Talk:Jailbreak

Error

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 --5urd 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)

"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)

4.3.5 / 4.2.10

I've changed references to 0.9.8b3 to 0.9.8b7 for 4.3.5 tethered jailbreaks (see latest iPhone Dev rs iOS5beta posting). Should the Main Page be changed to reflect that an official jailbreak is available? Or will this only be changed on release of an untethered exploit being made available? Also fixed an error in which a reference to 0.9.6rc18 was existent with a question mark. Now changed to the accurate version of rs beta that needs to be used for 4.3.4 on that device. I've left 0.9.8b3 for 4.3.4 simply because that was the first release supporting it. Hope this is okay. blackthund3r 04:57, 31 August 2011 (MDT)

Actually it should list the lowest and highest version number that supports the listed firmware version, not just the latest. That's why all other pre 4.3.3 versions for redsn0w have ranges. -- http 00:57, 1 September 2011 (MDT)

3GS separation

From a jailbreak point of view, the 3GS with old and new bootrom are totally different devices. Can we separate that into two tables? -- http 12:48, 14 December 2011 (MST)

5.x PwnageTool bundles

The list says there are PwnageTool custom bundles for 5.0 for iPad and iPhone 4 (GSM) available. Is that correct? -- http 05:06, 19 December 2011 (MST)

see pwnbundles.com --Zmaster 06:45, 19 December 2011 (MST)

That site doesn't list any bundle for iOS 5.0, while this page says iOS 5.0 can be jailbroken with PwnageTool and a custom bundle. Is this just meant theoretical or what? -- http 10:32, 19 December 2011 (MST)

Clutter

Some of the tables (notably the iPhone 3GS section) are beginning to appear crammed. I think we could break up the tables a little more, based on firmware versions, to alleviate this issue. Thoughts? --Dialexio 18:51, 28 December 2011 (MST)

What about dropping the table all together:

== [[m68ap|iPhone]] ==
* 1.0.0
** iBrickr
*** Untethered: 0.5-0.91

or

== [[m68ap|iPhone]] ==
* 1.0.0
** iBrickr (Untethered): 0.5-0.91

--5urd 19:00, 28 December 2011 (MST)

Sounds good to me. Unless somebody wants tables, I'll switch over to this proposed format sometime around the weekend. --Dialexio 21:08, 28 December 2011 (MST)

There is one more that I would like better: the first option but list all versions:

== [[m68ap|iPhone]] ==
* 1.0.0
** iBrickr
*** 0.5 (Untethered)
*** 0.6 (Untethered)
...

Its a bigger job, but it is better IMO --5urd 22:42, 28 December 2011 (MST)

One more (the tools area is listed like list option three, but w/o the link. The link is on the second column. The "5.0.1" can be like ==== 5.0.1 ====): File:JB Option.png --5urd 22:47, 28 December 2011 (MST)

I do like the tables and I don't see a big need to change anything (except updating). A list won't bring much advantage and just increase page size. But the last proposed version of 5urd, a table that lists all tools in their versions for each firmware (still per device) wouldn't be bad if you want to change something. Please see also my request above about separating devices for old/new bootrom. --http 02:59, 29 December 2011 (MST)

It will make it vertical instead of horizontal (which is better) and it would allow someone to link to the firmware version with the ToC if we make the version number a header (see above comment). I can do it later today. --5urd 12:01, 29 December 2011 (MST)

I would actually like to see the new table format on Firmware and Beta Firmware --5urd 16:08, 29 December 2011 (MST)

Absinthe

For all entries of Absinthe it is stated that Absinthe 2.0/2.0.1 jailbreaks iOS 5.0.1, however Absinthe 2.0.* jailbreaks only 5.1.1. In order to jailbreak 5.0.1, one must use Absinthe 0.4. The official website states this cleary and keeps both 0.4 and 2.0.* available. I'll refrain from making this edit myself because I am not that friendly of wiki-like tables and might break something else :D --Luxiel 06:16, 30 May 2012 (MDT)

You're absolutely right. To edit the tables, feel free to try. There's a preview button; that way you can't break anything. If nobody updates this soon, I'll edit it. Thanks for reporting. --http 13:45, 30 May 2012 (MDT)

My bad… I kinda went by what I saw inside Absinthe.app. I'll work on changing the tables accordingly. --Dialexio 15:11, 30 May 2012 (MDT)

…OK, I just tried it out twice, and Absinthe 2.0.4 was able to successfully jailbreak my iPod touch 4G on iOS 5.0.1. It may be that Absinthe 0.4 is more recommended for jailbreaking iOS 5.0.1 (albeit only on the iPad 2 and iPhone 4S), but 2.0.4 seems to be perfectly capable of jailbreaking 5.0.1 and 5.1.1. --Dialexio 16:18, 30 May 2012 (MDT)

I didn't actually try to jailbreak a 5.0.1 with the new versions, as Chronic Team states on the Absinthe.exe that it jailbreakes 5.1.1 and the website points us to use 0.4 for 5.0.1, but if it works, it works :D --Luxiel 13:30, 31 May 2012 (MDT)

Bootrom exploits

Should we really list/repeat the limera1n and other bootrom exploits for every iOS version here? --http 14:58, 25 October 2012 (MDT)

redsn0w versions

In the jailbreak charts, we are listing the redsn0w-versions that work with this device/iOS version. That's fine. But in order to avoid updating the charts for every minor redsn0w release, I suggest that we just leave the starting version, like "0.9.15b1-" to indicate that support was added then. Of course, if redsn0w no longer supports that iOS build on the affected device, we have to add the end version too, like it is now. And also if the tether-status changes. The main problem right now is not even a lot of updates here just for minor redsn0w changes, but also if we forget to update this. For example if we list it as compatible with versions "0.9.102-0.9.117" and not we're at version "0.9.135", then nobody knows if support stopped at version "0.9.117" or if just the list didn't get updated. --http 13:22, 4 November 2012 (MST)

Order of jailbreak tools.

