Sometimes I come across an app thats not on the Android market and you have to install it manually. Has anyone come across a virus/trojan on Android yet? Im curious how easy or hard it is to modify a legit applications and put a virus/trojan in it?
Lol have not seen one yet. Android isn't that big yet so doubt hackers would really spend time putting trojans to get stuff like your email password lol.
Take everything you know about microshaft windoze and forget it. The system architecture of android is almost completely invulnerable to viruses/worms/etc.
In a typical unix system, hacks can take one of very few possible approaches;
1) service bug targeting, i.e., if one were to discover a security vulnerability in the Apache HTTP server, one could theoretically compromise it. That particular service I mean.
2) user account targeting, i.e., one could convince a user to run something dangerous, which would infect that specific user's account, of course, this attack would limit itself to damaging that user's personal data and would not be able to take down the whole system unless it also targeted a kernel or X-server exploit.
Note specifically regarding #1, that in a well configured system, that targeting a particular service would be restricted to a specific user account just as in #2 since each service runs as its own username.
3) Targeting KERNEL defects; this is perhaps the most frightening possibility. It is also the least likely since it would also require #1 or #2. Any particular kernel attack, particularly in Linux is also very unlikely to work for long due to the open sourced nature of Linux. There are a LOT more people involved in monitoring the fundamental securities of the Linux kernel than any other OS because of its open nature. It is also a source of PRIDE for kernel HACKERS that they ALSO be responsible for openly providing the SOLUTION to any exploits that they discover. And they usually do this with their REAL NAME since it basically immortalizes them. The end result is that every time a kernel exploit is discovered, it tends to be patched within hours of its first application.
Now of course you want to know how this affects Android, since by all appearances, there is no user-level security. WRONG. The Android security level is actually on par with service level security on unix servers. EVERY SINGLE application installed is granted is own user account, which means that if any particular application is dangerous, its range of damage is restricted to that particular application's private data, as well as any permissions that the application is explicitly granted (i.e. when you install an application, it gives you the required security list). There is also the very slim possibility of a kernel exploit (though this is extremely unlikely), and it could damage the data on the sdcard (since it is an MS-crap filesystem with no security restrictions).
Of course you will note that older versions of the ADP1 system image came with an unregulated 'su' command (which you could also end up with using a "cat sh > su; chmod 4755 su" root approach) which basically can be used by any application to take over the whole system. Make sure that you don't have any such su command on your droid. Either use a password-protected su command (which will cause problems for trusted apps requesting root privileges), or the gui-supported su command. Subsequent ADP1 images came with an su command that was restricted to the debugging terminal user, which is fine.
In other words... you don't have much to worry about. Just don't do anything really stupid, like installing an untrusted application that wants a boat load of privileges that it shouldn't be asking for.
lbcoder said:
EVERY SINGLE application installed is granted is own user account, which means that if any particular application is dangerous, its range of damage is restricted to that particular application's private data, as well as any permissions that the application is explicitly granted (i.e. when you install an application, it gives you the required security list).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Might be worth pointing out that android apps are for the most part interpreted language apps, meaning the onus of security and stability (just from an apk standpoint) falls largely on the vm. All the lower level subsystems are pretty well protected by the Linux kernel, and these have been significantly tried in fire by decades of Linux server deployment.
lbcoder said:
The system architecture of android is almost completely invulnerable to viruses/worms/etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
jashsu said:
Might be worth pointing out that android apps are for the most part interpreted language apps, meaning the onus of security and stability (just from an apk standpoint) falls largely on the vm. All the lower level subsystems are pretty well protected by the Linux kernel, and these have been significantly tried in fire by decades of Linux server deployment.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All the points about the protection offered from the Linux kernel and the VM are valid. Computer secuity is an ongoing battle between the software originators and the hackers trying to get in. I'm not saying it's remotely likely, particularly due to the market share, but rule one in my book is don't taunt the hackers.
lbcoder said:
Take everything you know about microshaft windoze and forget it. The system architecture of android is almost completely invulnerable to viruses/worms/etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Until the Android Dev team screw up again and lets any app run in the system process when requested (which was why cupcake was delayed in the US).
thanks for the post.
I was curious if someone could unpack a .apk file and modify a application easily, say have it send personal info to xyz server instead of the server the app was designed for or send it to both servers so the user doesnt think anything is wrong.
Are the files in the .apk editable, like an .exe is compiled for windows and the .exe cannot be edited (since its machine code).
androidmonkey said:
thanks for the post.
I was curious if someone could unpack a .apk file and modify a application easily, say have it send personal info to xyz server instead of the server the app was designed for or send it to both servers so the user doesnt think anything is wrong.
Are the files in the .apk editable, like an .exe is compiled for windows and the .exe cannot be edited (since its machine code).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, apks are basically just zip files with cryptographic signatures. If you get your apks from Market then there is little to no risk of apks being tampered with. If you install your apks from any source other than Market, then you just have to trust the source that the apk hasn't been modified. Obviously if the apk itself doesn't ask for many permissions then it shouldn't be a problem. For example if you download a game apk from a developer's personal webpage and it asks for just permission to keep the screen alive, there's little risk to your data. However if you download an app that has read/write access to your contacts, or has root access, then you better be sure that the site you get it from is trustworthy.
jashsu said:
Yes, apks are basically just zip files with cryptographic signatures. If you get your apks from Market then there is little to no risk of apks being tampered with. If you install your apks from any source other than Market, then you just have to trust the source that the apk hasn't been modified. Obviously if the apk itself doesn't ask for many permissions then it shouldn't be a problem. For example if you download a game apk from a developer's personal webpage and it asks for just permission to keep the screen alive, there's little risk to your data. However if you download an app that has read/write access to your contacts, or has root access, then you better be sure that the site you get it from is trustworthy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So the files in the .apk not executables, rather interpreted with the VM? Im curious if those files can be read and changed. For instance, can someone open the file in a Java SDK and change the code? Or are those files protected so they cant be modified? For instance, could you download soundboard app from the Market, "unzip" the .apk, and put your own sounds in it?
androidmonkey said:
So the files in the .apk not executables, rather interpreted with the VM? Im curious if those files can be read and changed. For instance, can someone open the file in a Java SDK and change the code? Or are those files protected so they cant be modified? For instance, could you download soundboard app from the Market, "unzip" the .apk, and put your own sounds in it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unless the classes are specifically performing security/sanity checks, there's nothing keeping you from replacing asset files (pngs, wavs, etc) and then resigning the apk with any key of your choosing. However, altering xmls and classes is more difficult as they are obfuscated/optimized by default.
For apps distributed officially through the Android market, the only way Google can provide assurance for the app producer against tampering is app-protected folder. Of course that assumes that root access is not provided, which is most likely a prerequsite for any phone to be branded "with Google" and have Market access. From the viewpoint of the consumer, apps are guaranteed by Google against tampering only if retrieved through Market. Once the app is on the device, it is protected via Android's use of Linux user access permission model (each app is its own user). The consumer may of course alter the file him/herself, unless it is a protected app, in which case root is required.
sounds buggy. i hope not. this reminds me of when Mozilla firefox became popular i slowly starte dto see code become available to make pop ups n my belloved browser
Virus found on Android phone...
Article 1:
NEWS
An employee at Spanish antivirus firm Panda Security received a new Android-based Vodafone HTC Magic with malware on it, according to researchers at Panda Labs.
"Today one of our colleagues received a brand new Vodafone HTC Magic with Google's Android OS," researcher Pedro Bustamante wrote on the Panda Research Blog on Monday.
"The interesting thing is that when she plugged the phone to her PC via USB, her Panda Cloud Antivirus went off, detecting both an autorun.inf and autorun.exe as malicious," he wrote. "A quick look into the phone quickly revealed it was infected and spreading the infection to any and all PCs that the phone would be plugged into."
Article 2:
Mariposa virus back on Vodafone Android smartphones
HTC Magic According to a Spanish blogger, around 3,000 memory cards supplied by Vodafone Spain were infected with the Mariposa bot client. The mobile network operator has now reportedly confirmed that these included HTC Magic Android-based smartphone models, as well as other devices. A spokesperson for the company has told CNET that it is a "local incident". Vodafone says it has identified customers that could potentially be affected and it will be sending them new memory cards. It has also offered to supply them with tools to restore the integrity of their devices.
Reports of an HTC Magic smartphone carrying the virus were first published less than two weeks ago, however the malware is not able to harm the Android smartphone itself. The bot only attempts to contact a command & control server when connected to a Windows PC. The virus should be detected by most up-to-date anti-virus solutions.
Personal take:
Interesting to note that the virus being carried on an Android phone and was used to infect PC's NOT other Android phones. It came straight from manufacturing with the virus on, so as of yet I still haven't heard of a virus that can infect an android phone.
