Wii source code leaked on 4chan after hack on BroadOn servers

[JZStudios]

13 hours ago, handymanshandle said:

Yeah right, the PCSX2 devs are too concerned about polishing mediocre recompilers that barely work than to actually make their emulator work properly.

Well, y'know. If the full source code was available they might. Then again, the "official" build is still the garbage 1.4 even though 1.5 has been in development for like 3 years.

 

12 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Ugh PCSX2 is so frustrating to use. Just bought a real PS2 and some component cables to get my uncensored GTA fix in as well as play oddball stuff like Drakengard.

I've gotten a library app thing called Spectabis that saves emu settings per game without having to do anything extraneous. I'm so far just copying settings from YT vids or the Wiki and then just run it as is.

 

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The entire copyright and patent system surrounding software is so fucked... Because of this leak, emulators like Dolphin are at risk.

Nintendo could now attack Dolphin because as soon as some code is published to Dolphin, Nintendo can claim that it was developed using their code which was stolen. If a developer proves that the code wasn't stolen by making comparisons, the developers admits to having downloaded and looked at stolen information from Nintendo. And even if the code isn't the same, Nintendo could argue that they just took the stolen code and modified it slightly, which I believe is still illegal. They would have no evidence to support the claims, but if it's Nintendo and their nearly endless funds vs some indie developer then they can just keep the legal battle going until the developer runs out of money and have to settle (and the settlement would probably be to seize development).

I doubt it. Nintendo specifically has gone after emulators multiple times and always lost massively.

 

Negative. If it goes to court the comparisons need to be made. Nintendo can't just claim that it's duplicated and then have everyone go "Well shit, I guess it is." It needs to actually be compared. So the dev saying it's not the Nintendo code would be matter of course for the case. Nintendo would be forced to show their code either to the dev, or to a third party.

As to modifying code, that might get into something I'm not real privy to, but my immediate comparison would be pop art and Ford windshield wipers, of which both claimants lost the cases entirely.

[imreloadin]

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Don't worry. The current copyright law ensures that anyone trying to use this for any purpose of improving the world will be shut down and have their lives financially ruined. Nintendo has around 140 years left of exclusivity to this code. So maybe in the year ~2162 we will get a perfect Wii emulator.

 

The entire copyright and patent system surrounding software is so fucked... Because of this leak, emulators like Dolphin are at risk.

Nintendo could now attack Dolphin because as soon as some code is published to Dolphin, Nintendo can claim that it was developed using their code which was stolen. If a developer proves that the code wasn't stolen by making comparisons, the developers admits to having downloaded and looked at stolen information from Nintendo. And even if the code isn't the same, Nintendo could argue that they just took the stolen code and modified it slightly, which I believe is still illegal. They would have no evidence to support the claims, but if it's Nintendo and their nearly endless funds vs some indie developer then they can just keep the legal battle going until the developer runs out of money and have to settle (and the settlement would probably be to seize development).

Inb4 it was Nintendo that "leaked" the code specifically for that purpose...

[wanderingfool2]

13 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Why would anything be reused between the two? They have different architectures, load games from different media, use different OSes with different bases, use different game packing methods. Nothing is shared between the two at all.

 

Also lets be very clear, both the Wii and the Switch are already WIDE OPEN for hacking and homebrew, neither console needs extra help. The Switch is such a mess that Nintendo have tried twice to stop hacking on the device and both times have failed. The Wii is one of the easiest consoles to mod, heck you need nothing except the consoles serial number and a website to blow it WIDE open.

Code re-use is quite a large part in software development.  I could imagine that some of the lower level code could potentially be recycled for the use in the switch (not saying it is, but sometimes things like that are used as starting points for new projects).

[Salv8 (sam)]

23 hours ago, ChunkyPanda03 said:

so to sum up Nintendo will most likely leave it be like with their old consoles

oh no, Nintendo doesn't understand the term abandonwear.

awhile ago one dude fully recreated the first Super Mario bros on the commodore 64 and Nintendo shut it down within DAYS.

they got him to delete the source code, remove any accessible copy they he uploaded online, and sent a cease and deist to any site that hosted the file.

they are relentless when it comes to this shit.

 

as sad as it is this is how Nintendo reacts to this, instead of welcoming them with open arms like valve, they came in with a fucking nuke and a man with a happy trigger finger.

they got hacked consoles banned in japan, it's illegal to own one over there, these days owning a non-modifed old console isn't common unless you want an unmodified one for preservation purposes since a modified one adds more functionality to the device and can extend it's life span by not using any parts that might fail over time (e.g a disk drive or HDD)

 

i personally believe that it's not the devs that are like this, it's the board, Nintendo has been around for a very long time (founded in 1933 as Yamauchi Nintendo & Co., rebranded as Nintendo Playing Card Co. Ltd. in 1951, then rebranded again in 1963 as Nintendo Co., Ltd)

they started out making playing cards, not electronics, the majority of the board is still very old fashioned and don't understand modern game culture. they see someone recreating super mario bros, instant lawsuit for copyright infringement.

 

don't get me wrong i love Nintendo, my first console was a GameCube so i have a special place in my heart for them, they just....don't understand this...

[AndreiArgeanu]

6 hours ago, Salv8 (sam) said:

*snip*

Then how come they did not attack any of the Wii modding scene. The letterbomb website is still up, and all the websites with software like the USB Loader GX, Nitendont. Wii64 and others that let you play roms from different consoles are still up. To that may I add that there are plenty of websites that contain Wii, Gamecube and Nintendo64 roms for games, I'm not sure how reliable they are but they do exist. I find weird the way Nintendo chooses to over react over certain things throwing lawsuits everywhere but then completely ignore other things.

 

[Nicnac]

I still have a wii lying around at home. Excited for the future!

[Guest willies leg]

For something so leaky why can't I find it and download it?

Better yet, someone grab it and ftp it to my server, here's the IP: 127.0.0.1

Just use your own user login and password, I've already set it up. Thanks!

 

[Master Disaster]

6 hours ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

Then how come they did not attack any of the Wii modding scene. The letterbomb website is still up, and all the websites with software like the USB Loader GX, Nitendont. Wii64 and others that let you play roms from different consoles are still up. To that may I add that there are plenty of websites that contain Wii, Gamecube and Nintendo64 roms for games, I'm not sure how reliable they are but they do exist. I find weird the way Nintendo chooses to over react over certain things throwing lawsuits everywhere but then completely ignore other things.

 

Simple, there's NOTHING they can do to touch these things and they know it.

 

Speaking purely from anecdotal evidence it seems that most of the lawsuits from Nintendo come from the Japanese arm and over there the culture is very different to the west. They're not litigious for the sake of it, they still operate on a system of trust and honour and the businesses are mostly ran by older males who follow these rules pretty strictly. As long as you're not breaking the rules they'll leave you alone but the second they have evidence that you are breaking the rules they'll hunt you to the end of the earth to prove this fact.

 

Emulation is legal, modding a system you own is legal, writing home brew is legal (as long as you don't use any Nintendo toolchains or code to do it). Distributing ROMs is not legal and Nintendo is VERY active about removing them where possible. Creating games using Nintendo IP is not legal and they shut these down very quickly.

 

There's a very definite line (at least in their eyes), stay on the right side and they'll leave you be but if you dare to cross it they'll wreck your ass so fast you won't be able to sit for a year. That just seems to be the Japanese way of operating.

[ARikozuM]

Honestly, I think all source code should be publicized after a decade without support. That includes the ability to make servers for games or services. 

[LAwLz]

23 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Honestly, I think all source code should be publicized after a decade without support. That includes the ability to make servers for games or services. 

I think that would be very hard to enforce and could have rather serious implications.

For example, Windows Server 2000 stopped getting updates in 2005, or 2010 if you count extended support. Does that mean the source code for Windows Server 2000 should be published? I mean, it would be awesome and I would love it, but I think Microsoft would be less thrilled. Especially since Windows 10 probably uses a lot of the same code that's from Server 2000.

[AndreiArgeanu]

44 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I think that would be very hard to enforce and could have rather serious implications.

