View Single Post
Posts: 1,067 | Thanked: 2,383 times | Joined on Jan 2012 @ Finland
#32
Originally Posted by minimos View Post
It's probably small bits & bobs placed to please this and that opertor. Probably best way would be to get the tools to make an image and use them to open those .bin and compare them

Do you remember what kind of error it throws in that case? Is is a 'security error' or a 'downgrade disallowed'?
The flashing verification is like: if (version1 > version2) and (swcert1 > swcert2) and (time_of_day > swcert1) and (other tests) then flash_version1 else exit_with_error
If that verification fails the only way to allow 'downgrade' is to use a rd certificate, but that has been available only in devices used internally in Nokia for testing.
And this is total ********, there is no version or variant name number checks (although variants are usually generated in descending order so those timestamps make it seem that there is variant name check).

The only check that there is is swcert timestamp. (as you can also see in error message that the number in that row is certificate creation time in seconds since 1.1.1970.)

If your flashimages swcert timestamp is older than the swcert's timestamp on device, you get "downgrade disallowed. ([timestamp])"-error message.

And even that check can be bypassed, so if you ever happen to visit Tampere (or see me in some Qt/Sailfish conference) and really want 001 on your device, it can be arranged .

And sorry, NO, before people ask, I'm not sharing how to do the bypass.
__________________
IRC: jonni@freenode
Sailfish: ¤ Qt5 SailfishTouchExample ¤ Qt5 MultiPointTouchArea Example ¤ ipaddress ¤ stoken ¤ Sailbox (Dropbox client) ¤
Harmattan: ¤ Presence VNC for Harmattan ¤ Live-F1 ¤ BTinput-terminal ¤ BabyLock ¤ BabyLock Trial ¤ QML TextTV ¤
Disclaimer: all my posts in this forum are personal trolling and I never post in any official capacity on behalf of any company.
 

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to rainisto For This Useful Post: