Related
This is a continuation of this thread: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=567870, which covered cracking the original "basic" copy protection of Marketplace.
---
I have now cracked the "advanced" copy protection used by Marketplace. As you may know, this is a "better" protection than the original "CAB copy protection" Marketplace offered. This "advanced" protection uses license keys that are verified when you run the application, and given out and controlled by Microsoft.
Several developers are annoyed that Microsoft does not allow us to use our own licensing schemes, and are forced to use "no protection" (the original CAB copy protection) or use Microsoft's scheme which is essentially a single point of failure for all Marketplace protected apps.
This new "advanced" protection was released today by Microsoft, and as far as I know no app available already uses it at the time of this writing.
So I got the code snippets you are supposed to put in your app and it was simply jawdroppingly WTF. While it was not exactly easy to beat, it took me less than two hours to devise a "generic" hack, without modifying any files on the device. (Well hey, at least it's better than the 5 minutes it took for the "basic" protection, right?)
A "generic" hack? Yes, by this I mean that this single hack (actually, running an EXE in the background) will completely bypass the entire code snippet provided by Microsoft that is supposed to check and validate your license code, for all Marketplace apps that use this "advanced" protection.
I will not publish the code that performs this hack, so don't ask. My goal is not to crack Marketplace apps, my goal is to get MS off their ass and allow us to use our own licensing systems, like the good little resellers they're supposed to be. I will tell you that it has to do with runtime patching the crypto API, but that's it. All in all, I don't think it will take long for the warez people to duplicate this hack.
---
Some further reasoning about anti-piracy, solutions, etc can be found in post 13 on page 2.
if there are no apps that use it yet, how do u know your hack works?
Because the Marketplace portal provides code ("code snippet") you have to compile in your EXE, and that takes care of the whole licensing thing.
So you look at that source, spot the weak points, devise a hack. Then compile a program using said "code snippet" and try the hack on it.
If developers simply copy/paste the snippet they are given by the Marketplace portal, this hack will work.
Chainfire said:
This is a continuation of this thread: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=567870, which covered cracking the original "basic" copy protection of Marketplace.
---
I have now cracked the "advanced" copy protection used by Marketplace. As you may know, this is a "better" protection than the original "CAB copy protection" Marketplace offered. This "advanced" protection uses license keys that are verified when you run the application, and given out and controlled by Microsoft.
Several developers are annoyed that Microsoft does not allow us to use our own licensing schemes, and are forced to use "no protection" (the original CAB copy protection) or use Microsoft's scheme which is essentially a single point of failure for all Marketplace protected apps.
This new "advanced" protection was released today by Microsoft, and as far as I know no app available already uses it at the time of this writing.
So I got the code snippets you are supposed to put in your app and it was simply jawdroppingly WTF. While it was not exactly easy to beat, it took me less than two hours to devise a "generic" hack, without modifying any files on the device. (Well hey, at least it's better than the 5 minutes it took for the "basic" protection, right?)
A "generic" hack? Yes, by this I mean that this single hack (actually, running an EXE in the background) will completely bypass the entire code snippet provided by Microsoft that is supposed to check and validate your license code, for all Marketplace apps that use this "advanced" protection.
I will not publish the code that performs this hack, so don't ask. My goal is not to crack Marketplace apps, my goal is to get MS off their ass and allow us to use our own licensing systems, like the good little resellers they're supposed to be. I will tell you that it has to do with runtime patching the crypto API, but that's it. All in all, I don't think it will take long for the warez people to duplicate this hack.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
amen
hallelujah
hit me now
YEAH
have given the issue some press : http://www.1800pocketpc.com/2009/11/13/marketplace-advanced-copy-protection-cracked-in-less-than-2-hours.html
anti-piracy protection is intended to stop ordinary users from transferring cabs between devices and it is successful at that. there is no protection that will stop apps from being pirated, certainly not for handheld devices. the new advanced protection is adequate and any further techniques are redundant and a waste of time, because no matter how 'strong' they are, they WILL be cracked.
Slightly if not totally off-topic: A mainstream consumer's view
mnet said:
anti-piracy protection is intended to stop ordinary users from transferring cabs between devices and it is successful at that. there is no protection that will stop apps from being pirated, certainly not for handheld devices. the new advanced protection is adequate and any further techniques are redundant and a waste of time, because no matter how 'strong' they are, they WILL be cracked.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you and your premise. Now a quick story.
I consider myself a mainstream consumer... but I have been a member of XDA for, what, i think 4 years, using 2 WM phones, first the T-Mobile MDA, then the Wing (HTC Herald), and I am about to switch to Android with the HTC Hero. I am reasonably savvy about tech, just not a coder. But I've done all the hard SPL, flashing ROMS, using beta software, and supporting developers here with pretty significant donations. I am also a User Experience / Usability designer for web as a profession. THAT'S MY BACKGROUND.
To date, my experience buying WM apps has been universally AWFUL. Whether it was, just recently, Resco Picture Viewer from PocketGear, or WM Defrag from Wizcode, or PocketPlayer from Conduits. I am more than happy to buy excellent software that works, and has a decent UI. But in each case, the process of buying the app and getting it onto my phone has been absurd, and frustrating beyond belief. Each provider makes all sorts of assumptions -- often wrong -- including "you must be downloading this from a PC, so we will download for you an executable that runs on a desktop PC then installs via active sync onto your device."