Further more, I have seen Anti-virus software on the market place AND being offered by Norton. What do they protect against if there are no known virus threats? Do they just draw a nice pretty anti-virus logo on the screen to make you feel comfy? hehehe.
Trojans in the hacked up ROMs people are distributing
androidmonkey said:
Sometimes I come across an app thats not on the Android market and you have to install it manually. Has anyone come across a virus/trojan on Android yet? Im curious how easy or hard it is to modify a legit applications and put a virus/trojan in it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've found a trojan in at least one of the ROMs being distributed on here. Even reported directly from the developer's own file sharing site.
"Stock" ROM http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2066023
Attached is a photo of the file scanned from the linked file sharing site for the KERNEL he wants you to INSTALL!!
Click the link to JB_KERNEL_3.17.841.2_EVITA_Init.d_Support_Installer.zip - 8.54 MB in that thread and see for yourself.
Be careful what you install on your device. ANDR.Trojan.GingerBreak takes full administrative control of your device and downloads more trojans to siphon out your private personal data.
Related
Taken from an user in Androidforums.com ...
that kind of crossed my thoughts when I rooted my phone, what is the possibility though?
n0gik said:
This is a wonderful thread - and my apology if I've missed this question here or anywhere else.
Regarding 'rooted' Hero (or any other Android) phones, once they're rooted, can you set a root password? ('passwd' command after issuing 'su' command)
It would seem to me that leaving the superuser unprotected, with escalated execution privileges NOT protected, then downloading/installing a maliciously written application could become an issue. I'd hate to see thousands (millions?) of Android phones become disabled, DOS attack points or spamming mailer daemons.
Just trying to make an educated decision before rooting.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no answers????
I've not done much research on the subject however the superuser apk is there to protect us with custom roms so you can be protected from potentially malicious applications.
We really cant set a password on our root, especially since this is not a "Full" linux distro, it's very watered down to fit and run "well", this includes the SElinux. The SuperUser app offers protection, when an app runs that requires Root, superuser kicks in and asked Always Allow, Allow, Dont Allow, Never Allow.
Given, superuser probably has its weeknesses all security apps do and anyone with the smarts to figure out the loop holes will. It's a cell phone, not your bank account or medical records. I can't see you or anyone carying anything too private on it, maybe some corp. emails. Viruses happen, luckily there doesn't seem to be to much circulating in the way of Android. There are even a few AV apps on the market if you look for them.
The only app I have that requires root is WiFi Tether. Maybe, oneday, when we get full kernel source someone can protect our root a little better than it currently is. If having an Android phone has taught me anything, it is that Google security policies must be Garbage. Look at how they protect paid apps, if I was a Dev that wanted to make money on his code there is no way I could cope with only having stuff in a protected folder. Looks like they would have to make their own software protection, and some have.
Lcarpenter, thanks for answering.
I can breathe a little better now..
The Vulnerability
In recent updates to some of its devices, HTC introduces a suite of logging tools that collected information. Lots of information. LOTS. Whatever the reason was, whether for better understanding problems on users' devices, easier remote analysis, corporate evilness - it doesn't matter. If you, as a company, plant these information collectors on a device, you better be DAMN sure the information they collect is secured and only available to privileged services or the user, after opting in.
That is not the case. What Trevor found is only the tip of the iceberg - we are all still digging deeper - but currently any app on affected devices that requests a single android.permission.INTERNET (which is normal for any app that connects to the web or shows ads) can get its hands on:
the list of user accounts, including email addresses and sync status for each
last known network and GPS locations and a limited previous history of locations
phone numbers from the phone log
SMS data, including phone numbers and encoded text (not sure yet if it's possible to decode it, but very likely)
system logs (both kernel/dmesg and app/logcat), which includes everything your running apps do and is likely to include email addresses, phone numbers, and other private info
Normally, applications get access to only what is allowed by the permissions they request, so when you install a simple, innocent-looking new game from the Market that only asks for the INTERNET permission (to submit scores online, for example), you don't expect it to read your phone log or list of emails.