I was looking at this today and thought that on different devices that it gets confusing that the order of tools is different. Would it be better if the tools were sorted in alphabetical order? --iAdam1n (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2012 (MST)

I don't care. If it bothers you so much, feel free to sort them. --http 13:09, 14 December 2012 (MST)

Okay. Will do. --iAdam1n (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2012 (MST)

Version number of tool.

Would it not be better to just say yes or no? I mean most people will use the latest version to jailbreak even old firmwares. --iAdam1n (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2012 (MST)

Because sometimes the latest one doesn't work. Take sn0wbreeze: before 2.9, you would need a specific version as the latest didn't include the bundles for old firmwares. --5urd 11:32, 4 December 2012 (MST)

Ok. Was hoping to change it to yes, no or tethered but that is a good point. --iAdam1n (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2012 (MST)

That's exactly the problem. Not all tools in their latest version work with old firmwares, so you have to take an older version in order to use it. But for tools that do work in their latest version we might want to remove the latest version and just list since which version it is supported, for example firmware x is supported with "redsn0w 0.99.1023-" meaning since that version of redsn0w. That way we don't have to update everything if a new redsn0w version comes out. And when (for any reason) firmware x is no longer supported with the newest redsn0w, we could replace it with "redsn0w 0.99.1023-0.99.2039" (when redsn0w 0.99.2040 is the version no longer supporting it). -- http 17:59, 4 December 2012 (MST)

I see. Please see my question above this one. --iAdam1n (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2012 (MST)

Tethered Jailbreak breaks camera

Has anybody noticed that the 6.0.1 tethered jailbreak breaks the camera? --Haifisch (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What device? Have you tried a fresh restore + jailbreak (restore, set up as new, jailbreak) as it could be your system having a corrupted binary. If that didn't/doesn't work, did/can you contact p0sixninja? --5urd (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Works ok here. --iAdam1n (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm seems to be my iPhone 4 (6.0.1) then... Let me see if the binary is OK --Haifisch (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Errm… This has nothing to do with the front page. I'll let it slide though. (For the record, my iPhone 4 CDMA's cameras function properly.) --Dialexio (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to put it (I meant to put it on the community portal actually, made a mistake) What have you installed? --Haifisch (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could have asked something like "Should it be noted that the 6.0.1 jailbreak messes with camera functionality?" on the Jailbreak talk page. ;P But I digress. I have AntiTint, BlurriedNCBackground, f.lux, iCleaner, MultiStorey, My3G, PrivaCy, Protect My Privacy, ScrollingBoard, and TetherMe installed. --Dialexio (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

is there somewhere were i can note this? --Haifisch (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

No untethered jailbreak for 6.1.3!

Hi Adam, you added many of these edits, but there is no untethered jailbreak for 6.1.3+ available. Can you fix that everywhere you changed it? --http (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

TLC

Okay, we've seen a bunch of firmwares come and go now. The page has started getting pretty incomprehensible and unwieldy. For starters, I think we can move the exploits used to a different page (Jailbreak Exploits?). We'll probably have to rethink how the tables display the information to make it friendlier to use… Maybe forgo tables, and present the information in a list, like such:

iPod touch 4G

• Absinthe: iOS 5.0.1
• greenpois0n: iOS 4.1, 4.2.1
• p0sixspwn: iOS 6.1.5, 6.1.6 (Cydia package only)
• Saffron: iOS 4.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3

What do you guys think? --Dialexio (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I do like the idea of this, though I kind of prefer a table. I do agree though that something in the tables should change since they are getting too big. If no other table ideas are thought of, I would be fine with this proposed design. --iAdam1n (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

We should definitely move the exploits to a seperate page. I'm not so sure about the list view since we wouldn't be able to show which version of which tool is capable of jailbreaking which firmware like we can in the tables at the moment. I think we should have a separate page for Jailbreak Tools and that this page should only be for the first few paragraphs. — Spydar007 (Talk) 09:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The only problem with the tables though, is that they do not fit on the page. If this can be made to fit, then I also like the idea of keeping tables. --iAdam1n (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is a problem that they don't fit as you can just use the scrollbar at the bottom of your browser. There aren't many that don't fit, four or five. The only way I see we would be able to fix this, would be to make the text smaller. — Spydar007 (Talk) 09:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could use the list view as Dialexio said but in brackets list the version used? We could have a sentence on the page saying what it means. For example;

iPod touch 5G

• evasi0n7: iOS 7.0.4 (1.0)

That way we keep the version numbers but don't overflow the page. --iAdam1n (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

evasi0n7 exploits

Since there is no list of exploits for evasi0n7, here are the ones Apple patched in iOS 7.1:

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT6162

Is it possible to make a list of them from this data? — Spydar007 (Talk) 15:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

iPhone 4 sections

Is it really necessary to have different sections for the variants of the iPhone 4? Surely, we could combine them into one. — Spydar007 (Talk) 16:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

We should keep them as it is because not all devices have the same iOS versions on it. Though iPad 2 is combined, it should be left alone. --iAdam1n (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

What about the iPad Air for the China LTA WLAN models? — Spydar007 (Talk) 17:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't know but I would say don't merge them since there are different CDMA versions etc. See what others think too. Topics on talk pages should be given at least a week before anything changes anyway. --iAdam1n (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)