Whatever the percentage is, doesn't matter: A lot of people, like me, download all my cab files, and purchase apps, on my Mac... and either email myself the .cab file or .zip files, or place my microSD card from my phone into a USB reader. Thus, what a frikkin headache to end up getting PocketPlayer on my phone... but because i didn't download it from a Windows PC, I was screwed.
This stuff is archaic. This past week it has taken 5 days to get Resco Picture Viewer on my phone after purchasing from PocketGear.com . They have a completely retarded transactional process, a terrible UI, broken software in terms of user recognition and resetting username and password, and a completely phone-UNFRIENDLY site, with most sub-level menus not even accessible from browsers like Opera Mobile, Netfront, Iris ... They are dumbass pull downs using god knows what -- flash or javascript, whatever. But fact is: a simple navigation process to access the products on the phone itself can't even be achieved by these clowns -- yet everyone is in overdrive now trying to get their version of "THE" WindowsMobile app store online, while Microsoft stumbles.
The fact is: I would LIKE to see a uniform transaction process which is designed professionally, and supports great usability design, and once I buy the app, quit making me go through absurd backflips just to get access to the cab file. Stop requiring me to use a Windows PC. And stop all the "special OUR way" authentication processes. Because if they were so good, there wouldn't be the kind of problems I have described. I'll even grant anyone who wants to -- to say "well you're just a dumb**** user who doesn't understand their particular process"... I'll grant you that, and my answer would be:
If you plan to sell a lot of apps -- ie, make money via VOLUME transactions vs pricey apps -- a la iphone -- then it makes a hell of a lot of sense to make a uniform system of delivery if you're buying it through an app store, and for god's sake, cut the crap and figure it out. It's not so hard to send an authentication code via email or text message. But it's exactly WRONG to be having 1000 developers using 1000 special "our way" authentication processes, because the odds of 1000 app developers having a great, simple, effective UI and safe authentication system that prevents priacy of their app is pretty low, based on the experiences I have had to date with MAINSTREAM products for WM.
That's my view. But I see a whole lot of clumsiness from the Windows Mobile side of the fence pertaining to this whole new way of monetizing apps. There's a reason apple succeeds in that department -- even with their bloated catalog and draconian approval processes. They understand how to deliver products to consumers -- vs repelling them from a dumbass process, no matter how good that process may be in theory.
quicksite said:
I agree with you and your premise. Now a quick story.
I consider myself a mainstream consumer... but I have been a member of XDA for, what, i think 4 years, using 2 WM phones, first the T-Mobile MDA, then the Wing (HTC Herald), and I am about to switch to Android with the HTC Hero. I am reasonably savvy about tech, just not a coder. But I've done all the hard SPL, flashing ROMS, using beta software, and supporting developers here with pretty significant donations. I am also a User Experience / Usability designer for web as a profession. THAT'S MY BACKGROUND.
To date, my experience buying WM apps has been universally AWFUL. Whether it was, just recently, Resco Picture Viewer from PocketGear, or WM Defrag from Wizcode, or PocketPlayer from Conduits. I am more than happy to buy excellent software that works, and has a decent UI. But in each case, the process of buying the app and getting it onto my phone has been absurd, and frustrating beyond belief. Each provider makes all sorts of assumptions -- often wrong -- including "you must be downloading this from a PC, so we will download for you an executable that runs on a desktop PC then installs via active sync onto your device."
Whatever the percentage is, doesn't matter: A lot of people, like me, download all my cab files, and purchase apps, on my Mac... and either email myself the .cab file or .zip files, or place my microSD card from my phone into a USB reader. Thus, what a frikkin headache to end up getting PocketPlayer on my phone... but because i didn't download it from a Windows PC, I was screwed.
This stuff is archaic. This past week it has taken 5 days to get Resco Picture Viewer on my phone after purchasing from PocketGear.com . They have a completely retarded transactional process, a terrible UI, broken software in terms of user recognition and resetting username and password, and a completely phone-UNFRIENDLY site, with most sub-level menus not even accessible from browsers like Opera Mobile, Netfront, Iris ... They are dumbass pull downs using god knows what -- flash or javascript, whatever. But fact is: a simple navigation process to access the products on the phone itself can't even be achieved by these clowns -- yet everyone is in overdrive now trying to get their version of "THE" WindowsMobile app store online, while Microsoft stumbles.
The fact is: I would LIKE to see a uniform transaction process which is designed professionally, and supports great usability design, and once I buy the app, quit making me go through absurd backflips just to get access to the cab file. Stop requiring me to use a Windows PC. And stop all the "special OUR way" authentication processes. Because if they were so good, there wouldn't be the kind of problems I have described. I'll even grant anyone who wants to -- to say "well you're just a dumb**** user who doesn't understand their particular process"... I'll grant you that, and my answer would be:
If you plan to sell a lot of apps -- ie, make money via VOLUME transactions vs pricey apps -- a la iphone -- then it makes a hell of a lot of sense to make a uniform system of delivery if you're buying it through an app store, and for god's sake, cut the crap and figure it out. It's not so hard to send an authentication code via email or text message. But it's exactly WRONG to be having 1000 developers using 1000 special "our way" authentication processes, because the odds of 1000 app developers having a great, simple, effective UI and safe authentication system that prevents priacy of their app is pretty low, based on the experiences I have had to date with MAINSTREAM products for WM.
