PDA

View Full Version : Yet another (8th!) downgrader possibility


IndianCheese
December 12th, 2005, 04:28
Now what if someone used the MPH downgrader but added the attribute "read-only" to the index.dat file? The PSP wouldn't be able to overwrite it, right? This would mean that even after updating or downgrading, the version would still appear to be 1.00, right? Does someone want to try that?
bugo
December 12th, 2005, 06:43
hehe, no way, not me, i dont wanna loose my PSP like you, heh!
*kidding*

Well, please, anyone answer his question?
flaming_carrot
December 12th, 2005, 08:25
Highly unlikely to work for several reasons:

First, assuming the updater use a naive file-based updating procedure and does in fact even respect the read-only attribute, the result would most likely be that the updating process aborts and that usually goes really well...

The versioning information has apparently been changed, so even if the scheme would work as prescribed (and I seriously doubt it), it would not help with higher firmwares.
hiphoplsr
December 12th, 2005, 15:44
seriously... if an updater can constantly read wether the memory stick is in or not, im sure it would be able to tell if a file wasnt written.... especially the index.dat.... now, there isnt any way to use usb to directly access the flash, is there?
IndianCheese
December 13th, 2005, 04:16
Well, there is a way to access the UMD via FTP, but that uses homebrew technology, which, of course, is not runnable on 2.01>.
Fanjita
December 13th, 2005, 17:29
Now what if someone used the MPH downgrader but added the attribute "read-only" to the index.dat file? The PSP wouldn't be able to overwrite it, right? This would mean that even after updating or downgrading, the version would still appear to be 1.00, right? Does someone want to try that?

INDEX.DAT is read-only by default. The most complex part of the MPH (and riskiest part of SXT) downgrader code is the bit that tries to remove that read-only attribute.

You can be certain that the official upgrader has no problems whatsoever if that file is read-only.
gotmilk0112
December 21st, 2005, 01:34
why don't you just make a "2.70" update? it would be disguised as a 1.0 update or somthing so it would force you to upgrade to 1.5!!
im probably wrong :(
IndianCheese
December 21st, 2005, 03:25
Done already about 8 trillion times. It doesn't work.