Exploits are not standard pieces of homebrew code in which bugs can always be fixed & stability can always be guaranteed.
And in console hacks, we have to use combinations of exploits which often complicates matter further.
Also exploits are not modular, there are different types offering different capabilities, you cannot always swap one with another.
Many users fail to understand the wide range of complexities that can be involved in system exploitation & how each exploit implementation is somewhat unique, some basic techniques or principles may be applied but in a majority of cases for each exploit, there is one unique implementation, 2 exploits could potentially be similar but never the same nonetheless.
Exploits are all different by nature, some offer all capabilities a hacker could dream of, others are "weak" & only offer limited capabilities, some may work all the time, others only sometimes, some may have requirements, others none, some may impact system stability, others don't at all, system configuration or runtime status may impact exploit success or not, certain exploits can crash the system when failing, others cannot, etc..
Quite often, it's possible to improve upon an exploit success rate & reduce/remove any runtime impact on the system, sometimes it is not.
But generally speaking, the less work has been done on an exploit which does not succeed all the time, the more likely its success rate could potentially be improved further (if/when it can be improved at all). Improvements are often done at the price of much time & effort, testing all sorts of approaches & benchmarking results over series after series of exploitation attempts, something that very few contributors with appropriate skills are ready to do, keeping in mind also that in some cases, you could spend the next century trying to improve an exploit without result because there is just no obvious or practical way to do it.
I think it is also good to consider what an exploit in the context of console hacking does in practice to understand what's in play here.
Whether it's a stack/heap under/overflow, a type confusion, a use after free, a null pointer dereferencing or whatever, most often an exploit is just a piece of code relying on a vulnerability in the code of a target app & using that vulnerability to literally crash that app then using the crash to take over execution control.
We could say it is an intentionally planned & programmed crash for the exploit to take control then do what it needs to do before surrendering execution back to the target app to continue with its work without any part of the app or of the system being impacted or noticing.
Not exactly casual programming, is it?
All this put together explains the differences in user experience when running ps4 hacks for one fw version or another, different combinations of different exploits not always refined, different success rates & possible impact on the system left unresolved.
And in console hacks, we have to use combinations of exploits which often complicates matter further.
Also exploits are not modular, there are different types offering different capabilities, you cannot always swap one with another.
Many users fail to understand the wide range of complexities that can be involved in system exploitation & how each exploit implementation is somewhat unique, some basic techniques or principles may be applied but in a majority of cases for each exploit, there is one unique implementation, 2 exploits could potentially be similar but never the same nonetheless.
Exploits are all different by nature, some offer all capabilities a hacker could dream of, others are "weak" & only offer limited capabilities, some may work all the time, others only sometimes, some may have requirements, others none, some may impact system stability, others don't at all, system configuration or runtime status may impact exploit success or not, certain exploits can crash the system when failing, others cannot, etc..
Quite often, it's possible to improve upon an exploit success rate & reduce/remove any runtime impact on the system, sometimes it is not.
But generally speaking, the less work has been done on an exploit which does not succeed all the time, the more likely its success rate could potentially be improved further (if/when it can be improved at all). Improvements are often done at the price of much time & effort, testing all sorts of approaches & benchmarking results over series after series of exploitation attempts, something that very few contributors with appropriate skills are ready to do, keeping in mind also that in some cases, you could spend the next century trying to improve an exploit without result because there is just no obvious or practical way to do it.
I think it is also good to consider what an exploit in the context of console hacking does in practice to understand what's in play here.
Whether it's a stack/heap under/overflow, a type confusion, a use after free, a null pointer dereferencing or whatever, most often an exploit is just a piece of code relying on a vulnerability in the code of a target app & using that vulnerability to literally crash that app then using the crash to take over execution control.
We could say it is an intentionally planned & programmed crash for the exploit to take control then do what it needs to do before surrendering execution back to the target app to continue with its work without any part of the app or of the system being impacted or noticing.
Not exactly casual programming, is it?
All this put together explains the differences in user experience when running ps4 hacks for one fw version or another, different combinations of different exploits not always refined, different success rates & possible impact on the system left unresolved.
Last edited:
