Difference between revisions of "Talk:Firmware"

From The iPhone Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Tethered Jailbreak)
(Adding Security Notes and Readable Release Notes To Firmware: Done.)
 
(227 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
  +
{{Talk Archive}}
What do you mean by protected? iTunes has to dl it somehow
 
   
  +
== Page split ==
o yea, forgot you had to pay for it :-) i wonder if the iPhone one would run easily?
 
   
  +
This page is pretty manageable— far more so than [[OTA Updates]]. However, I am aware that it's growing quite a bit, so I was thinking of splitting the page up by device class (e.g. Apple TV, iPad, iPad mini, etc.). (We can also further divide those pages by firmware version, but I don't think that's necessary.) In the process, I'd also like to merge in the "Deprecated" pages, since those were split off to lessen the burden of editing a page with so many devices. How does this sound? --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 22:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I've never had any luck myself, but I suppose anything's possible :-)
 
  +
:That's fine by me. I agree we done need to and shouldn't go down to each major iOS on this page, just device type. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 10:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
As for the actual word 'protected', the URLs in the XML are prefixed protected://. Perhaps those URLs are still of value?
 
BTW, as far as I know, having a 2.0 beta installed will still allow "free" upgrades to 2.0. --[[User:Haldo|Haldo]] 13:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 
   
  +
== iOS 10 New IPSW Style ==
:After reading a post on Zibri's blog today, I tested (and confirmed) that the iPod touch 2.0.1 firmware could be downloaded from Apple's servers. Should this URL be provided on this page? -[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] 00:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 
   
  +
With iOS 10 beta, Apple changed the format of IPSW's to bundle for multiple devices (you can see with [http://imgur.com/gTS7Rwb this image]). This means that we have two options (as far as I can see) for listing them. We can either:
::That is a tough question... I may have to defer to geohot for that. It is unfortunately very much a gray area. Maybe we link to the file linked by Zibri? --[[User:Haldo|Haldo]] 20:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 
   
  +
* List how we currently are but copy/paste each new firmware multiple times for the devices listed in the bundled IPSW
:::My thinking is this. If Apple sells it, no download link should be posted here. But perhaps a link to Zibri's page about it in the resources area. ~geohot
 
   
  +
* Add another page off each device page (something like [[Firmware/iPhone/10.x]]) and make new tables to list these firmwares and those tables would include a list of all devices for the one IPSW
== chex ==
 
   
  +
I personally think we should do the latter because that way it'll be easier when editing, be easier to find the IPSW for your device, and prevent the current pages getting slower when newer firmware are added to it. What does everyone else think? --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 23:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
itunes probably checks to see if u bought it somehow...
 
  +
:I've already discussed this on Twitter, but I'll share my thoughts on this issue here.
  +
:To be blunt, I think it's stupid to keep changing the format on what feels like an annual basis. By constantly changing things around, it creates needless confusion for users, who will expect a link on page A when it's on page B, just for it to go to page C a year later. After taking some time to think about it more rationally (this was initially proposed to me while shopping for groceries— not ideal), I'm somewhat more receptive to the idea of partitioning the tables more by version number. But whatever happens, I don't want it to change for another five years, regardless of what crazy nonsense Apple pulls off. We just need to establish and maintain a consistent format that resists whatever Apple wants to throw at us.
  +
:To further add to the confusion is Apple's decision to (finally) support multiple devices in an IPSW. Should we change how we list the links to only include it once, or include the link multiple times, once for each device? The answer's quite obvious to me: Just keep listing it the way we've been doing it— a link for iPhone 5, a link for iPhone 5C, etc. (Sub-classes can be omitted, as all iPhone 5 devices will use the same IPSW, etc.) It's familiar, and pretty straight to the point. Is inserting a link multiple times in different sections on one page too confusing? You invite even more confusion if you list one link once under a new section named "32-bit 4.0 inch iPhones." Is my phone 32-bit or 64-bit? What is that measurement referring to— my screen size, or my phone's size? ...Okay, that last one's a bit of a hyperbole. But this is all for the sake of only needing to update only one or two less tables? Geez, just copy and paste. Heck, if the tables are split up by version number, you can just turn it into a template. --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 00:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  +
::I'm with Dialexio. The format we have currently, and having it listed multiple times makes more sense. — '''[[User:Spydar007|<span style="color:black;">Spydar007</span>]] [[User talk:Spydar007|<span style="color:gray;">(Talk)</span>]]''' 11:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
   
  +
== Removing codenames for key page links ==
== yup ==
 
   
  +
It was recently requested by various users to add links to key pages back to the firmware pages. They were initially removed since it conflicted with how iOS 10.x and newer are now presented. In order to make this happen, I'm proposing the removal of the "Codename" column to make room for another column titled "Keys," which would contain links to key pages for the respective devices. (For reference, [https://twitter.com/Dialexio/status/896804257671901184 this] is an example of how it would look.) Having both columns seems redundant and will unnecessarily consume horizontal space. Firwmare codenames are already in the link/title for firmware key pages, but may be listed together on a new page such as [[Firmware Codenames]] if anyone wishes to have a list of firmware codenames somewhere. If nobody has any objections, we'll make this change shortly. --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 19:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
funny you should mention that. my friend np1011357 got a 2.0 fw working, but I don't think people are brave enough to test any further :P
 
