3 ms·

“essentially unfixable”? Ars are essentially liars.

• kevingadd 4y ago
  "essentially unfixable" or "essentially unpatchable" feel right in the sense that you can't block it for good without removing the PS2 emulator's ability to JIT arbitrary code. But you can just remove the emulator, which is a solution for the fact that you can't really "patch" or "fix" the hole since it's a design hole. For most developers removing it would not be an acceptable fix or patch, but Sony has historically been happy to shoot products in the head even after people paid for them, so it's probably not off-limits here.
  • prvit 4y ago
    They could also just patch the ps2 game embedded in the emulator. Just like they’d presumably do if they found an exploitable bug in a native PS4/PS5 game.
    • FroshKiller 4y ago
      "Just" always does a lot of work, but "just" is doing a hell of a lot of work in this case. Who's doing the work to create the patch? Who's paying for the work? Who's doing QA, and who's paying for that? What makes you think the source code and assets even exist for all exploitable games, let alone that all can be rebuilt, let alone that all can be meaningfully retested?
      • Bjartr 4y ago
        For what it's worth, adding a bounds check could be reasonably added to the compiled binary directly. Even if it can't be rebuilt from source.
      • anonymousab 4y ago
        It is nonetheless doable. A bit expensive but not much moreso than any other game-specific intervention. To call it unpatchable is quite hyperbolic.
      • prvit 4y ago
        You don’t need source to patch bugs like this lol, this is trivial to achieve by editing the binary. The same arguments would work against fixing a bug in literally any game on the platform, yet it seems to be frequently done.