Hey there.

So... you use an ad blocker. That's cool. Sometimes we do too.

But without ad revenue, we wouldn't even be here. And we might not be here much longer.

Please disable your ad blocker and click to continue.

Page 1 of 3 12 ... Last
  1. #1
    CJPC Guest

    Newer PS3's go to 128MB Flash from 512MB, HDD Storage Used!

    We recently purchased a new 80GB PlayStation 3 console, and our very own PS3 Dev Courier dissected his new system.

    The item that peaked his interest the most was that it had one single 56-pin Flash chip, the S29GL128N90TFIR2, and was 128MB in size in contrast to older PS3 consoles utilizing dual (2x256MB) 48-pin chips totaling 512MB. So, he bought a new adapter, and some blank chips and proceeded to pull the 56-pin flash, and dumped it.

    To our surprise, he was unable to dump more than 16MB of it! At first, we believed that the other blocks in the flash were protected via password, however there was something else brewing.

    He took the 16MB dump that was made and flashed it onto a completly blank chip, and reinstalled it in the PS3.

    To our surprise, it worked!

    Now, if you recall, newer version PS3 Firmwares have asked for a PUP file after formatting/inserting a larger HDD - This may be why! After flashing back just the 16MB of data, it also asked for a PUP file. So, the PUP was given, it installed the missing files fine, and then booted.

    Basically, the system is now storing the majority of the flash contents on the hard disk drive, away from prying eyes. Even on a PS3 TEST console, the areas where the files would be are protected, so they can not be accessed.

    This was also true when we wiped the 80GB's HDD, it again asked for the PUP. So, it would seem that the base system is now stored on the flash, and all of the SPRX's, XMB files, and other data is now fully stored on the HDD.

    So the question is, why?

    Was it just cheaper to replace the flash with a smaller one, or was it a security decision? Were we getting too close to uncovering something on the flash that could lead to a hack in the system?

    We don't know yet, but we are still working at it - more to come, including details on the PS3's Service Mode! More PlayStation 3 News...

  2. #2
    Starlight Guest
    This is good news indeed.. , and hopefully this will get us one step closer to cracking the ps3.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Nice job courier and PS3 Devs, interesting stuff indeed!

  4. #4
    asandhu Guest
    so does this mean that if a potential crack/hack was found (fingers crossed) that only older ps3's will be able to be hacked?

  5. #5
    rican199 Guest

    Amazing Find!

    Awesome Job Courier... it's news like this that makes me keep my hopes up about cracking the PS3. I will keep my fingers crossed and cant wait to read about your accomplishments on this.

  6. #6
    trasek Guest
    I hope too. But I think it still takes some time to compare both of them and longer to find if we were up to something. Keeping fingers crossed.

  7. #7
    Takavach Guest

    Thumbs Up

    nice job dev team.

    good luck everyone

  8. #8
    Tidusnake666 Guest


    So, since 2.?? update ALL of our dearly belowed consoles started to use Flash in such way: 16 MB on NAND and the rest of files on HDD. Basicaly,496 MB of NAND memory was empty, so Sony decided to replace 2x256 chips with 1x128.

    Technicaly speaking, if the hack/exploit will be ever found, ALL of consoles (newer and older) would be vulnerable.

    Am I right?

  9. #9
    wicked insanity Guest
    I wouldn't exactly say this is good news but certainly progress. It's another hurdle to over come but I feel that things are finally starting to become tangibble in the PS3 scene.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2005


    Quote Originally Posted by Tidusnake666 View Post
    Technicaly speaking, if the hack/exploit will be ever found, ALL of consoles (newer and older) would be vulnerable.
    Indeed, but at the moment I think the real question is still what CJPC proposed: Was it just cheaper to replace the flash with a smaller one, or was it a security decision?

    If it wasn't for the latter reason, then no need to ponder hack/exploit potentials... hopefully as they continue their Dev work the real reason will surface.

Page 1 of 3 12 ... Last

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in