  +
:I just think it was much easier and more convenient to be able to get to the key pages from firmware pages. [[User:OothecaPickle|OothecaPickle]] ([[User talk:OothecaPickle|talk]]) 19:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
::While I do not object to it, I personally would vote to keep it as it is because firmware key pages are easily linked from [[Firmware Keys]] and that is a more logical place to have them linked from (rather than having both) in my opinion. I also think that the codename column would be better on Firmware and Beta Firmware pages. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 20:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::This has now been completed. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 11:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
   
  +
== Adding iOS 13 ==
I do know you have to be pwned for it to work though...
 
   
  +
Hello,
== hmm ==
 
  +
I have created an iOS 13 page here [[IOS_13]] and I would like it added to the Firmware page for iPhones and iPod (7th gen.).
   
  +
== Adding Security Notes and Readable Release Notes To Firmware ==
well if its on apples servers, then we are not really 'hosting' warez, not could we be connected to hosting it at all, unlike if someone uploaded it to rapidshare, then there would be reason to believe we were involved. although its a community wiki, for something like this, it is geohot's call.
 
   
  +
I was thinking about adding security notes as well as readable release notes such as [https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT210393#13 this] to Firmware pages and wanted to see if there were any objections. I'm thinking of using the "Release Notes" column [https://imgur.com/a/GUtJDCz like this]. The other option is to add another column for security notes, but my worry with this is that the page is already wide and it would make it even wider. I think security notes are a really important aspect of firmware updates and something we should easily link to. The main issue with the way we currently list release notes is that it is not in a readable format without additional tools to open the file, whereas the link I suggested would be. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 00:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
== totally free :) ==
 
  +
:I have now completed this. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 17:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 
ipod touch 1.1 (day it came out) -> 1.1.1 (command line jailbreak and jailbreakme.com) -> 1.1.2 symlink jailbreak -> 1.1.3 soft -> 1.1.3 ziphone -> 1.1.4 ijailbreak with jan. app pack -> 1.1.4 pwned and jan. app pack -> beta 1 and 2 pwned -> beta 8 -> 2.0 for free -> pwned 2.0 -> i downloaded 2.0.1 from itunes but i haven't updated yet
 
 
haven't wasted a dime cuz i'm a lazy, jobless 14 year old and all my money goes to my 3g plan (only pay $55 a month with unlimted data, 300 minutes, and unlimted) texts $9 movie tickets, and girls
 
 
== WOW ==
 
 
ffs guys. i was hoping someone would figure this out. Anyone at all could just type 'strings iTunes' on the iTunes binary, and see that there is a link saying http://itunes.com/version, then another directly after is '?touchUpdate=yes". It's not even that hard if u disassembeld it in IDA
 
 
== Add defunct firmwares? ==
 
 
There are some defunct firmware builds referenced in Apple's XML file (i.e.- iPhone 3A101a). Should these be added to this page, or not?
 
-[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] 20:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 
 
== Clarification of "Can be unlocked" ? ==
 
 
I think we need a clarification what the "Can be unlocked?"-Column means. Because Northstar 7C144 on the 3G can be unlocked using pwnage (i.e. if you stay at BB 04.26.08). However if you'd upgrade to BB 05.11.07 it can't. --[[User:M2m|M2m]] 03:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 
 
Quote Oranav: "There's no point for an "unlock" column if we write "yes, stay at X".
 
 
I totally agree on this, however the Columns also states ''"Yes (Upgrade to 04.26.08)"'' for BB 01.45.00 - 02.30.03, while technically currently a working implementation only is available for 04.26.08 (ultrasn0w - yellowsn0w is not available anymore AFAIK). Like this I would think for BB 01.45.00 - 02.30.03 it should also read ''"No (Though you can upgrade to 04.26.08)"'' - or something similar.
 
Therefore my statement/request for a clarification.
 
Regards --[[User:M2m|M2m]] 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 
 
I am of the opinion that if the BB that ships with the given Apple IPSW is not unlock(ed/able) then it should be marked NO. It should be made clear elsewhere that 04.26.08 is suitable for devices looking for an unlock. [[User:Haldo|Haldo]] 13:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 
 
The main difference here is that for older firmwares there's an upgrade path towards unlock. For example, if you buy a 3G phone now with 2.0 and BB 01.45.00, it can be easily upgraded to 3.0 and unlocked. On the other hand, if the phone has 3.1 and 05.11.07 pre-installed, there's no such upgrade path. --[[User:Blackbox|Blackbox]] 18:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 
 
What about changing the title of the column to say "Can baseband be unlocked?" and then only answer yes if there is an unlock available for the baseband included in that version? [[User:Rekoil|Rekoil]] 21:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 
 
== Tethered Jailbreak ==
 
at this point with ipt3g a tethered jailbreak may be the only option we have. the chances of another bootrom exploit being found are rather slim. And find an untethering exploit beyond that is stupid/pointless. I know a tethered exploit sucks, but there's a real chance that this may be the only thing that's left! Should we mark is as "yes jailbreakable" or not? I say take it and be happy with what you got!!
 
