entry: mask should not be {0, 0}
In access_control_if::remove_entry: oe is NULL
object_entry::get_rule_entry failed: ret = %d
In access_control_if::remove_entry: re is NULL
there is no rule in NORMAL state
In access_control_if::add_entry: section broken? In access_control_if::remove_all_entry: remove_all_entry: remove_object_rule_entry failed: no rule is registered
In access_control_if::commit_changes: there is no entry
invalid m_primary_mngq_num: invalid m_secondary_mngq_num: invalid m_tertiary_mngq_num: invalid m_default_mngq_num: invalid state (%d) elememnt in mngq
In access_control_if::cancel_changes: In object_entry::get_rule_entry_list_head: In object_entry::add_rule_entry: elem should not be NULL
elem is already registered
In object_hashtable::get_first_object_entry: In object_hashtable::get_object_entry: In object_hashtable::initialize: In object_hashtable::initialize: m_table is NULL
In object_hashtable::remove_object_entry: elem->head() is NULL
object_entry not found, list is broken?
In object_hashtable::get_next_object_entry: In object_hashtable::add_object_entry: DEFAULT.SPP 0123456789abcdef 0123456789ABCDEF (null) max system bytes = %10lu
system bytes = %10lu
in use bytes
Koolk escribió:Había dicho que me faltaba poco para entregar un manual sobre el MPLAB para aquellas personas curiosas, novel y quiera experimentar de manera muy rápdida sobre temas de microcontroladores. Sólo para personas que no han visto nadade PIC y MPLAB. Los que tienen algo de idea, no es gran cosa.
Descargar
Por otro lado, les cuento que es Rusia, Alemania he visto ya proyectos hecho de los 40 ns pero no se ponen de acuerdo cual es el definitivo, aún así, ellos mismos tienen sus esquemas, pero no el pcb físicamente creado todavía.
Saludo.