But that's not all. After looking at the huge amount of data (the log file was 3.5MB on my EVO 3D) that is vulnerable to apps exploiting this vulnerability all day, I found the following is also exposed (granted, some of which may be already available to any app via the Android APIs):
active notifications in the notification bar, including notification text
build number, bootloader version, radio version, kernel version
network info, including IP addresses
full memory info
CPU info
file system info and free space on each partition
running processes
current snapshot/stacktrace of not only every running process but every running thread
list of installed apps, including permissions used, user ids, versions, and more
system properties/variables
currently active broadcast listeners and history of past broadcasts received
currently active content providers
battery info and status, including charging/wake lock history
and more
Let me put it another way. By using only the INTERNET permission, any app can also gain at least the following:
ACCESS_COARSE_LOCATION Allows an application to access coarse (e.g., Cell-ID, WiFi) location
ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION Allows an application to access fine (e.g., GPS) location
ACCESS_LOCATION_EXTRA_COMMANDS Allows an application to access extra location provider commands
ACCESS_WIFI_STATE Allows applications to access information about Wi-Fi networks
BATTERY_STATS Allows an application to collect battery statistics
DUMP Allows an application to retrieve state dump information from system services.
GET_ACCOUNTS Allows access to the list of accounts in the Accounts Service
GET_PACKAGE_SIZE Allows an application to find out the space used by any package.
GET_TASKS Allows an application to get information about the currently or recently running tasks: a thumbnail representation of the tasks, what activities are running in it, etc.
READ_LOGS Allows an application to read the low-level system log files.
READ_SYNC_SETTINGS Allows applications to read the sync settings
READ_SYNC_STATS Allows applications to read the sync stats
Theoretically, it may be possible to clone a device using only a small subset of the information leaked here.
I'd like to reiterate that the only reason the data is leaking left and right is because HTC set their snooping environment up this way. It's like leaving your keys under the mat and expecting nobody who finds them to unlock the door. For a more technical explanation, see the section below.
Additionally, and the implications of this could end up being insignificant, yet still very suspicious, HTC also decided to add an app called androidvncserver.apk to their Android OS installations. If you're not familiar with the definition of VNC, it is basically a remote access server. On the EVO 3D, it was present from the start and updated in the latest OTA. The app doesn't get started by default, but who knows what and who can trigger it and potentially get access to your phone remotely? I'm sure we'll know soon enough - HTC, care to tell us what it's doing here?
Technical Details
In addition to Carrier IQ (CIQ) that was planted by HTC/Sprint and prompted all kinds of questions a while ago, HTC also included another app called HtcLoggers.apk. This app is capable of collecting all kinds of data, as I mentioned above, and then... provide it to anyone who asks for it by opening a local port. Yup, not just HTC, but anyone who connects to it, which happens to be any app with the INTERNET permission. Ironically, because a given app has the INTERNET permission, it can also send all the data off to a remote server, killing 2 birds with one stone permission.
In fact, HtcLogger has a whole interface which accepts a variety of commands (such as the handy :help: that shows all available commands). Oh yeah - and no login/password are required to access said interface.
Furthermore, it's worth noting that HtcLogger tries to use root to dump even more data, such as WiMax state, and may attempt to run something called htcserviced - at least this code is present in the source:
/system/xbin/su 0 /data/data/com.htc.loggers/bin/htcserviced
HtcLoggers is only one of the services that is collecting data, and we haven't even gotten to the bottom of what else it can do, let alone what the other services are capable of doing. But hey - I think you'll agree that this is already more than enough.
Patching The Vulnerability
... is not possible without either root or an update from HTC. If you do root, we recommend immediate removal of Htcloggers (you can find it at /system/app/HtcLoggers.apk).
Stay safe and don't download suspicious apps. Of course, even quality-looking apps can silently capture and send off this data, but the chance of that is lower.
Affected Phones
Note: Only stock Sense firmware is affected - if you're running an AOSP-based ROM like CyanogenMod, you are safe.
EVO 4G
EVO 3D
Thunderbolt
EVO Shift 4G? (thanks, pm)
MyTouch 4G Slide? (thanks, Michael)
the upcoming Vigor? (thanks, bjn714)
some Sensations? (thanks, Nick)
View 4G? (thanks, Pat)
the upcoming Kingdom? (thanks, Pat)
most likely others - we haven't verified them yet, but you can help us by downloading the proof of concept above and running the APK
HTC's Response
After finding the vulnerability, Trevor contacted HTC on September 24th and received no real response for five business days, after which he released this information to the public (as per RF full disclosure Policy). In my experience, lighting fire under someone's ass in public makes things move a whole lot faster, which is why responsible disclosure is a norm in the security industry. (This is where we come in.)
As far as we know, HTC is now looking into the issue, but no statement has been issued yet.
HTC, you got yourself into this mess, and it's now up to you to climb out of the hole as fast as possible, in your own interest.
The ball is in your court.
Credit
ANDROID POLICE
Huge thank you to Trevor Eckhart who found the vulnerability and Justin Case for working with us today digging deeper.