That's my view. But I see a whole lot of clumsiness from the Windows Mobile side of the fence pertaining to this whole new way of monetizing apps. There's a reason apple succeeds in that department -- even with their bloated catalog and draconian approval processes. They understand how to deliver products to consumers -- vs repelling them from a dumbass process, no matter how good that process may be in theory.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Couldn't agree more!
I'll add one more reason I wrap my head in ductape every time I download/install an app.
Think it's bad with every developer having their own authentication method? How about when each developer has a DIFFERENT authentication scheme for every app they make?
I like a rant - thanks for doing it for me as I agree with you 100%.
The top of my annoyance list (which you did include) are sites selling mobile software which are NOT mobile browser friendly, WTF is that all about?
Big Up, I still don't think anyone else would have done it in two hours.
Hey you warned them didn't you.
Haha Chainfire is there anything you cant do?
More in the Dutch press:
http://tweakers.net/nieuws/63713/nederlander-kraakt-nieuwe-beveiliging-windows-marketplace.html
While I do appreciate the "rant", I think you're missing my point - or perhaps I just don't agree. (Edit: that is in response to this post http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=4936479&postcount=7)
When I say "use our own licensing schemes", I do not mean codes sent back and forth through websites, screen you have to type stuff in etc. This is exactly not needed because Marketplace is also the delivery mechanism. In other words, the license code can be installed by Marketplace directly without the user ever seeing or hearing about it.
This is partly how the new system works, actually. However, if Microsoft supported license codes you give them things would be more secure (though granted, for a large part by obscurity).
Some authors will not care and simply not use it all, for example with the cheap apps it may not be worth their while. Others may wish to track license key usage, so that if suddenly 10.000 users start using the same key instead of the 1 who bought it, that key can be disabled, etc. Some may want the app to call home, some will not. Imagine that developers that do employ such anti-piracy measures will write their own verification / communication code, this beats the single point of failure we currently have. The crackers are back to having to crack each app independently and even then have a much lower chance of success.
Marketplace is the perfect opportunity to implement such a system that does provide some piracy security for the authors while for once it does not unnecessarily annoy the user.
To make the obligatory bad car analogy that fails in many ways, take you car keys. Everyone thinks it's normal to have a car key, so people can't just take your car. Of course, in line with some of the arguments against anti-piracy measures, car keys aren't really that useful, as there's always a brick - the universal key, and a car thief that really wants your car will get it. (You also lock the doors on your house, right?)
Now, the current situation is pretty much that everyone has the same car key. How useful is a car key in that situation? They way I see it (and I'm sure I'm not alone in that), is more like the actual car key situation. Some car keys are laser etched, or have something RFID-like in them and a receive in the car, or simply use different shapes, etc. That's a lot more useful than everyone having the same car key.
Sure, no matter what you do, eventually things will get cracked and it is a cat and mouse game. One of the reasons this is easily doable is because of the open nature and the very few restrictions of Windows Mobile. This is a good thing. No developer in their right mind would want to get to a restrictive system like is the case on the iPhone or other mobile OS's. That is not the point. That doesn't mean anti-piracy measures are useless though, far from it. The longer you can keep a release from being warez'd, the less you lose.
There are two arguments I hear coming back in various places by various people:
(1) If the normal users can't just copy it, then that is enough (even MS says this)
(2) Piracy works as advertising, you get more eventual sales, etc. etc
Both of these, are from my own experience, completely untrue. The thing is if one person cracks it, it usually spreads on those warez sites pretty quickly.
The big thing here is, the average user is apparently tech-savvy enough to search the warez sites first before buying, and that is just how it is:
We have played the game with that one warez site, monitoring sales when (apparent) cracks were listed and when they weren't (they do remove releases on request). This made a 30-50% difference in sales (with the number being highest during the weekends, and lowest during weekdays). For me that is enough data to know that both (1) and (2) are complete nonsense in the case of mobile apps. No matter all the pretty reasons and perhaps seemingly logical reasons you may come up with for (1) and (2), the numbers don't lie.
So, how would you like to get a 30-50% paycut? It's not like us developers are getting rich here, you know. Can we be blamed for trying to prevent this?
Now, here we have the chance to implement a system that is completely transparent for the user and can be made reasonably safe (and updatable), an obvious win-win situation for everyone involved except the warez people. Why exactly shouldn't we be aiming for this?
What is also painfully apparent here, as Microsoft themselves claim reason (1), that they have no idea what they are talking about.
i am no programmer so excuse my ignorance but doesnt everything eventually get cracked. Is there any mobile platform which hasnt a non cracked market place or sites where you can download paid apps for free?
Well done Chainfire
Hello Chainfire,
I am the webmaster of the Tamoggemon Content network, and just covered you:
http://tamsppc.tamoggemon.com/2009/11/13/advanced-marketplace-drm-broken/
http://tamswms.tamoggemon.com/2009/11/13/advanced-marketplace-drm-broken/
Furthermore, an email went out to MSFT asking for a statement. but this is not the reason why I registered here (!!!) - I am instead here to vent a bit being a Symbian dev myself.
While I fully understand your frustration, I think that allowing every developer to run his own DRM is not gonna do the store good. The reason is that the store was made to make purchasing apps simple - and by allowing everyone to run his own DRM I dont see much of a venue to do this anymore.
Whenever some kind of backend gets involved, there is a single point of failure - the only trhing I can think off now would be a very complet system based on servers.
