|
The iPhone Wiki is no longer updated. Visit this article on The Apple Wiki for current information. |
Difference between revisions of "Talk:Jailbreak"
(→"Exploits which are used in order to jailbreak 2.x?") |
m (→"Exploits which are used in order to jailbreak 2.x?": Forgot a colon. :\) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
So, in other words, would it be fine if the "Exploits which are used in order to jailbreak 2.0+" section was changed to something similar to the "Exploits which are used in order to jailbreak 1.x" section? --[[User:Dialexio|<span style="color:#C20; font-weight:normal;">Dialexio</span>]] 02:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
So, in other words, would it be fine if the "Exploits which are used in order to jailbreak 2.0+" section was changed to something similar to the "Exploits which are used in order to jailbreak 1.x" section? --[[User:Dialexio|<span style="color:#C20; font-weight:normal;">Dialexio</span>]] 02:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Sounds like a good idea to me. Wouldn't it be easier to also separate them by major revisions? Like have a 2.X section, a 3.X section, a 4.X section, and soon to be 5.X? --[[User:JacobVengeance|JakeAnthraX]] 02:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
:Sounds like a good idea to me. Wouldn't it be easier to also separate them by major revisions? Like have a 2.X section, a 3.X section, a 4.X section, and soon to be 5.X? --[[User:JacobVengeance|JakeAnthraX]] 02:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
| − | :Of course! I was planning to do that, too. :P --[[User:Dialexio|<span style="color:#C20; font-weight:normal;">Dialexio</span>]] 02:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
+ | ::Of course! I was planning to do that, too. :P --[[User:Dialexio|<span style="color:#C20; font-weight:normal;">Dialexio</span>]] 02:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:31, 11 July 2011
Actually, I believe redsn0w (normal version) still loads a 2.1.1 iBoot & uses the arm7_go exploit to bootstrap the ramdisk that flashes the NOR, including an LLB with the 24kpwn exploit. Can someone confirm this? --Cool name 01:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Limera1n/Greenpois0n
We should really try to get a name for the exploit or find a way to add it to exploits used post 2.0 --JakeAnthraX 05:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Apparenttly, limera1n uses SHAtter as it is unmatchable. Also google it --Balloonhead66 05:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- SHAtter was not used and was saved. This is the iPhone wiki, usually people come here before googling and after all it should be here. --JakeAnthraX 05:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- the exploit is used differently on both jailbreaks on limera1n it creates a command called geohot then reboots to recovery mode and boots a ramdisk however on greenpois0n it injects IBSS and then uses the exploit to inject a pwnd IBEC in the description of shatter it did say it rebooted --liamchat 11:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- [SHAtter] was saved, [greenpois0n] uses the same exploit as [limera1n]. Also can someone stem the flow of crap coming from liamchat? It's getting annoying now. --GreySyntax 11:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- SHAtter was not used and was saved. This is the iPhone wiki, usually people come here before googling and after all it should be here. --JakeAnthraX 05:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
"Exploits which are used in order to jailbreak 2.x?"
The exploits used for jailbreaking iOS 1.x are broken down by firmware version. I'd like to accomplish the same thing for the 2.0 and onward section, since it's formatted much differently. But then I thought to myself, "This is going to be a huge revision that may receive sharp criticism. Let me make a talk page entry for this." So that's what I did…
So, in other words, would it be fine if the "Exploits which are used in order to jailbreak 2.0+" section was changed to something similar to the "Exploits which are used in order to jailbreak 1.x" section? --Dialexio 02:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea to me. Wouldn't it be easier to also separate them by major revisions? Like have a 2.X section, a 3.X section, a 4.X section, and soon to be 5.X? --JakeAnthraX 02:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Of course! I was planning to do that, too. :P --Dialexio 02:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