For example, Windows Server 2000 stopped getting updates in 2005, or 2010 if you count extended support. Does that mean the source code for Windows Server 2000 should be published? I mean, it would be awesome and I would love it, but I think Microsoft would be less thrilled. Especially since Windows 10 probably uses a lot of the same code that's from Server 2000.

I don't think Windows is a good example at all, because with Windows you can always install a newer version technically speaking so you're not stuck with an unsupported version but with the OS's found on consoles what you're given is what you're stuck with and you can't change that.

[AndreiArgeanu]

On 5/5/2020 at 5:00 PM, ARikozuM said:

Honestly, I think all source code should be publicized after a decade without support. That includes the ability to make servers for games or services. 

That depends though, imagine if a hacker delivers malware and just bricks hundreds of thousands of consoles out of spite. Like I agree that source code should be released but the code needs to be verified so that someone can't start spreading malware to the consoles.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

I don't think Windows is a good example at all, because with Windows you can always install a newer version technically speaking so you're not stuck with an unsupported version but with the OS's found on consoles what you're given is what you're stuck with and you can't change that.

What do you mean?

The person I replied to said that they believe all source code should be released to the public if it hasn't been supported for 10 years. That would include things like Windows. You're the one who added the exception that it shouldn't apply to things where you can technically change to a different version yourself.

 

 

2 hours ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

That depends though, imagine if a hacker delivers malware and just bricks hundreds of thousands of consoles out of spite. Like I agree that source code should be released but the code needs to be verified so that someone can't start spreading malware to the consoles.

Well that sounds quite unlikely. I mean, that would require quite a massive vulnerability which hasn't been discovered already during the lifetime of the console + 10 years.

I think the benefits to consumer is worth the extremely tiny risk of that scenario.

Or maybe people shouldn't expect their ~25 year old console to be secure when connecting it to the Internet.

[ARikozuM]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I think that would be very hard to enforce and could have rather serious implications.

For example, Windows Server 2000 stopped getting updates in 2005, or 2010 if you count extended support. Does that mean the source code for Windows Server 2000 should be published? I mean, it would be awesome and I would love it, but I think Microsoft would be less thrilled. Especially since Windows 10 probably uses a lot of the same code that's from Server 2000.

I would argue that that much of the code for 2000 is in the latest versions, but support for 2000 itself is shut off. Unless it's still getting security updates, it should be considered abandonware and given all of the code to public use. If your next OS is just 2000 with a polish of paint and all of the underlying code, then what was the point of making a new version in the first place? 

 

It forces companies to keep supporting their products and provides a bit of transparency that the next version has x% amount of code that the previous version held. 

 

The Wii and DS are currently useless unless you homebrew and that comes with a lot of issues. Instead, we could have the source code for setting up servers and reintroducing those could help keep those markets up and running. If Nintendo wants a slice of that market, they should step in and reintroduce or maintain their support afterwards. 

 

And this needs closing of abandoning and then unabandoning code. Once it's abandoned the first time, the timer starts counting down. 

[DeScruff]

58 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

If your next OS is just 2000 with a polish of paint and all of the underlying code, then what was the point of making a new version in the first place?

Its... Not that simple, and can be very much a "Ship of Theseus" sort of situation.
Any project like an OS - specially one that maintains compatibility with older software - Is going to have old components mixed in. You can't just rewrite a whole OS every single time and not expect issues. - Not to mention the development time would be astronomical.
But of course even if all the old code is eventually replaced, you might have the problem that the new things that replaced it have to emulate it in some manner.

This is a simplification example:
(A) is very old code from 1998. (B) is newer code from an OS from 2004. (B) talks to (A) and expects (A) to reply in a certain way.
In 2010 a new OS is released and still has (B) but (A) gets replaced with (C). (C) needs to act in a certain way to stay in contact with (B)

So there can be problems releasing the source code for (A) since it gives hints to how (B) and (C) of a much newer OS, interact with each other.

(Maybe eventually (D) replaces both (B) and (C), but by then your saying "Release the source code to (B)!" )

[wanderingfool2]

41 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I would argue that that much of the code for 2000 is in the latest versions, but support for 2000 itself is shut off. Unless it's still getting security updates, it should be considered abandonware and given all of the code to public use. If your next OS is just 2000 with a polish of paint and all of the underlying code, then what was the point of making a new version in the first place? 