Or, of course, platform security like on S60. But trust me - we wont want that!
Thanks! However, if you read my other post carefully you'd see it wouldn't make any difference to the ease of using the store (it wouldn't make any difference for the user at all), just to a part of the backend. And of course, each DRM system has a single point of failure, but the difference is in my case there is a point of failure per app, while in the current case it's a single point of failure for everything. There is no perfect solution, but there are better solutions than the current one.
I've been contacted by a handful of big WM devs by now who are of somewhat the same opinion.
microsoft.... when it comes to security, they are clueless as usual.
only apple is worse.
I find they windows-7 VPN and "encryption" funny , is there anybody that would trust it ? - even if it was not for the backdoors ?
Just wondering, is anyone else having problems accessing the windows marketplace from the phone? I was able to download a couple of apps yesterday after I installed a custom ROM (TPC Pro Series V3.2), but today I get a message saying there is an update, it installs the update but then I get the following message:
"Windows Marketplace for Mobile cannot connect right now. Try again later."
Is this because of the custom ROM and the latest update to the marketplace, or is this something other people are experiencing?
Remember the days when purchased mp3s were DRM protected and some companies like Sony even put rootkits on music CDs? Did that stop piracy?
Hopefully Microsoft will not repeat these mistakes... There is no need for any further 'protection' for marketplace apps. If a developer isn't satisfied with this mechanism then he/she doesn't have to publish their apps on the marketplace. There's no point in having a centralized app store if every developer uses his/her own licensing scheme.
I came across this article while surfing the internet. I wanted to share this with you guys, and see what your feelings were on this.
"Mobile Device Security and Android File Disclosure
Back in November, Thomas Cannon brought to light an issue within the Android operating system. Specifically, he found that it was possible to obtain the contents of files on an Android device by simply persuading its owner to visit a web site under attacker control. The issue only garners a 3.5 CVSS score, but yet it’s still fairly serious.
Thomas reported this issue responsibly to Google and they took it seriously. However, since then they have come back with a ridiculous remediation plan. Granted, its probably not entirely Google’s fault, but the overall situation looks very bleak for Android.
The problem is that Google stated that a fix will be available as part of an update to the upcoming Android 2.3. While that, in itself, may not be totally ridiculous, the reality of the situation is that Google is only one party involved in Android. There are two other groups, namely OEMs and Carriers, that must also do their part in getting the fix to users. Although Android devices are becoming increasingly functional, the security posture remains abysmal.
The security posture for desktop applications has improved vastly with all of the sand-boxing, automatic updates, and various other exploit mitigation technologies. Meanwhile, Android includes almost none of existing security protections. In fact, mobile users are being left out in the cold, unable to get a patch for a trivially exploitable cross-zone issue. For that matter, they can’t even control whether their device’s browser automatically downloads files or not.
This situation is not news, rather it is a sad fact. It is totally unfair for end users to be left out to fend for themselves. After all, they are paying a small fortune for these devices and the service to be able to use them. Hopefully the vendors involved will wake up before a network worm outbreak occurs.
Originally, Thomas disclosed the details of his bug on his blog. Later, he removed some details to help protect users. I believe that responsible disclosure is a two-way street that requires responsibility on both sides. Since Google, OEMs, and carriers all continue to act irresponsibly, it is necessary bring more attention to this issue and the situation as a whole.
I spent a little time and managed to recreate the issue with nothing more than HTML and JavaScript. As of today, I have released a Metasploit module to take advantage of the flaw. It is available in the latest copy of our Framework product, or you can view the source via the link to our Redmine project tracker above.
Before I go deeper into the consequence of this bug, I want to point out that Thomas outlined several workarounds for this vulnerability in his blog.
Now, take a deep breath give some thanks to the fact that, under Android, most every process runs under a separate, confined, unix-style user account. This design feature partially mitigates this issue, lowering confidentiality impact to “Partial” and bringing the CVSS score from 5 to 3.5. That said, an attacker can still gain access to some pretty interesting stuff.
For starters, an attacker can steal any world-readable file. In my tests it was possible to get potentially sensitive information from the within the “proc” file system. This type of information could include kernel versions, addresses, or configuration that can be used enhance further attacks.
Also, you can snarf any files that are used by the browser itself. This includes bookmarks, history, and likely more. This kind of information could potentially be embarrassing or possibly even give an attacker access to any saved passwords or session cookies you might have stored.
Perhaps the easiest win though, is that you can grab anything off of the SD card. You might ask, “Anything?! What about the user separation?” Well, because the SD card has been formatted with the “vfat” (aka “fat32”) file system, there is no concept of ownership. All files are owned by the same user id since the file system itself cannot encapsulate who created which file. As Thomas said, files in the SD card that have predictable names are ripe for the picking. This includes pictures and movies. These may in fact be some of the most private data on your device.
In conclusion, I hope that the Android security debacle will get resolved as soon as possible. If Google, OEMs, and carriers can’t work it out, perhaps another party will step in to maintain the operating system. I believe this could be very similar to the way various Linux distributions operate today. If the situation is not resolved, I fear the Android device pool could become a seething cesspool of malicious code..."
Here is the address
http://blog.metasploit.com/2011/01/mobile-device-security-and-android-file.html
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Shocking. Thanks for the info.
Nice find. You are right that oems and manufactures need to stay on top to mantain security. Hopefully meaningful post like this will make users aware of the possible dangers of the internet, data, and phone usage
Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
Ouch. Wish Android updates were like iOS..
Android is open, one of the main assumptions is that there is no single company, which controls it. I could create my own phone with Android, sell it to people and give them no support at all - Google can't do anything about it.
There is only one solution to this problem: people have to choose their phones wisely. People look at phone specs, at CPU, RAM, camera, but they ignore future support and openess. Recently Motorola has stated they will lock bootloaders in their future phones. People will go for these phones anyway and then they will complain they can't do anything with some horrible bugs, they will complain about Android and Google, but they should complain about Motorola and themselves. While Nexus S owners will have same bugs fixed by both Google and community.
Choose your phones wisely.
SD with vfat...good catch. Horrible bug while many users trying to move their apps to SD. And maybe 80-90% of the apps in the market require modify SD card perm? Horrible. Verizon SGS is screwed since that phone have little internal and lots of external SD.
I'm so glad you guys came across this thread, and it didn't get lost in all the other threads. I hope some of the devs see it. Can a fix be implemented at the Rom or kernal level?
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
I like Droidwall. Here's my review: Droidwall is a nifty program which can easily be configured to block wifi and/or data communication for each individual application. Perhaps allows small savings in battery, data usage, and slight improvement in security. Particularly when app had no logical purpose to acces internet other than advertisements etc. Also does not cost any significant cpu or memory resources... just modifies a table somewhere.
Now onto my question:
One of the applications that I blocked was labeled “(Kernel) – Linux Kernel”
Blocking the “kernel” has no effect on items like browser, gmail etc.
Based on Droidwall log, over the past several weeks since I installed the program, it has blocked 397 outbound packets from “kernel” which were destined for a variety of IP’s that all seems to be associated with Google, XDA, or Microsoft.
Below is an example of three of the IP’s:
Google
74.125.227.140
https://ipdb.at/ip/74.125.227.140
xda
50.23.216.69
https://ipdb.at/ip/50.23.216.69
Microsoft
65.52.32.12
https://ipdb.at/ip/65.52.32.12
Another thing I noticed, these are the only log entries where the external IP is recorded in the log. In all the other non-kernel blocked-application log entries, the IP recorded is my router IP.
I’m using Entropy’s DD kernal on GB.
It seems to me a little strange that these outbound transmissions are associated with the kernel. And at the same time, they don’t seem to be associated with any obvious legitimate purpose....because my phone works fine on normal internet application even with “kernel” blocked by Droidwall.
Does anyone have any ideas what would be the explanation for these packets sent from kernel to Google, MS, xda ?
Well I don't know much of anything about programming, however some people say that it isn't just apple that collects information about people without them knowing. Could be that or I could be completely wrong.
Just for curiosity, do you allow anonymous data to be collected and sent to Google?
Sent from my SGH-I997 using xda app-developers app
If no answer here, maybe post your question here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1957231
Well I don't know much of anything about programming, however some people say that it isn't just apple that collects information about people without them knowing. Could be that or I could be completely wrong.
Just for curiosity, do you allow anonymous data to be collected and sent to Google?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I generally answer no the the “anonymous data collection”.... thinking about battery, data usage, and privacy. I think several apps have that question. I don’t doubt there are a lot of programs trying to communicate for a variety of non-obvious (possibly suspicious) reasons regardless of how you set up the options. ....there were a several installed Apps attempting access that had no obvious reason to do so.
What initially struck me as strange was that this was attributed to the kernel.. that didn’t quite compute. Trying initially to formulate an intelligent thought about what that meant, I utterly failed and came up with the notion that these items must somehow be related to programming by the developer of the kernel. When I actually engaged my brain, I realized that was just plain silly because:
1 – That would be Entropy. Enough said.
2 – The kernel is open source.
3 – There are several different destination ip’s. If one person was trying to collect data, he wouldn’t send it to different places. So it must be several applications interacting with the kernel.... just shows up attributed to the kernel by Droidwall.
If no answer here, maybe post your question here: [afwall link][
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks Pony Ex. I didn’t know that program afwall existed. Looks like it might have some good improvements to an already-great program (Droidwall). Will definitely give it a try. But I’m not bold enough to post this type of question in the developer’s thread though... several others were scolded for non-appropriate posts in that thread.
To my limited understanding, and I apologize if I am wrong, entropy just modified the kernel that was already there? Hence why the new ICS and jelly bean ROMs are still using a gingerbread kernel.
So who actually wrote the kernel? Samsung? Google? Both?
I agree I don't see entropy gathering personnel data.
However, apple was caught doing it and to the conspiracy minded individual, Google (a company that made it's fortune with information) would be in a similar position to do the same.
Again I have no evidence or knowledge to back up anything I'm saying, however what better way to collect information then distributing a free open source program with 100's of millions of users?
Sent from my SGH-I997 using xda app-developers app
electricpete1 said:
Thanks Pony Ex. I didn’t know that program afwall existed. Looks like it might have some good improvements to an already-great program (Droidwall). Will definitely give it a try. But I’m not bold enough to post this type of question in the developer’s thread though... several others were scolded for non-appropriate posts in that thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
electricpete,
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=35352916&postcount=256
I'll fade the heat.
Edit: His first reply: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=35360652&postcount=257
Pete,
Are you using the Droid Wall to stop the outgoing packets to ensure privacy or are you using it to stop the wakelocks that may be contributing to the wifi drain bug on gingerbread?
