Missing files

[GoogleCodeExporter]

There are cIPL installer for 6.39 and 6.60, but none for 6.20 and 6.35.

I do NOT want to use perma patch, i prefer cIPL, so i want a cIPL for 6.20 and 
6.35...

Original issue reported on code.google.com by ZettU...@gmail.com on 9 Nov 2011 at 12:11

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Not that I mean to derail your request here, but to my understanding there 
isn't any practical difference between CIPL and the permanent patch to the end 
user (for pre-TA88v3 boards, anyway). Why don't you want to use the permanent 
patch? They both flash to the PSP's internal memory and perform all but 
identical tasks.

Original comment by reed...@gmail.com on 9 Nov 2011 at 7:59

[GoogleCodeExporter]

With cIPL you are able to use custom modules inside of flash0, e.g. editing 
flash0 prx files. But with ppatch it will brick, so the cIPL is much better for 
old PSPs.

Original comment by the...@gmx.de on 10 Nov 2011 at 7:27

[GoogleCodeExporter]

@2

Actually No!

CIPL is pretty much the boot code after the Pre-IPL to load custom modules.

Perma Patch however is different it is after the IPL has been brought up by the 
Pre-IPL(it is pretty much like DA's 1.50 POC cfw by using fake forged signature 
vshmain.prx as a hole to load Custom modules).

Vshmain.prx is an OFW module to load the xmb interface.

You don't need CIPL to use custom modules inside flash0. LCFW(lite Custom 
firmware) has custom modules flashed on flash0. 

@OP

6.35 was the the original procfw kernel test ground for features.
6.35 kernel was ported to 6.20 because of the ppatch.(6.20 and below uses AES 
encryption that led to fake signing/CMAC forging vshmain.prx and 6.3+ OFW uses 
ECDSA encryption and some kirk keys are still unknown therefore making it 
impossible to make ppatch for later OFW like 6.3+ kernels.)

6.39 is just 6.35 features updated to 6.39 kernel.
6.60 well if you want to be updated use 6.60(note: not all plugins work since 
new NIDS were randomized and have to be cracked through bruteforcing. It takes 
a while and not gauranteed success.)

Hope you all understand what i just said. :)

-g4mM4.r4y5

Original comment by g4mM4.r...@gmail.com on 12 Nov 2011 at 1:57

[GoogleCodeExporter]

If i edit some of the PRX files inside of a ppatched flash0, the psp wont boot.
The ppatch vshmain.prx does not load selfcustomized custom modules.

E.g. if i edit some prx files, it wont boot, its bricked :/

But cIPL does load those, so cIPL is way better than ppatch (well atleast for 
old psps)

Original comment by the...@gmx.de on 16 Nov 2011 at 11:11

[GoogleCodeExporter]

@4

Yes it bricks if you modify OFW modules since the OFW IPL still has to verify 
and loads the necessary OFW modules stored at Flash0, using PPatch feature is 
very risky.

CIPL loads all the modules just like on OFW IPL stored at Flash0, CIPL in CFWs 
will load systemctrl.prx to run cfw features.

fake forged vshmain.prx loads systemctrl.prx only so technically it does load 
custom module, The reason why fake vshmain.prx is usefull for non fully 
hackables is when OFW IPL is loaded it looks for all the modules and that 
includes vshmain.prx if all the modules pass then XMB will load, else it will 
freeze and shutdown in 10 seconds.

I want to draw a tree algorithm of how the PPatch is different from CIPL but 
I'm too busy :P I suggest to take a look at PROCFW source repository here so 
you would understand what i'm trying to say.

vshmain.prx is a module.

CIPL/IPL is a bootcode to load files from flash0 after the PRE-IPL(integrated 
bootcode in PSP's chip and cannot be modified unless you recreate/reverse 
engineer the whole chip).

Original comment by g4mM4.r...@gmail.com on 17 Nov 2011 at 8:47

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

"to my understanding there isn't any practical difference between CIPL and the 
permanent patch to the end user"
Wrong, CIPL is slightly faster too boot up

If you need to use the CIPL, then you can update to 6.60, there is no drawbacks 
by doing so

Original comment by devnonam...@gmail.com on 25 Aug 2013 at 2:57

• Added labels: Type-Enhancement
• Removed labels: Type-Defect

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Issue closed by the way.

Original comment by devnonam...@gmail.com on 25 Aug 2013 at 2:57