--[[User:Posixninja|posixninja]] 13:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 

Latest revision as of 17:13, 29 November 2019

Archives
 • 2008 • 2009 • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2015 •

Page split

This page is pretty manageable— far more so than OTA Updates. However, I am aware that it's growing quite a bit, so I was thinking of splitting the page up by device class (e.g. Apple TV, iPad, iPad mini, etc.). (We can also further divide those pages by firmware version, but I don't think that's necessary.) In the process, I'd also like to merge in the "Deprecated" pages, since those were split off to lessen the burden of editing a page with so many devices. How does this sound? --Dialexio (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I agree we done need to and shouldn't go down to each major iOS on this page, just device type. --iAdam1n (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

iOS 10 New IPSW Style

With iOS 10 beta, Apple changed the format of IPSW's to bundle for multiple devices (you can see with this image). This means that we have two options (as far as I can see) for listing them. We can either:

  • List how we currently are but copy/paste each new firmware multiple times for the devices listed in the bundled IPSW
  • Add another page off each device page (something like Firmware/iPhone/10.x) and make new tables to list these firmwares and those tables would include a list of all devices for the one IPSW

I personally think we should do the latter because that way it'll be easier when editing, be easier to find the IPSW for your device, and prevent the current pages getting slower when newer firmware are added to it. What does everyone else think? --iAdam1n (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I've already discussed this on Twitter, but I'll share my thoughts on this issue here.
To be blunt, I think it's stupid to keep changing the format on what feels like an annual basis. By constantly changing things around, it creates needless confusion for users, who will expect a link on page A when it's on page B, just for it to go to page C a year later. After taking some time to think about it more rationally (this was initially proposed to me while shopping for groceries— not ideal), I'm somewhat more receptive to the idea of partitioning the tables more by version number. But whatever happens, I don't want it to change for another five years, regardless of what crazy nonsense Apple pulls off. We just need to establish and maintain a consistent format that resists whatever Apple wants to throw at us.
To further add to the confusion is Apple's decision to (finally) support multiple devices in an IPSW. Should we change how we list the links to only include it once, or include the link multiple times, once for each device? The answer's quite obvious to me: Just keep listing it the way we've been doing it— a link for iPhone 5, a link for iPhone 5C, etc. (Sub-classes can be omitted, as all iPhone 5 devices will use the same IPSW, etc.) It's familiar, and pretty straight to the point. Is inserting a link multiple times in different sections on one page too confusing? You invite even more confusion if you list one link once under a new section named "32-bit 4.0 inch iPhones." Is my phone 32-bit or 64-bit? What is that measurement referring to— my screen size, or my phone's size? ...Okay, that last one's a bit of a hyperbole. But this is all for the sake of only needing to update only one or two less tables? Geez, just copy and paste. Heck, if the tables are split up by version number, you can just turn it into a template. --Dialexio (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm with Dialexio. The format we have currently, and having it listed multiple times makes more sense. — Spydar007 (Talk) 11:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing codenames for key page links

It was recently requested by various users to add links to key pages back to the firmware pages. They were initially removed since it conflicted with how iOS 10.x and newer are now presented. In order to make this happen, I'm proposing the removal of the "Codename" column to make room for another column titled "Keys," which would contain links to key pages for the respective devices. (For reference, this is an example of how it would look.) Having both columns seems redundant and will unnecessarily consume horizontal space. Firwmare codenames are already in the link/title for firmware key pages, but may be listed together on a new page such as Firmware Codenames if anyone wishes to have a list of firmware codenames somewhere. If nobody has any objections, we'll make this change shortly. --Dialexio (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I just think it was much easier and more convenient to be able to get to the key pages from firmware pages. OothecaPickle (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
While I do not object to it, I personally would vote to keep it as it is because firmware key pages are easily linked from Firmware Keys and that is a more logical place to have them linked from (rather than having both) in my opinion. I also think that the codename column would be better on Firmware and Beta Firmware pages. --iAdam1n (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
This has now been completed. --iAdam1n (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding iOS 13

Hello, I have created an iOS 13 page here IOS_13 and I would like it added to the Firmware page for iPhones and iPod (7th gen.).

Adding Security Notes and Readable Release Notes To Firmware

I was thinking about adding security notes as well as readable release notes such as this to Firmware pages and wanted to see if there were any objections. I'm thinking of using the "Release Notes" column like this. The other option is to add another column for security notes, but my worry with this is that the page is already wide and it would make it even wider. I think security notes are a really important aspect of firmware updates and something we should easily link to. The main issue with the way we currently list release notes is that it is not in a readable format without additional tools to open the file, whereas the link I suggested would be. --iAdam1n (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I have now completed this. --iAdam1n (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)