Hi there, I need help, someone is consistently hacking into my phone, htc evo 4g, they are penetration testers and pc savvy, currently I cant login to the phn for trying to do a factory reset. They kept intercepting me and now my password does not work. Who knows maybe they changed it on their side. I wrote down everything I saw. I was seeing all these process running for the same app. in my applications. My phone was getting hot, freezes but its people that live in my apt complex and at work. can you help?
zzm5 said:
Hi there, I need help, someone is consistently hacking into my phone, htc evo 4g, they are penetration testers and pc savvy, currently I cant login to the phn for trying to do a factory reset. They kept intercepting me and now my password does not work. Who knows maybe they changed it on their side. I wrote down everything I saw. I was seeing all these process running for the same app. in my applications. My phone was getting hot, freezes but its people that live in my apt complex and at work. can you help?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is your device rooted?
I used root explorer and removed the HtcLoggers.apk and other than the forced close loop that removing it caused (requiring me to remove the battery), after rebooting all seems to be working fine.
EDIT: Actually I didn't just delete HtcLoggers.apk but moved it to a safe location on the SD Card in case there was a problem and it needed to be restored. I highly suggest you do this instead of just deleting it, or better yet, a nandroid backup.
there are a few good ROMS out there that have the ICQ loggers removed already.
Do we really need three threads on the front page about the same thing?
For the community's information, I feel I need to create this thread to warn others:
Global IT security leader, ESET today announced that its engineers have spotted the first instance of a file-encrypting ransomware for Android. Once it has successfully infected a devices, this Android trojan scans the SD card for certain file types, encrypts them, and demands a ransom in order to decrypt the files.
After launch, the trojan displays a ransom message and encrypt files in a separate thread in the background. The ransom message is written in Russian and the payment is demanded in Ukrainian hryvnias. The message roughly translates to:
WARNING your phone is locked!
The device is locked for viewing and distribution child pornography, zoophilia and other perversions.
To unlock you need to pay 260 UAH.
1. Locate the nearest payment kiosk.
2. Select MoneXy
3. Enter {REDACTED}.
4. Make deposit of 260 Hryvnia, and then press pay.
Do not forget to take a receipt!
After payment your device will be unlocked within 24 hours.
In case of no PAYMENT YOU WILL LOSE ALL DATA ON your device!"
The malware directs the victim to pay using the MoneXy service as it is not as easily traceable as using a regular credit card.
Android/Simplocker.A will scan the SD card for files with any of the following image, document or video extensions: jpeg, jpg, png, bmp, gif, pdf, doc, docx, txt, avi, mkv, 3gp, mp4 and encrypt them using AES. It will also contact its Command & Control server and send identifiable information from the device like its IMEI.
The sample analyzed by ESET is in the form of an application called ‘Sex xionix’. It was not found on the official Google Play store and the company estimates that its prevalence is low at this time but believes that this is most likely a proof-of-concept or a work in progress.
In light of such advanced malware, Pradeesh VS, General Manager at ESET Midlde East provided the following advice to Android Users, “We encourage users to protect themselves against these threats by prevention- by using mobile security solutions such as ESET Mobile Security for Android- and adhering to best security practices, such as keeping away from untrustworthy apps and app sources. If they are unfortunate to already be infected, they should recover the files from a backup. Because when you have a backup, then any Filecoder trojan- be it on Android, Windows, or any operating system- is nothing more than just a nuisance.”
Happy I don't keep anything on my phone seeing I'm always flashing,but this is good to know. Thanks for the info
Sent from my HTCONE using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Jeez...These Trojan coders don't do anything good with their skills... Smh.. Thanks for the information!
Sent from my HTC One using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Something similar has been effecting iPhones for a couple of weeks. Just be careful what apks you install.
Shouldn't the Verify Apps option in Android protect you from these things? That's basically the point of that option.
Perhaps good news.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ian-hacked-created-zeus-cryptolocker/9919985/
Prophet16 said:
Shouldn't the Verify Apps option in Android protect you from these things? That's basically the point of that option.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doesnt Verify Apps just check apps on the Play Market? If so this would not work as article states its not found in the Market..
Also, ESET is reporting this and also suggesting users use there virus software lol.. Shamless plug to get the work of their own software out there, self promoting, maybe they have a vested interest..
twerg said:
Doesnt Verify Apps just check apps on the Play Market? If so this would not work as article states its not found in the Market..
