Glassman, thanks for the information. I was wondering if I was going to be able to downgrade to v1.02 (really miss my mods!)

Also, don't worry about iRev and his bad grammar. He was very antagonistic with me when I reported that I was able to update to 1.1.1 from an IPSF unlocked phone without ibricking the thing (it was re-locked to AT&T).

sealos

iansixt, pardon me but i'm more than a bit skektip.

the patch is in the baseband firmware, if this is rewritten, i can't expect that the patch remain. I could be wrong, but really this stuff sounds SO BLOODY STRANGE to me.

Maybe the patch of IPSF has made in the bb's bootloader, and maybe this is the only part not written by the upgrade, maybe, but teoretically (and in my experience) does not mean any sense to me.

btw, i'm involved in Linux kernel develpment since 5 years, and I personally wrote some kernel Drivers for ultra portable Vaio laptops. Now i'm working on writing embedded drivers for Carrier Grade Linux systems for a major Telco Manufacturer... i'm a bit experienced in coding.

I've a copy of ISPF software, regularry boght by a friend of mine, which NEVER worked on his iPhone. If a reverse engineering could help, I can provide it.

Originally Posted by iRev

iansixt, pardon me but i'm more than a bit skektip.

the patch is in the baseband firmware, if this is rewritten, i can't expect that the patch remain. I could be wrong, but really this stuff sounds SO BLOODY STRANGE to me.

Maybe the patch of IPSF has made in the bb's bootloader, and maybe this is the only part not written by the upgrade, maybe, but teoretically (and in my experience) does not mean any sense to me.

btw, i'm involved in Linux kernel develpment since 5 years, and I personally wrote some kernel Drivers for ultra portable Vaio laptops. Now i'm working on writing embedded drivers for Carrier Grade Linux systems for a major Telco Manufacturer... i'm a bit experienced in coding.

I've a copy of ISPF software, regularry boght by a friend of mine, which NEVER worked on his iPhone. If a reverse engineering could help, I can provide it.

I am not sure which part are you sceptical about? Unlock by IPSF? Works, definitely. Up-downgrade? Just finished this, as per my initial post? Do you want to see some proof?

The reason for my post was, that it is now obvious, that the IPSF unlock is really different from Dev Team one. I think its in everyone interest to understand why and whats going on there.

I came to same conclusion as you did, that they must obviously not rewrite anything in the BB firmware. What and where they touch I have no idea. Thats for the Dev Team to find out, I hope.

sealos, my grammar could seems bad to you 'cause i'm Italian, and my english is more than rusty.

but if this is the only argument that you can use to debate my statement, you're welcome. I'll use to measure your thinkness.

glassman, take it easy: as I stated before, i CAN'T really figure out HOW something completely rewritten could act as before.

You did'nt write that you re-lock with ISPF after the upgrade/downgrade process. You saw that the iPhone was STILL UNLOCKED. I can accept without any problem that a re-unlocking should work, indeed, i'm trying now to figure me out WHY the Dev/Team patch does not!

But this is not your claim. So, where the hell is held the ISPF patch? in the Home Button? in the chrome Apple Logo on the backside?

if someone can explain, could be an huge help for anyone devoloping a solution...

no fairy polemics, really.

Originally Posted by iRev

glassman, take it easy: as I stated before, i CAN'T really figure out HOW something completely rewritten could act as before.

You did'nt write that you re-lock with ISPF after the upgrade/downgrade process. You saw that the iPhone was STILL UNLOCKED. I can accept without any problem that a re-unlocking should work, indeed, i'm trying now to figure me out WHY the Dev/Team patch does not!

But this is not your claim. So, where the hell is held the ISPF patch? in the Home Button? in the chrome Apple Logo on the backside?

if someone can explain, could be an huge help for anyone devoloping a solution...

no fairy polemics, really.

iRev, thats my whole point all the time. The unlock by IPSF definitley survives up_downgrade process. I did it myself on my phone, I am 100% sure.

So instead of giving me patronizing posts, we shall start discussing how to find out whats going on there. I think the only meaningfull conclusion is indeed its not held in the BB firmware, but in some other section of the device. Where? I definitely have no clue.

I tried to contribute by the information and was met with ridiculous hostility.

Try to think about this for a while.

I cant explain, I can offer to do some tests, if you suggest some. Have some IPSF licences, have the phone which went the up-down route.

You are welcome to suggest some tests.

Originally Posted by iRev

glassman, take it easy: as I stated before, i CAN'T really figure out HOW something completely rewritten could act as before.

You did'nt write that you re-lock with ISPF after the upgrade/downgrade process. You saw that the iPhone was STILL UNLOCKED. I can accept without any problem that a re-unlocking should work, indeed, i'm trying now to figure me out WHY the Dev/Team patch does not!

But this is not your claim. So, where the hell is held the ISPF patch? in the Home Button? in the chrome Apple Logo on the backside?

if someone can explain, could be an huge help for anyone devoloping a solution...

no fairy polemics, really.

You guys chill...

I think what glassman meant is that the phone is still tied to the ATT SIM because activation has not been cracked. The baseband is still unlocked, but 1.1.1 will request reactivation as soon as it detects a non-ATT SIM.

I think by now it is clear that IPSF works differently. I am also puzzled how they do it in a way to survive reflashing the baseband. Maybe the iphone unlocks itself by generating an unlock token, checking the token is valid, modifying a register to indicate that, and never checks for the unlock token again. Dev team unlock seems to generate an invalid unlock token corresponding to unlock code 00000000 and patch the baseband to treat it as a valid token. This process seems to create side effects that prevent taking the phone back to a truly virgin state (dev team is working on a tool to accomplish this). Maybe IPSF modifies the baseband security area in a cleaner and direct way.

By the way, the dev team unlocked phones reflashed to stock baseband firmware may not be really relocked. All we know is that stock baseband finds the baseband EEPROM in an invalid state and rejects all SIMs, including legit ATT SIMs. That is *different than relocking*

man, I was "agressive" just because your first post was looking like an ISPF's ads..

no explication, just the claim. Now we are on the right way: collaborative w/out polemics. No need to proof your statement, it's really OK. I do believe.

But now the Dev/Team needs to understand first WHY his happens... i'm wondering about reverse engineering, but i think is not in the Dev/Team "rules"...

thanks in advance for your availability.

@ianstlx
is there a way to run IPSF on a dev team unlocked phone? i.e., is there some way to "virginize" the phone enough for Simfree to reunlock it its way? Doing that, would it make the phone safe for upgrade to 1.1.1? IPSF said something on their website about unlocking phones with invalid IMEIs... was this implemented?

What are you even doing here on this forum?

Originally Posted by iRev

nobody here says that IPSF unlock is worst or better of the Dev/Team's one.

they're different. also is different their ethics and behaviour: after Dev/Team releases the free unlock, they simply DISAPPEAR, leaving tons of "customers" in a middle of a desert road, with bricked/locked phone. Lot of people was really upset, i've personally "rehack" some iPhone of Italian people who've asked for help, also shamed to spread around that they've paid for something now free and NOT WORKING?. No "post sale" support at all, no answer to ANY mail. Just disappears.

And now the're back againg with their claims? Sorry, but at least skeptikism is DUE.

no sorry, they're scum.