New versions can share quite a bit of code, but still be considerably different (things such as new VSS methods differently between Windows versions).  If lets say Microsoft were to be forced to release the code from 2000, they would not only lose quite a bit of market share (as people fork the code), they also open up their newer systems to vulnerabilities that the general public could see now.  The point of making new products is to slowly iterate to make them better, while still collecting license costs.  Imagine if 2000 was the last version, they would have to charge monthly/yearly fees for the OS (and I bet it would come with a higher price).  [Actually it is sort of the concept of microsoft's software assurance, it adds to the overall cost]

 

47 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

It forces companies to keep supporting their products and provides a bit of transparency that the next version has x% amount of code that the previous version held. 

 

The Wii and DS are currently useless unless you homebrew and that comes with a lot of issues. Instead, we could have the source code for setting up servers and reintroducing those could help keep those markets up and running. If Nintendo wants a slice of that market, they should step in and reintroduce or maintain their support afterwards. 

 

And this needs closing of abandoning and then unabandoning code. Once it's abandoned the first time, the timer starts counting down. 

It forces trade secrets and potentially opens up people to more vulnerabilities (future products as well that recycle the code); and any requirement would also then put more burden on the publishing company.

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, DeScruff said:

So there can be problems releasing the source code for (A) since it gives hints to how (B) and (C) of a much newer OS, interact with each other.

(Maybe eventually (D) replaces both (B) and (C), but by then your saying "Release the source code to (B)!" )

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It forces trade secrets and potentially opens up people to more vulnerabilities (future products as well that recycle the code); and any requirement would also then put more burden on the publishing company.

Honestly, I don't see this as a problem. The only "problem" I see is that Microsoft would get more competition, in a market that they already own like 90% of (which is to say, they don't have much competition).

Is it bad for Microsoft? Absolutely, but it would be great for literally everyone else.

 

All of a sudden we could get better software compatibility on things like GNU/Linux (maybe even MacOS if Apple felt like it), we would get better insight into how Windows works, and these super old systems could finally get updates again (like maybe expensive machines in a factory that still hasn't been replaced).

 

I mean, while Windows 10 certainly reuses a lot of code from ~2000, the additional code which has been added to Windows 10 is way more, and at least as significant.

I think it's kind of sad to see people have these reactions to the idea that maybe 20 year old abandoned code should be released to the public. I think we should all be going "hell yeah that would be awesome! But Microsoft want to keep competitors down so they will never let it happen". The more I think about it, the more I think a timed public release of source code would be a good idea.

We have a 25 year time limit on patents. Why not for source code? I saw, let any program that was written 25 years ago be released to the public as open source. That's how patents work and that industry is still extremely healthy and alive.

[ARikozuM]

16 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It forces trade secrets and potentially opens up people to more vulnerabilities (future products as well that recycle the code); and any requirement would also then put more burden on the publishing company.

Guess what? Most bugs and hacks are done by "not a Microsoft team". Unveiling the abandoned code lets every white hat and black hat get a crack at the code and that can be only a good thing, because it forces Microsoft to start putting in the effort for security instead of allowing hacks to go unheeded. 

 

Also, why are we only talking about Microsoft? Let's talk about Nintendo. Let's talk about Sony. Let's talk about Apple. Let's talk about the Palm or Blackberry OS. 

[wanderingfool2]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I think it's kind of sad to see people have these reactions to the idea that maybe 20 year old abandoned code should be released to the public. I think we should all be going "hell yeah that would be awesome! But Microsoft want to keep competitors down so they will never let it happen". The more I think about it, the more I think a timed public release of source code would be a good idea.

Is it bad for Microsoft? Absolutely, but it would be great for literally everyone else.

Having written code/programs myself, I can say I would always disagree with that concept.  Let's take myself for example; I've create a mod for an online game I played that was released closing in on 25 years ago (and no updates since then).  There is still an active community, but no one who knows enough to do what I did.  Some of what I did could be considered abandoned ware, but if lets say the community is still around when the "25" years expires and the source was released (by some hypothetical law); it would become a lot more trivial to hack the thing; and hack the client versions (there are vulnerabilities in the game itself).  Right now, it is in obscurity and no one would really want to spend the time figuring it out to target the community due to the size...but if the source was available it would be a lot more trivial to do so...it also would have meant I would never have even created a mod since I don't want to keep around support and be forced to release code I wrote from "25" years earlier.

 

It wouldn't be great for literally everyone else, in my opinion.  Source code is quite different from many other things.  Yes; compatibility with things like linux and such would likely increase...but it could come easily at the expense of corporate support  (Imagine where we would be if Microsoft and Apple didn't exist to drive the market)

 

37 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Guess what? Most bugs and hacks are done by "not a Microsoft team". Unveiling the abandoned code lets every white hat and black hat get a crack at the code and that can be only a good thing, because it forces Microsoft to start putting in the effort for security instead of allowing hacks to go unheeded

It opens up vulnerabilities, to which then there isn't a governing body that would issue a patch.  It is a whole lot easier finding hacks when you have the source (there are likely even automated systems that could do it).  It would force Microsoft to retool the operating system to become even more like a service; and then never abandon a project and slow down innovation.  It's important to not just focus on the good, but also what the bad side could be.

[mr moose]

I fond most of the arguments against copyright and IP come from people who's income does not rest on protecting it.  Using someone else's CR/IP is pretty much the equivalent of making a fake CR claim on youtube and getting the revenue instead of the original artist.

[LAwLz]

13 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Having written code/programs myself, I can say I would always disagree with that concept.  Let's take myself for example; I've create a mod for an online game I played that was released closing in on 25 years ago (and no updates since then).  There is still an active community, but no one who knows enough to do what I did.  Some of what I did could be considered abandoned ware, but if lets say the community is still around when the "25" years expires and the source was released (by some hypothetical law); it would become a lot more trivial to hack the thing; and hack the client versions (there are vulnerabilities in the game itself).  Right now, it is in obscurity and no one would really want to spend the time figuring it out to target the community due to the size...but if the source was available it would be a lot more trivial to do so...it also would have meant I would never have even created a mod since I don't want to keep around support and be forced to release code I wrote from "25" years earlier.

 

It wouldn't be great for literally everyone else, in my opinion.  Source code is quite different from many other things.  Yes; compatibility with things like linux and such would likely increase...but it could come easily at the expense of corporate support  (Imagine where we would be if Microsoft and Apple didn't exist to drive the market)

 

It opens up vulnerabilities, to which then there isn't a governing body that would issue a patch.  It is a whole lot easier finding hacks when you have the source (there are likely even automated systems that could do it).  It would force Microsoft to retool the operating system to become even more like a service; and then never abandon a project and slow down innovation.  It's important to not just focus on the good, but also what the bad side could be.

1) It's code you wrote 25 years ago and haven't updated since. Vulnerabilities are quite frankly a non issue.

2) Properly written code is secure because of how it was written, not because all the terrible code is hidden from others. 

 

I mean listen to yourself. You're saying that code you wrote and haven't updated in over 25 years would be dangerous to open source. No, it would be good if it was made open source because then vulnerabilities you have ignored could be fixed. It would be good because people wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel just because you don't want to share your work with others. It would be good because it would add to our collective library of free to use material. 

 

I really find it laughable that you are defending something and your only argument is "well the code is full of security issues that are probably not being exploited because people can't see how terrible the code is. I don't want people to know about the exploits nor do I want people to be able to fix them". 

Also, I doubt the potential exploits are even that serious. Believe it or not but modern operating systems are really good at protecting themselves from attacks. Far far better than they were 25 years ago. The damage that could be made by your addon is most likely extremely small, if any at all. 

[ARikozuM]

15 hours ago, mr moose said:

I fond most of the arguments against copyright and IP come from people who's income does not rest on protecting it.  Using someone else's CR/IP is pretty much the equivalent of making a fake CR claim on youtube and getting the revenue instead of the original artist.