Also, ESET is reporting this and also suggesting users use there virus software lol.. Shamless plug to get the work of their own software out there, self promoting, maybe they have a vested interest..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No I think Verify Apps was supposed to check only non play store apps. That's why the first time you install an app from a file manager or something it'll ask you to allow Verify Apps to check app security.
Anybody else upset that you cannot root the device and install common linux shell utilities on it such as ssh, curl, etc? I created a petition for google to create a set of shell utilities for all android owners, regardless as root. Even without root, there is no reason we can't use ssh. This is common on most linux hosts. Please have a look and consider signing the petition, or give me feedback.
https://www.change.org/p/google-inc...utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
nothing stops you from making this yourself, or using one of the existing ways to run a ssh server
Terminal IDE provides lots of GNU utilities, but hasn't been updated for 5.0 compatibility https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.spartacusrex.spartacuside&hl=en
SSHDroid provides a SSH server https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=berserker.android.apps.sshdroid&hl=en
Hi #Sual, while you are correct, SSHDroid provides an SSHd server, However it does not provide a native ssh client, I could run through the connected device. I have tried many things suggested by users, but none of them offer a set of shell utilities I can run from the android host shell itself. Did you have a chance to read through the petition and fully understand what I'm requesting. Similar functionality would come from dan drowns android ports, or lil debi, or busybox, but all require root. Finally the fact things aren't updated for 5.0 compatibility, underscores that There is a reason that people desire this functionality on the device itself. Thanks for your feedback.
Saul Goodman said:
nothing stops you from making this yourself, or using one of the existing ways to run a ssh server
Terminal IDE provides lots of GNU utilities, but hasn't been updated for 5.0 compatibility https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.spartacusrex.spartacuside&hl=en
SSHDroid provides a SSH server https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=berserker.android.apps.sshdroid&hl=en
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are ways to run Busybox without root. Here's an app that makes it dead simple: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=burrows.apps.busybox. I've used it on my XT1528 (Verizon Moto E) with great success.
There are also ways to run Debian without root, like KBOX: http://kevinboone.net/kbox3.html
I couldn't read your petition because the link is bad.
But I don't know why this is something you feel is owed to you by Google. I agree that it'd be useful, but it's totally not something I'd expect to be part of a mobile platform at all. It's clearly something you could make on your own. If existing solutions require root, it's in part because that makes it easier or because their creators assume that everyone has root.
ecaslak said:
There are ways to run Busybox without root. Here's an app that makes it dead simple: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=burrows.apps.busybox. I've used it on my XT1528 (Verizon Moto E) with great success.
There are also ways to run Debian without root, like KBOX: http://kevinboone.net/kbox3.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi @ecaslak ,
I will try your suggestions. Most recently I've tried GNURoot Debian, which uses proot. However I was unable to use the open ssh server I installed on it. However, I will still stand by my petition.
A significant portion of the Android community spends great effort trying to root their devices, many with only the desire for common functionality that we have from any core linux distribution. While having root itself on a device would be great, it should be expected that google provide all device owners with basic functionality found in most core linux distributions for the last 20+ years. Not including an option for basic user utilities ( ssh / wget or curl / most of what is included in busybox, a fairly powerful common shell such as bash or similar ) , that most non-root accounts have on practically all systems, limits the freedom of expression and ability to create that users have come to expect from a GNU Linux distribution.
While root can be enjoyed on many devices, this is often only available to a small segment of the population who either pays a significant amount more for a unlocked device with a free bootloader, or spends a significant amount of time trying to root their device. Android does seem to provide a small set of simple userland utilities such as ls, cat, but not much beyond that. This is a request to provide a set of utilities similar to what is found on most any common Linux distribution.
While their is some concern for manufacturers or communication companies to lock their users devices down, there should be no concern allowing basic utilities on all android devices. To be specific, what harm does allowing somebody to download a file through a terminal using wget or curl, or to ssh into a host , or the phone itself? Similar functionality to these kind of operations are provided to developers in the form of the Android SDK, and or libraries and programs that can be installed on all android platforms. However having simple system shell utilities is quite different that writing an application. Then there should be no harm in making them more accessible to the Android community, in said form. Finally the communications companies will benefit from increased usage, and therefore data billings from providing these features.
This petition requests that Google compile / create / maintain / distribute a set of common linux shell utilities to be included with the device, or provided through the play store for all Android versions moving forward. The people who are signing this petition believe that any owner should be able to use common *nixy functionality on any personally owned android device, regardless of device manufacturer or communication company.
Furthermore, we believe that by creating a standard distribution for these tools will reduce the effort of many people doing the same thing in their own time. That a standard will improve the tools themselves, and improve the Android experience to the community at large.
