Pnet banning

[sneakypeanut]

Hi all.

Seems there is a PNET ban wave going on right now. Few other members have got the same error.

Error Code


DashBoard Error



Report back if you got any thing different please :S

I wish all your kits good luck

[itchy]

Mine is banned too.
Last recovery.
FUCK !

Did you dowload the defiant map pack ?
they ban for that shit maybe

[sneakypeanut]

i was on the "last recovery" and i did download defiant map pack, i lent my dev to my friend for the weekend for him to play MVC3 get it back this morning and find its banned ¬_¬

[itchy]

It"s ban on the leaked recovery.
The remote one...
=/

[graciano1337]

Um...

[sneakypeanut]

the recovery i was running was 20353 the last one that was leaked seems thats the only linker between all the banned kits i seen so far all the other kits i asked about were higher or lower recoveries :/ oh well i wont be running that recovery on the next kit i get :@

[l_oliveira]

Look by the bright side ... At least it isn't an pretty heavy paper weght... :shrug:

[lucas93]

lol I was considering testing out my kit on pnet yesterday. Glad I didn't now :P

Sorta random question:
If my kit gets banned from pnet, will that affect any stock retail 360s I own? Would Microsoft just ban anything from my IP?

[sneakypeanut]

your stock xbox will be fine, my other dev is fine. yeah im glade i dont have any more paperweights already got 3 + 6 retail ones ^_^

[Xenon.7]

=)

[Alec]

Sorry to hear about your bans. :(

1) Don't leak.
2) Don't used leaked things.

Not saying this to be a douche...Just good rules of thumb.

[Offica1 g33k]

I have multiple versions of 20353.... If you got banned, could you decompile with ida and look in the header for the md5 hash and post here what it is. This could help to see if its watermarked

[Xenon.7]

lmfao. Decompile what? You're acting like.. Oh here's the recovery.. Everyone check your MD5 on your recovery to see if its different.

Fact is when you download from XDS(well technically its not XDS anymore), it watermarks your installer. So either way even if the actual recovery files were the same, the MD5 would be different..

And if you're talking about a disc recovery.. Then you're still not making any sense.. cause a disc recovery isn't just one file.. And you don't just check the kernel or xam and go "o ok".

And Alec, well said.. I hope this bans everyone, because it was reported directly to an official.. People need to learn to get their shit from better sources than some stupid PR site or torrents.. That's how half of you get bricked in the first place anyways :lol:

[Offica1 g33k]

I thought the MD5 wouldn't change, because if one is leaked, it wouldnt change from user to user, so if MS was banning based off a specific watermark, then the MD5 hash should be the same

[Xenon.7]

Your original post and your reply together contradict eachother.. At first your saying you have multiple versions and you want an md5 posted to see if it's watermarked.

Then you said you want to see if everyone elses md5 match to see if they're banned? Either I'm misreading something because you're wording your reasoning terribly, or your idea doesn't make sense.

If you wanted to see if it's watermarked.. Compare your two copies of 20353 then.. Obviously everybody elses md5s match because no one here had shit for the longest time until that one PR site or whatever leaked 20353, and now everyones on 20353 and not 20353.2..

So what exactly are you trying to achieve with your md5 crap lol..

[Critical-Strike]

Your original post and your reply together contradict eachother.. At first your saying you have multiple versions and you want an md5 posted to see if it's watermarked.

Then you said you want to see if everyone elses md5 match to see if they're banned? Either I'm misreading something because you're wording your reasoning terribly, or your idea doesn't make sense.

If you wanted to see if it's watermarked.. Compare your two copies of 20353 then.. Obviously everybody elses md5s match because no one here had shit for the longest time until that one PR site or whatever leaked 20353, and now everyones on 20353 and not 20353.2..

So what exactly are you trying to achieve with your md5 crap lol..

So, the PR site or whatever leaked 20353 is legit?

[Offica1 g33k]

Ok. I have two versions of the 20353 remote recovery, one that was leaked and one that isn't leaked, so they would have different watermarks. I had thought that if MS was banning based off a specific watermarked recovery, then we could look at the md5 hash and compare different recoveries to see if everyone who got banned was using the same recovery. But obviously if everyone just had the leaked recovery, then it doesn't really matter...

[Xenon.7]

Ok. I have two versions of the 20353 remote recovery, one that was leaked and one that isn't leaked, so they would have different watermarks. I had thought that if MS was banning based off a specific watermarked recovery, then we could look at the md5 hash and compare different recoveries to see if everyone who got banned was using the same recovery. But obviously if everyone just had the leaked recovery, then it doesn't really matter...

ye real talk.

[XsV161]

@ everybody who used the leaked recovery and got banned; how long did it take for you to get banned from first connecting to PNET on the leaked recovery?

[itchy]

1 week.