search

chaoskagami / corbenik

CFW for the 3DS, uses bytecode as patches
GNU General Public License v3.0
66 stars 12 forks source link

3DS Banwave #74

Closed Derek1199 closed 7 years ago

Derek1199 commented 7 years ago

I understand there is probably no way to fix this at all except for disabiling sending of information and hiding what title is currently being played in the friends list applet. But we need a way to patch it so nintendo can't ban people like that. The cause of the ban is the friends list applet. Basically what is happening is a invalid title ID is seen, then a ban request is sent, then the user's 3ds gets banned from online play. The only way to unban is to inject a not banned localfriendseed_B or sell themselves to hackerone. This is a very serious issue. Affecting all cfw users.

chaoskagami commented 7 years ago

Except I'm not banned, and furthermore, my Mii has gold pants, and my Pokemon save has been slightly tampered with.

Closing as invalid. I don't know what the ban criteria is, and I can't fix something without a known cause. Arguably, you know what you've gotten into by installing CFW in the first place.

dogtopus commented 7 years ago

I see how this may become an issue in the future. That's why I have a all-zero LFCS and a randomized SecureInfo (No you cannot play online with all-zero LFCS but I won't play online on my piracyhomebrew console anyway)

Derek1199 commented 7 years ago

That's not the point. Many are getting banned. Basically this is Nintendo's reaction to b9s being released. Because b9s gives us access to the bootrom. Plus it can be installed even on 11.4 with a hardmod and dsiwarehax. Thus banwave is similar to the pokemon sun/moon one though as they both have the same error code. But the pokemon sun/moon banwave banned localfriendseed_B and nnidsave and secureinfo_A as well. While this cfw banwave only bans the localfriendseed_B. And hexediting the localfriendseed_B won't unban us because it's not signed by the bootrom signature. It's signed by Nintendo. So we would have to inject a not banned one. Anyway Nintendo started this banwave on Monday, a week ago. Nintendo is basically pissed. Users that go in system settings, Internet settings then spotpass and turn off sending of information and then go to friend list to hide what title their playing are safe from being banned.

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 3:55 PM, dogtopus notifications@github.com wrote:

I see how this may become an issue in the future. That's why I have a zero LFS and a randomized SecureInfo (No you cannot play online with zero LFS but I won't play online on my piracyhomebrew console anyway)

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/chaoskagami/corbenik/issues/74#issuecomment-304480929, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AbWyCwWagnjcu7l-OVLMwBKb0Y7Q-aGIks5r-KnugaJpZM4NoOqP .

fox8091 commented 7 years ago

Who cares what the point is? You break the ToS, you risk a ban. Point blank. It's not chaoskagami's job to fix your or anyone else's mistake. This isn't even client side, it's server side. Accept it, bans happen. CFW can't really fix it.

Derek1199 commented 7 years ago

Yeah, true. It would be nice to have it fixed though. If this could be fixed though, we would need to find a way to prevent this information from being sent without changing the aforementioned settings that I just mentioned. BOSS would probably need patched for this. So, yeah.

fox8091 commented 7 years ago

That's not something the CFW should do even. Either disable the settings or deal with the risk. 👎

chaoskagami commented 7 years ago

Here's an idea: don't use online functionality or leave "supply data to nintendo" options enabled if you don't want information to be gathered, sat on, and subsequently used to ban your console. Read: @fox8091 is right on the money. It's not rocket science, @Derek1199.

If you want to implement privacy patches or whatever, have fun. You're on your own; it's outside the scope of what I'm willing to do. I'm under no obligation to implement/reverse engineer anything.

It seems I'm being not-so-subtly ordered to implement something that's out of scope, so for the first time in this project's history I'm locking discussion. Show's over.