Google Android has stood on the back of giants, and taken the Linux kernel and wrapped a nice system and SDK around it, with the exception of removing some of the core functionality included in most any Linux system. Thus Android is significantly limiting the freedom of users. This is a proposal for the middle ground, which will allow a better system for everyone, even people who have no root or unlocked device.
Finally I Had a look at the kbox project, I think this sentence from their site underscores the challenge users face:
"Android is not Linux, as Google repeatedly tells us — and getting ordinary Linux desktop utilities to work in Android can be a chore, to say the least."
Hi @sual, I believe change.org is having some issues with their servers the past few days. Sorry for the dead link. I re-posted above and found it working. I also pasted the petition arguments above. It is my belief that if enough people desire a feature, then it is reasonable to ask Google to provide such a feature. I think it's reasonable to create a petition for something you believe in. Finally I appreciate your feedback, and have considered your point of view.
Saul Goodman said:
I couldn't read your petition because the link is bad.
But I don't know why this is something you feel is owed to you by Google. I agree that it'd be useful, but it's totally not something I'd expect to be part of a mobile platform at all. It's clearly something you could make on your own. If existing solutions require root, it's in part because that makes it easier or because their creators assume that everyone has root.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Finally, another link in case the copy link from the change.org platform is broken.
https://www.change.org/p/google-inc...-linux-shell-comands-for-the-android-platform
Incredibly few Android users root. And Android is not a traditional Linux distribution; it's a mobile OS that happens to use the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux distributions contain all these common tools because large essential portions of them are written in scripting languages and because they are needed for operation of the system. These things are simply superfluous in Android.
Google hasn't removed any functionality from a Linux distribution in the building of Android. They build a totally different system using Linux as the kernel. and have no need to include other separate components that comprise a standard Unixlike environment Just like all kinds of other embedded devices do. In this sense, Linux is a commodity OS kernel that competes with other open-source and proprietary ones. Furthermore, Android in particular depends on non-POSIX mechanisms like wakelocks and SELinux and uses an unPOSIXlike approach to isolate different apps (different uid per app).
I suggest you start writing code or organize a project and recruit developers to build this.
@sual Developers have already built plenty of Android binaries. I can build em. Look here: http://dan.drown.org/android/ . There are busybox sets all over the play store. The problem remains that they are usually crippled if installed without root. Crippled beyond the point of what you can do with a user account in most Linux environments. I thought the desire for this would be greater, but maybe I'm just an odd fish. I should save up and look for a platform that meets my wants and needs.
If tools running as a non-root user on Android seem more crippled than a non-root user on a typical Linux distribution, it's because Android uses a different UID per app for isolation purposes. Which is a good thing. Hence the existence of the "system" user on Android, accessible via adb, which has many more permissions than available to any particular app. Making even this set of permissions more widely available to apps would be a security nightmare, there's a reason you have to deliberately turn on developer mode then again enable ADB, and a reason why you (afaik) have to have root if you want to enable ADB over wifi on the device itself.
With that said, you should be able to package your own tools and run them via the adb user on any Android device, no?
WARNING: This is not a place for you to come to say how great you think Chainfire is. I'm not calling his character into question, only his methodologies and the character of the outfit he sold out to (and I don't question the act of selling out, that's business, pays the bills, and puts kids through college). The debates about what people prefer and why are as old as the first software. And of course, I will not tell you what to do, no matter how much I disagree with you. If you UNDERSTAND what I have to say, then THIS software is for you. If you don't, you are probably better off with binaries.
The root situation on Android 5.x left a lot to be desired. There was basically just one distributor of a functional substitute user command (su), and it was binary. Recently, ownership of that binary and all of its history has become the property of a previously unknown legal entity called "Coding Code Mobile Technology LLC". While it was presented as a positive thing that that entity has a great involvement with android root control, this is actually a VERY frightening development.
The people at CCMT are no strangers to the root community. They have invested in, or own, a number of popular root apps (though I am not at liberty to disclose which ones) - chances are, you are running one of them right now. I believe SuperSU has found a good home there, and trust time will not prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are precisely two motives I can imagine for buying up all the root control software for Android;
1) monetizing it, which is contrary to the user's best interests,
2) something very frightening and dangerous involving the potential exploitation of everybody's devices.
You don't know the owners, and they are distributing a binary, so who the heck knows WHAT is going on.
Now a few important considerations with respect to your security and privacy;
1) Obfuscated binary cannot be sanely audited.
