Rumor: PartnerNet Bricking Kits?

bravo. well said.

 

MTWomg having a dev kit in his possession after his little stunt at PAX East also didn't help matters.

Remember, you're looking at a company that wants to be in control of its hardware.

Due to the actions of a number of people it has lost control over who is using its hardware. Remotely disabling errant hardware is a way to reassert that control.

-hl718

 

What hl718 said.

 

I got a good idea to have a better idea of what the fuck is going on.
There is a way to write protect your nand with a switch, some one should attempt this mod and go online and see if you get bricked. Some of the speculations are that it occurs after a reboot, meaning it had to write something somewhere to be read after it rebooted, by doing this you might just prevent it from damaging your console.

Here is the diagram http://pictures.xbox-scene.com/xbox360/NWP_diagram/NWP.png

 

This could also be shown by having someone dump there current (read: pn nuked) NAND, you might be able to dif the current files against the known files (i.e. a dump you have of your current recovery).

To be honest, I am not sure how much of the NAND structure changes with multiple reboots/config. Without this basic knowledge (Which wouldn't be too hard to determine) it might be hard to figure why something has changed.

Skills in RE would help tremendously here obviously.

Just an idea.

 

It says WP must be connected to GND, i dont know what GND is? or how to connect it?

 

Ground.

-hl718

 

Well this could as easily become the best way to prevent getting bricked by MS.

 

Write protecting the flash won't protect you from having CPU fuses blown.

And eventually, they may start to do more creative things like identify devices using the "device unique ID" (aka: CPU KEY) instead of using device certificates (aka: keyvault) to see who is who.

 

Check out the topic I made..

 

Does anyone who had their Xbox bricked have a before and after NAND with CPU key for examination? Or even just an after-NAND to use for reference. I think this would be the best approach.

 

I have been saying all this stuff many pages ago but everyone keep carrying on. Tried to get a dump from bearkiller but he claims he overwrote it with his original before dumping it.

 

lol and soniciso's supposed 3 machines that bricked never actually happened

yep, still calling bs on this

 

sorry just to be clear, why would i make this up?

 

Hi,
Do you think NWP chip is a good protection or not ?

Install : http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/310/installr.jpg
Youtube : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKbjSBFJKSk
Link : http://www.eurasia.nu/modules.php?n...ewdownloaddetails&lid=6560&ttitle=NWP_CHIP_v2

Read me :

 

NWP is useless. If a fuse is blown, the kit bricks and NAND isn't changed in a single byte even while protected. NWP can even cause retail console to brick if the R6T3 is not removed but NAND is write protected.

The other chip made by the guy (the chip to sync controllers with the RF board on a PC computer) is very useful, though.

 

Okay, thanks for your answer l_oliveira.
Useful if you unsolder also R6T3, isn't it ?

The ultimate solution: : NWC + switch On/Off in R6T3, no/yes ?

 

I guess nobody heard about Xe/HvxKeysExecute around here?

This will allow you to execute an RSA signed payload in hypervisor context.

And i assure you, this code is indeed very much there on devkits (recovery discs use this for instance...)

If someone with a bricked kit could take the time to check the POST code we could know for sure what they have done.

You can check it simply by measuring a few points on the bottom of the motherboard with a multimeter while the kit is on/rrod. (PM if you have the time/equipment/bricked kit)

 

10010011

 

Are you sure this just doesn't give MS higher priviledges to use more hypervisor APIs they would could not be using otherwise ? If so they would still be limited in the possibilities being provided by the said APIs.

Do you have any assembly or further details of this function?

P.S. I am not pretending to know about this, I just wish to know more about it. I just find it odd that MS would allow code (even signed) to run with hypervisor privileges at runtime other than the hypervisor itself)