Here is a reply from someone else... pretty good read:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=13148076#post13148076
post # 47
Pony Express said:
Here is a reply from someone else... pretty good read:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=13148076#post13148076
post # 47
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks Pony Express, for posting that question. Good info in the responses and other links.
qkster said:
Pete,
Are you using the Droid Wall to stop the outgoing packets to ensure privacy or are you using it to stop the wakelocks that may be contributing to the wifi drain bug on gingerbread?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is the potential to improve all three (limit data usage, limit battery usage, improve privacy).
I think the improvements in battery life and data usage are probably relatively small (especially because I also manage those by turning my connections off when not in use while away from home wifi)... whereas I think the improvement in privacy may be substantial... so I guess that's my main interest (improving privacy).
But since the $ cost and resource cost is basically zero, it almost seems to me like no-brainer choice to use it regardless of the level of benefit we expect (unless there is some hidden disadvantage...which I haven't seen yet).
I wasn't aware of a particular wakelock problem on Gingerbread. I haven't particularly noticed a change in batteryusage one way or the other (and I really wouldn't expect to notice unless it was a dramatic change), but it stands to reason that reducing traffic from unwanted Ads, pinging, data-gathering etc could help. Here are some links that may support that view:
http://gizmodo.com/5894572/in+app-ads-are-destroying-your-battery-life
http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/19/2884902/android-apps-battery-efficiency-study
There was one poster in the AFwall thread that suggested an App that is denied access will keep trying again and again, and therefore use more juice..... which also sounds plausible, but several others disagreed with that.
* I have installed AFwall now, in place of Droidwall. It is the same program with a few improvements (fixed hole in the security wall during reboot) and a lot of extra features. But still keeps the same basic simple user interface.
I know it sounds like a base question since we're talking about security but I wonder in what instances are security patches really helping.
For example, suppose I only use the device with my data plan and my wifi at home (no public networks). Also suppose that I don't download 3rd party apps except those created by established companies like Microsoft (SwiftKey or Outlook). And suppose I don't visit many websites on my device (and especially no pr0n). In this instance, are security patches really necessary? Unlike most people, I don't do everything on my phone (no browsing the net, banking). I only use it for navigation, WhatsApp, and for calls.
I'm asking this question because I'm thinking about getting an Android phone. I'm currently an iPhone user and I want to break out of the Apple ecosystem. The problem is that some companies like HTC and LG seem to be slow to provide security patches or simply ignore them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDxUjSfp17E&t=6m35s
I'm interested in buying the LG V35 but the internet is full of comments about LG's horrendous support. I am mainly interested in keeping my emails and personal information safe. The only thing I value in the iPhone is the long-term support Apple provides but I'm willing to switch to Android if this isn't a concern if I use my phone exactly as I described above.
Thanks
Mity85 said:
I know it sounds like a base question since we're talking about security but I wonder in what instances are security patches really helping.
...
I'm interested in buying the LG V35 but the internet is full of comments about LG's horrendous support. I am mainly interested in keeping my emails and personal information safe. The only thing I value in the iPhone is the long-term support Apple provides but I'm willing to switch to Android if this isn't a concern if I use my phone exactly as I described above.
Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First of all, welcome to Android ?
To answer your questions, security patches are indeed necessary, because if one day you lose your phone, potential flaws that would be patched with security update would be grand opened to hacker that want your personal data (like photos, videos, emails, contacts,...).
Even though it's very rare, that's more secure to have an updated phone.
Now, if you want long term services (updates from Google with the latest features and security patches) you should definitely go for a Google Pixel. Plus those are powerful and have the best camera on the phone market right now (machine learning helps a lot).
If your price range is around 400 $, then go for the Pixel 3a, if you're around 800 $ then go for a Pixel 3.
If you can wait a bit, wait until the Pixel 4 release, I don't know if it'll be a good phone (probably) but what I know is the more recent your phone is, the longer it'll be updated.
But if you are below that, check out the Android One series, that's not Pixel devices, but they get as well the long term support.
Hope it helps
I'd like to expand on this question a bit.
I have a friend who is experiencing "severe security concerns" at the moment. I'm actually kind of worried about this particular friend. This friend seems to primarily have concerns over "being tracked", so I'm trying to find the best approach to at least putting these concerns in the proper frame so that knowledge and education of the device and what it does, and how to control it would be more attainable to said friend.
I know that the security updates are important, but how do you advise someone who isn't rich, and is looking for a new phone, but is willing to dabble with rooting, even to the extent of removing / not installing Gapps? This friend seems willing to learn, so I'd like to think that taking the big picture of "best security practices" into account is an option (ie. don't open suspicious email attachments, learn how to identify phishing scams, only install apps you trust, etc...).
In my experience, apart from kernel and driver level flaws that leave gaping wide-open back doors, security mostly comes down to "being wise with how the device is used". Is that a fair statement?
Yes, security is a combination and balance of user knowledge & usage, oem hardware security, software security, country laws, etc.
Thanks @galaxys
Is there anything about rooting that makes a typical Android device less secure?
Or more to the point, does the ability to omit Gapps provide any natural security enhancement?
I'm asking from the point of view of a "moderately experienced" individual who knows how to spot suspicious attachments/files and phishing scams, and knows how to do some bare-minimum vetting of where apps are installed from. For the sake of argument, let's say this user has no Gapps, and gets their apps from FDroid or ApkPure, or ApkMirror.