There are plenty of people that are keeping old games alive and only asking for donations. If someone wants to make a game for SNES, they should be able to. If Nintendo is no longer making cartridges of Super Mario World, it's no longer being supported and should be placed into public use for that format. It's a fair trade between the consumer who purchased the products and the company. 

 

Releasing Super Mario Maker does not indicate support of the original product in its original format. This also promotes competition and reemergence of markets. For example, SMM would not have come out if the ROM hack scene wasn't widespread. 

[wanderingfool2]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

1) It's code you wrote 25 years ago and haven't updated since. Vulnerabilities are quite frankly a non issue.

The game itself is reaching 25, and yes vulnerabilities are an issue (my mod to it is only about 5 years of lack of development, because there isn't much to add it itself as it does what's needed).  You didn't address why I, as someone who wrote the addon should be required to keep my source and find a way to distribute it.  You cannot dismiss the option of vulnerabilities as being a non issue.

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

2) Properly written code is secure because of how it was written, not because all the terrible code is hidden from others.

All code will have security vulnerabilities in it (for larger projects)...it's the nature of things.  I have never met a single programmer that hasn't at one point written a vulnerable piece of code.  Look at heartbleed, it had a vulnerability that now modern source code bug checkers would be able to find.

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I mean listen to yourself. You're saying that code you wrote and haven't updated in over 25 years would be dangerous to open source. No, it would be good if it was made open source because then vulnerabilities you have ignored could be fixed

Don't assume you know better.  I'm saying the game code would be dangerous, and say if I were to have to release my code it would be even more dangerous.  The release of the source just means the barrier or entry is much lower for people.  The actual vulnerability in it is based on the netcode on client/server portion; and my mod's source has it poking around in it...to the extent it would become a lot easier to inject code.  The mod only happens on the server side (with the fix requiring a client patch, and I'm not about to actually spend time researching the assembly to writing a patch for the client-side).

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I really find it laughable that you are defending something and your only argument is "well the code is full of security issues that are probably not being exploited because people can't see how terrible the code is. I don't want people to know about the exploits nor do I want people to be able to fix them". 

Also, I doubt the potential exploits are even that serious. Believe it or not but modern operating systems are really good at protecting themselves from attacks. Far far better than they were 25 years ago. The damage that could be made by your addon is most likely extremely small, if any at all.

You are self-assuming knowledge, and wrongly assuming having security vulnerabilities equates to people having terrible.  Having vulnerabilities in source code is the nature of programming...it's just like every book likely has some sort of grammatical error/spelling mistake.  White-box hacking is a lot easier than black-box; and there are many communities that would be hurt by source-code being forced to be released (because who is to fix the vulnerability and release it)...and it would be a lot easier writing a bot to go through all the source-codes that were forced to be released and looking for vulnerabilities. (Heartbleed is a good example, vulnerabilities like that can now be caught).

 

It wouldn't be some utopian world having source-code released

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

There are plenty of people that are keeping old games alive and only asking for donations. If someone wants to make a game for SNES, they should be able to. If Nintendo is no longer making cartridges of Super Mario World, it's no longer being supported and should be placed into public use for that format. It's a fair trade between the consumer who purchased the products and the company. 

Who should be able to do what with someone else's IP is only up the owner of that IP.  Not you nor me nor anyone else can decide who has to give up rights to their IP
.

 

7 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Releasing Super Mario Maker does not indicate support of the original product in its original format. This also promotes competition and reemergence of markets. For example, SMM would not have come out if the ROM hack scene wasn't widespread. 

All irrelevant,  it's not your IP to release or remake. 

[matt_daemond]

On 5/4/2020 at 4:50 AM, Curious Pineapple said:

The original Xbox had leaks of the southbridge embedded ROM, encryption keys, kernel source, full SDK, development documentation, debug dashboard and the debug ROM. There is apparenetly "XBLOB" out there too (Xbox Live On a Box), a fully self-contained installation for developing and testing Live games. I got all of it apart from XBLOB on publically acessable websites, and it was all available while the console was current. Microsoft failed to take down any of it whilst the console was current, I doubt Nintendon't have a chance.

You underestimate the petty reach of Japanese legal provocation. Nintendo tends to go after just about anyone and everyone that they can.