Jeff Lonestar
Member
Tested and Working Great on my PS3 Slim Cech2001a!
I found this Even Easier to install than the bgtoolset
lol
This is Awesome!
I found this Even Easier to install than the bgtoolset
lolThis is Awesome!
lolTry a different USB drive, make sure you can see it on the XMB beforehand (like in the photo column for example). Make sure the USB is formatted as FAT32 aswell.Hey, I'm having a really strange issue where the .bin is not saving to my USB stick. I've selected slot 000 and the USB is in the right slot closest to the disk drive. I select NOR at the beginning too. The P3T file overwrites and when I try to dump the NOR flash memory, the .bin does not appear in my USB stick. I formatted with rufus following all the steps of MrMario2011's newest guide.
I'm on a 25XX 0C slim model.
3.60 or higher doesn't workMy version is PS3 Slim CECH-2511A (3.60 FW)
Functional in version 3.60 FW?
Thanks.
Fala Mello, blz.3.60 or higher doesn't work
its always good to have multiple backups, just in case. Having the OFW dump though probably not critical if you have an HFW dump. It would only be needed if you need to restore using a hardware flasher.Hi guys! Great news
I'm on OFW 4.90 can I make a dump before even HFW 4.90.1? Does it make sense or will it be the same?
well lol. There are threads covering this on here.Well I do not have a hardware flasher, so I'm guessing it will be for nothing...
But the thing is I do not know the process of this Flasher there's only a screen to select the device...
It dumps a valid CFW to update to the USB?
It makes a backup first? Then screen changes?
If it does not a dump... how to dump a backup from OFW 4.90?
Would it be possible to add a "dump again" button that you can use if the flash dump fails or if you get any dangers / warnings? Right now you have to close the browser and start over.well lol. There are threads covering this on here.
Its simpler than that. It makes a backup of your current flash onto usb. Then it downloads the small patch and applies it to your actual PS3 systems flash. Thats all. Once patched, you reboot and can install CFW.
i've read of some users on twitter and youtube comments having issues of dns blocking the pc webserver or whatever, so i decided to skip any headache for myself and to just create a subfolder on my own domain and host the elements there (for my own personal use!)
i'm assuming really all i need to do is edit the html line
"window.location.href = 'flash490.P3T';"
and change that to
"window.location.href = 'http://www.mydomain.com/subfolder/flash490.P3T';"
and that should be good to go in the ps3 web browser, right?
Yes, but during testing I noticed none of the dumps were bad. It would mainly be useful in cases where people chose the wrong USB slot, but they can still reload the page. The reason why I didn't allow a second dump to be made after patching is because it would overwrite the first dump, but maybe in the future this could be added by changing the file name in memory.Would it be possible to add a "dump again" button that you can use if the flash dump fails or if you get any dangers / warnings? Right now you have to close the browser and start over.
And adding a timestamp at the ending of the dump filename ?, this way every dump will have an unique name, so no overwrite posibleYes, but during testing I noticed none of the dumps were bad. It would mainly be useful in cases where people chose the wrong USB slot, but they can still reload the page. The reason why I didn't allow a second dump to be made after patching is because it would overwrite the first dump, but maybe in the future this could be added by changing the file name in memory.

It's a good idea, but there are some things to consider before implementing something like that. Basically every time you change a variable in JS that's then referenced by a ROP chain, you need to find the address of that variable in memory again, and then change the offset in the ROP chain to reflect that (hence, you also need to find the offset of the ROP chain again). I've not tested something like that since the improved memory searching was put in, but you could see why that could cause some issues.And adding a timestamp at the ending of the dump filename ?, this way every dump will have an unique name, so no overwrite posible
This is exactly right. People need to do more research about what they're actually doing before they do it. I've already seen posts on reddit of people trying to flash incompatible consoles and then getting confused when they're told exactly why it won't work.Doing that is definitely possible, but the question then is how foolproof can you even make it? Just like with BGToolset, most users won't even bother checking if that file exists, let alone whether the contents are recoverable.
The closest thing I could think of is integrating PyPS3checker into it, but doing that is of course out of reach for browser based tools.
Hmmm, now that you mention it... PyPS3checker is composed by tenths (or hundreds ?) of checks, implementing all them in the flash writer could be overkill, but maybe @littlebalup have a suggestion for a small selection of the most important checksThe closest thing I could think of is integrating PyPS3checker into it, but doing that is of course out of reach for browser based tools.
I actually don't mind implementing all of it, or at least most of it (minus Super Slim related things). Sounds like a good exercise for C/C++.Hmmm, now that you mention it... PyPS3checker is composed by tenths (or hundreds ?) of checks, implementing all them in the flash writer could be overkill, but maybe @littlebalup have a suggestion for a small selection of the most important checks
You know... only 10 or 11 checks, enought to identify if the dump is critically damaged
Of course, something like that would require a warning advising that "this integrity check is not 100% failproof"
The concept i think of is so simple but i think it will cost memory/timeHmmm, now that you mention it... PyPS3checker is composed by tenths (or hundreds ?) of checks, implementing all them in the flash writer could be overkill, but maybe @littlebalup have a suggestion for a small selection of the most important checks
You know... only 10 or 11 checks, enought to identify if the dump is critically damaged
Of course, something like that would require a warning advising that "this integrity check is not 100% failproof"