I've search for information on this but have found nothing so I thought I'd post my findings here and see if anyone has anything to add/correct.
I've been setting up firewall blocking on my router using ASUSWRT-Merlin with Skynet firewall. I decided to block a whole bunch of countries that I deemed unnecessary/risky for security, including China.
Turns out, blocking China prevents AirDroid from working - it can't even log in.
Checking the log shows a bunch of domains that Skynet is blocking (stat.airdroid.com, stat3.airdroid.com, stat-push.airdroid.com, us-east-7-data.airdroid.com, us-east-8-data.airdroid.com, srv3-clb.airdroid.com, id4-clb.airdroid.com; possibly others). Telling Skynet to unblock these domains results in it responding with "Element cannot be deleted from the set: it's not added" (i.e. they're not blocked).
Removing China from the blocked countries list allows AirDroid to work.
Now this is where things get interesting, and how I figured out the China-wide blocking was causing this issue. In the log file that Skynet stores on the inserted USB drive, "skynet.log", it shows the IPs that these connections were trying to make. All of them are owned by Tencent (there were two prominent ones, but the entire range beginning with "49.51." is owned by them) - specifically, these are for TencentCloud (I assume those are their cloud services, like Azure or AWS or such).
Also, the three MAC addresses dealing with the Tencent IPs are my Note 9, Galaxy Tab A8 and my MacBook - the only three devices on which I run AirDroid.
I'm sure most people won't really care on what servers AirDroid are hosting, but personally, I'd rather not have any connections made to or from Tencent IPs if possible, especially considering how often AirDroid appears to be phoning home. This worries me, especially since this doesn't appear to be public knowledge. The only inconsistency is that a whois lookup shows AirDroid's host is GoDaddy, so how exactly Tencent is involved, I'm not sure... but they are.
If I'm mistaken about this, please feel free to correct me - I'd be happy to be wrong, frankly -, but based on what I'm seeing and the blocking/unblocking I've tried, it appears, at least for now, that this is true.
Guess I'll have to start looking for an AirDroid alternative, because this is unacceptable to me.
Attached are some screenshots of my logs with MAC addresses and personal IPs redacted in case anyone is curious. Yes, I realise the dates are different - I didn't realise I'd screencapped yesterday from the log until after I had edited the images, but the data is pretty much identical to the data from today.
Best I can tell, the Tencent IPs definitely coincide with AirDroid trying to log in and authenticate (and failing at the time because China was still blocked).
Thanks for this info, I was already having my doubts about Airdroid.
No problem. I'm glad someone found it useful. Nobody else seems to be talking about it, which bothers me.
If nothing else, Tencent's servers are being used for Airdroid's authentication servers.
Not sure why it is such an issue really? I mean it is not like other services that use servers tell me where they are routing anything. I would be more worried that there is basically no information about the company that runs the project.
wangdaning said:
Not sure why it is such an issue really? I mean it is not like other services that use servers tell me where they are routing anything. I would be more worried that there is basically no information about the company that runs the project.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because not every company routes your information through Chinese servers which, in this case, could have a large amount of access to your linked devices. Tencent is not a trustworthy company. This could potentially mean that, if they wanted to, the Chinese government could access a lot of your data through AirDroid.
Now, obviously that's not guaranteed, but I still wouldn't trust it.
Then again, there's a reason I try to stick to FOSS software as much as possible. AirDroid was convenient for a while but I don't use it now.
Besides, your reasoning for this not being "such an issue" is "others are shady too". That... doesn't actually make it any better. Plus we know that companies like Google, for example, mine your data anyway, whereas this seemingly innocuous application that I've seen readily recommended by many people is a lot more obfuscated (probably because it's a smaller app).
That, and I haven't found many apps and sites from personal usage that my firewall setup blocks, so this one absolutely stood out like a sore thumb.
I don't want anything to do with Tencent and I know other people feel the same way as me. More importantly, I shared the information to hopefully learn more and, more importantly, let other people know in case they care.
TankedThomas said:
Because not every company routes your information through Chinese servers which, in this case, could have a large amount of access to your linked devices. Tencent is not a trustworthy company. This could potentially mean that, if they wanted to, the Chinese government could access a lot of your data through AirDroid.
Now, obviously that's not guaranteed, but I still wouldn't trust it.
Then again, there's a reason I try to stick to FOSS software as much as possible. AirDroid was convenient for a while but I don't use it now.
Besides, your reasoning for this not being "such an issue" is "others are shady too". That... doesn't actually make it any better. Plus we know that companies like Google, for example, mine your data anyway, whereas this seemingly innocuous application that I've seen readily recommended by many people is a lot more obfuscated (probably because it's a smaller app).
That, and I haven't found many apps and sites from personal usage that my firewall setup blocks, so this one absolutely stood out like a sore thumb.
I don't want anything to do with Tencent and I know other people feel the same way as me. More importantly, I shared the information to hopefully learn more and, more importantly, let other people know in case they care.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would like to know what exactly makes tencent untrustworthy. I use them for banking daily, so would like to be informed.
wangdaning said:
I would like to know what exactly makes tencent untrustworthy. I use them for banking daily, so would like to be informed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The fact that they give your data to the Chinese government should be all you need to know to deem them untrustworthy - Tencent and similar companies collect a lot of your data (often illegally).
