*bump* I hope we'll get more lessons soon! Also, this topic is now in the new Casio subforum.
Yes, I agree, I do hope we get more lessons. Seeing as it's December, and the last post was written in March. 
graphmastur wrote:
Yes, I agree, I do hope we get more lessons. Seeing as it's December, and the last post was written in March.
Why the necropost, graphmastur? Do you have a personal interest in some SH3 ASM coding, or are you just poking the topic to see what comes of it? 
KermMartian wrote:
graphmastur wrote:
Yes, I agree, I do hope we get more lessons. Seeing as it's December, and the last post was written in March.
Why the necropost, graphmastur? Do you have a personal interest in some SH3 ASM coding, or are you just poking the topic to see what comes of it? Since I have a prizm now, I'd like to learn SH3.
Fair enough, that seems like it would be a good challenge. I'd recommend you not get lost in SH3 if it's gets frustrating though and set aside your Prizm, or at least parallelize working on ASM and C.
KermMartian wrote:
Fair enough, that seems like it would be a good challenge. I'd recommend you not get lost in SH3 if it's gets frustrating though and set aside your Prizm, or at least parallelize working on ASM and C.
Of course, of course. As I posted in the "happy holidays" topic, I'm trying to get the compiler to set up.
graphmastur wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
Fair enough, that seems like it would be a good challenge. I'd recommend you not get lost in SH3 if it's gets frustrating though and set aside your Prizm, or at least parallelize working on ASM and C.
Of course, of course. As I posted in the "happy holidays" topic, I'm trying to get the compiler to set up.
It's just about the easiest thing ever! KermMartian wrote:
graphmastur wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
Fair enough, that seems like it would be a good challenge. I'd recommend you not get lost in SH3 if it's gets frustrating though and set aside your Prizm, or at least parallelize working on ASM and C.
Of course, of course. As I posted in the "happy holidays" topic, I'm trying to get the compiler to set up.
It's just about the easiest thing ever!Mac: Where everything "just works"
No, I set up a cross compiler on my mac. I'm also almost done with setting up a VM so I can do things such as analyze the Prizm's USB controls, etc.
Eiyeron wrote:
Anyone tried to fix the OS, optimize it?
The Prizm's OS? Not that I know of. I don't think we know enough to do that yet. I believe we have a copy of the OS somewhere.
graphmastur wrote:
Eiyeron wrote:
Anyone tried to fix the OS, optimize it?
The Prizm's OS? Not that I know of. I don't think we know enough to do that yet. I believe we have a copy of the OS somewhere.
KermMartian wrote:
We have the OS binary, but reverse engineering it into something modifiable would be a massive undertaking, orders of magnitude worse than the TI OSes. Not to mention that we don't know how to self-sign OSes yet, as far as I know.
AFAIK, the Prizm OS does not have to be signed. On legacy models you only have to update the 32-bit OS checksum if you modify stuff.
cfxm wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
We have the OS binary, but reverse engineering it into something modifiable would be a massive undertaking, orders of magnitude worse than the TI OSes. Not to mention that we don't know how to self-sign OSes yet, as far as I know.
AFAIK, the Prizm OS does not have to be signed. On legacy models you only have to update the 32-bit OS checksum if you modify stuff.
Quote:
Hmm, good to know, thanks for that. Does that mean that add-ins have more security than the OS itself, or do you count that as a sort of checksum as well?
Maybe they added a few more checks in the Prizm OS, but software signing isn't Casio's policy. On legacy models add-ins don't have a checksum at all...
cfxm wrote:
Quote:
Hmm, good to know, thanks for that. Does that mean that add-ins have more security than the OS itself, or do you count that as a sort of checksum as well?
Maybe they added a few more checks with the Prizm, but software signing isn't Casio's policy. On legacy models add-ins did not have a checksum at all...
I'm guessing that they have any type of checksum now and didn't before is because there's no official SDK for the Prizm for making add-ins, so they just added it in for some small security or validity checking.
EDIT: as for probably not needing a signature for signing OSes, that sounds cool
one less step to loading different OSes! (still, though, I imagine that's only one of many steps needed before that goal)
Hum... Kristaba said that Addins on Fxes were lauched with the same security level than the OS...
If we want, we could make a bootstrapper. Kris made one for FXes. I'll ask him if we could adapt his works easily for CGes...
If we want, we could make a bootstrapper. Kris made one for FXes. I'll ask him if we could adapt his works easily for CGes...
Eiyeron wrote:
Hum... Kristaba said that Addins on Fxes were lauched with the same security level than the OS...
If we want, we could make a bootstrapper. Kris made one for FXes. I'll ask him if we could adapt his works easily for CGes...
If we want, we could make a bootstrapper. Kris made one for FXes. I'll ask him if we could adapt his works easily for CGes...
Same security level? By that, do you mean privilege ring? Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the prizm runs it add-ins in user mode, while only the inner OS gets privileged mode access.
Ashbad wrote:
Eiyeron wrote:
Hum... Kristaba said that Addins on Fxes were lauched with the same security level than the OS...
If we want, we could make a bootstrapper. Kris made one for FXes. I'll ask him if we could adapt his works easily for CGes...
If we want, we could make a bootstrapper. Kris made one for FXes. I'll ask him if we could adapt his works easily for CGes...
Same security level? By that, do you mean privilege ring? Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the prizm runs it add-ins in user mode, while only the inner OS gets privileged mode access.
JosJuice wrote:
Ashbad wrote:
Eiyeron wrote:
Hum... Kristaba said that Addins on Fxes were lauched with the same security level than the OS...
If we want, we could make a bootstrapper. Kris made one for FXes. I'll ask him if we could adapt his works easily for CGes...
If we want, we could make a bootstrapper. Kris made one for FXes. I'll ask him if we could adapt his works easily for CGes...
Same security level? By that, do you mean privilege ring? Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the prizm runs it add-ins in user mode, while only the inner OS gets privileged mode access.
Oh, really? I thought it was pretty much confirmed with the opposite. This could prove quite useful with further cracking I would imagine, and as an extension, aid shells by allowing them to set user mode on the programs they would be running.
Register to Join the Conversation
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Advertisement