If you don't believe me, look it up - most of (if not all, though that has yet to be conclusively proven, but it's not much of a stretch) the tech giants in mainland China are in the pocket of the Chinese government.
Frankly, I value my privacy too much to deal with such a company, and using them for banking sounds like a bad idea to me.
Here are some sources that I pulled up quickly, but there's plenty more of these around the web:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas...ping-the-government-see-everything-1512056284
https://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2...-your-data-when-you-use-chinese-messaging-app
https://fossbytes.com/xiaomi-and-tencent-illegal-data-collection-china/
https://freedomhouse.org/blog/worried-about-huawei-take-closer-look-tencent
The best they get is a slap on the wrist (and sometimes only for the sake of publicity), then they continue on with these practices.
And that's to say nothing of the censorship in which they engage.
TankedThomas said:
The fact that they give your data to the Chinese government should be all you need to know to deem them untrustworthy - Tencent and similar companies collect a lot of your data (often illegally).
If you don't believe me, look it up - most of (if not all, though that has yet to be conclusively proven, but it's not much of a stretch) the tech giants in mainland China are in the pocket of the Chinese government.
Frankly, I value my privacy too much to deal with such a company, and using them for banking sounds like a bad idea to me.
Here are some sources that I pulled up quickly, but there's plenty more of these around the web:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas...ping-the-government-see-everything-1512056284
https://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2...-your-data-when-you-use-chinese-messaging-app
https://fossbytes.com/xiaomi-and-tencent-illegal-data-collection-china/
https://freedomhouse.org/blog/worried-about-huawei-take-closer-look-tencent
The best they get is a slap on the wrist (and sometimes only for the sake of publicity), then they continue on with these practices.
And that's to say nothing of the censorship in which they engage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If privacy was your main concern you would never use an app that routes your data through a third party without encryption. It is clear your goal is to take a shot at a company that is not even in control of the app you are complaining about. Lets see, your news list says, Xiaomi, Huawei, Tencent, and Chinese. How interesting.
By all means protect your privacy. I know I do and I use all three companies and many more products from the country. I hate that tencent knows when I get a latte though :silly:
wangdaning said:
If privacy was your main concern you would never use an app that routes your data through a third party without encryption. It is clear your goal is to take a shot at a company that is not even in control of the app you are complaining about. Lets see, your news list says, Xiaomi, Huawei, Tencent, and Chinese. How interesting.
By all means protect your privacy. I know I do and I use all three companies and many more products from the country. I hate that tencent knows when I get a latte though :silly:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is clear your goal is to defend a bunch of Chinese companies known for handing data over to the Chinese government.
The fact that you are purposely trying to portray me in a specific way to fit your narrow-minded view instead of being concerned about how and where data goes (and for the record, I care about where my data goes in general, but most people around here are already well aware of where data for companies like Google and Apple goes, but not for an app like this) is frankly ridiculous.
If you don't care about this (which you clearly do not), then kindly leave this thread and don't return. I posted this thread to let people who despise Tencent and their business practices know about AirDroid's involvement, and to see if anyone had more information. I did NOT post this thread for you to come along and defend Tencent's honour. Enough garbage companies already do that, and they've added as much to the discussion of privacy as you have (i.e. absolutely nothing of value).
Great concerns, for sure. Thanks for your input.
I tried the app, quickly isolating it from the WAN, and running with Xprivacy of course. Luckily, HTTPS local connection only is possible. I wouldn't sign up in this type of app and i wouldnt use the barcode reader to connect to WAN. Rendered LAN web app contacts chinese servers on the PC, but reviewing content it looked fine in a quick check.
The app seems chinese, it's giving me one notification bar in chinese, and rest of translations are chinglish. I don't say it's neccessarily wrong, i just want to know if this is an open source app to trust it. Otherwise, i will keep running it in strict LAN mode.
Now about the functionality, I like Synology/Windows like UI. So cool!
Contacts/Call log/messages/ringtones/apps work.
Mirroring and Camera worked once. There's some strange checkbox "Don't show again" to click on (?) in Mirroring settings which doesn't work. Update: Camera worked again once switching back to HTTP.
Files/Music/Pictures/Videos don't work at all, even the android app cannot see files. No clue why.
Notifications are shown again on HTTP, however they're not displayed by the browser AND they simply disappear later. No actions also. So unless you 're currently in the tab, you won't notice anything.
I struggle to find a use case for this.
* Mirroring isn't interactive - so together with Camera it's a very infrequent function to use. I'd rather have an interactive mirroring like MobilEdit (if i remember correctly), what a great app it was. Or a Dex type of desktop where you can really interact with the android.
* Messages is showing "SMS", which is something obsolete for me, using alt messenger with secure repository (not the standard unsafe android one). SMS and calls are dead to me long time ago, but i'd have been happy about possibility to reply a decade ago, definitely!
* The last resort is notifications, that'd save some time if implemented well, with history. But it's not.
* One more thing on my mind is ability to send APK to phone, ok.. but it's again a rare task, i wouldn't run this background service for this purpose if i can send the APK via bluetooth...
I look for an app that let me get rid of USB cable for sharing photos or musik between PC and phone.
Sorry if I didn't understood the whole elaboration, but isn't this not just a point to point connection? I wouldn't like that others have access to it.
Or is it about other services?
is this the same Airdroid that has been around for like 10 years now?