2) Function of this binary depends on the ability to manipulate selinux policies on the fly, including RELOADING the policy altogether and replacing it with something possibly completely different. Frankly, I've never heard a single reason why this should be necessary.
3) While a root control application may give you nice audits over other software that is using its service, it can *EASILY* lie about what it is doing itself. It can delete logs, it can share root with other applications that they have made deals with, it can directly sell you out to spammers, etc.
That is WAY too dangerous, and not worth the risk.
Frankly, you are safer if you disable selinux AND nosuid, and just run the old style of root where you set a copy of sh as 6755. And that is FRIGHTENINGLY dangerous.
So not satisfied with this state of root, and especially now with a new unknown entity trying to control the world, we bring you the rebirth of the ORIGINAL Superuser:
https://github.com/phhusson/Superuser
https://github.com/lbdroid/AOSP-SU-PATCH (this one is mine)
From the history of THAT Superuser:
http://www.koushikdutta.com/2008/11/fixing-su-security-hole-on-modified.html
Yes, look at the Superuser repo above and see whose space it was forked from.
Note: This is a work in progress, but working VERY well.
Use my patch against AOSP to generate a new boot.img, which includes the su binary.
Features:
1) selinux ENFORCING,
2) sepolicy can NOT be reloaded.
3) It is NOT necessary (or recommended) to modify your system partition. You can run this with dm-verity!
The source code is all open for you to audit. We have a lot of plans for this, and welcome suggestions, bug reports, and patches.
UPDATE NOVEMBER 19: We have a new github organization to... "organize" contributions to all of the related projects. It is available at https://github.com/seSuperuser
UPDATE2 NOVEMBER 19: We have relicensed the code. All future contributions will now be protected under GPLv3.
*** Regarding the license change; according to both the FSF and the Apache Foundation, GPLv3 (but not GPLv2) is forward compatible with the Apache License 2.0, which is the license we are coming from. http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html . What this means, is that it is *ILLEGAL* for anyone to take any portion of the code that is contributed from this point onward, and use it in a closed source project. We do this in order to guarantee that this VITAL piece of software will remain available for EVERYONE in perpetuity.
Added binaries to my the repo at https://github.com/lbdroid/AOSP-SU-PATCH/tree/master/bin https://github.com/seSuperuser/AOSP-SU-PATCH/tree/master/bin
These are *TEST* binaries ONLY. Its pretty solid. If you're going to root, this is definitely the best way to do so.
The boot.img has dm-verity and forced crypto OFF.
The idea is NOT to use as daily driver, while I can make no warranties at all regarding the integrity of the software, I use it myself, as do others, and its pretty good.
What I would like, is to have a few lots of people try it out and report on whether things WORK, or NOT.
IF NOT, as many details as possible about what happened, in particular, the kernel audit "adb shell dmesg | grep audit". On non-*nix host platforms that lack the grep command, you'll probably have to have to add quotes like this in order to use android's grep: "adb shell 'dmesg | grep audit'".
How to try:
0) Starting with a CLEAN system.img, get rid of supersu and all of its tentacles if you have it installed, if it was there, it will invalidate the tests.
1) Install the Superuser.apk. Its just a regular untrusted android application. Yes, there is a security hole here, since we aren't (yet) authenticating the communications between the android application and the binaries, or validating the application by signature, or anything else that would prevent someone from writing a bad Superuser.apk. This is on the list of things to do.
2) fastboot flash boot shamu-6.0-boot.img
3) test everything you can think of to see if it works as expected.
Note: there are some significant visual glitches in the android application, but nothing that makes it unusable.[/quote] @craigacgomez has been working on fixing up the UI. Its really paying off!!!
How you can reproduce this YOURSELF, which we RECOMMEND if you feel like daily driving it (in addition, make sure that you UNDERSTAND everything it does before you decide to do that, you are responsible for yourself;
You can build it any way you like, but I do my android userspace work in eclipse, so that is what I'm going to reference. Import the project from phhusson's git, including SUBMODULES. Right click the Superuser project --> Android Tools --> add native support. The library name you choose is irrelevant, since it won't actually build that library. Right click project again --> Build configurations --> Build all. This will produce two binaries under "libs", placeholder (which we won't be using), and su. You need the su binary. Then right click project again --> run as --> android application. This will build Superuser.apk, install it, and launch it.
Next:
repo init -u https://android.googlesource.com/platform/manifest -b android-6.0.0_r1
repo sync
Then apply su.patch from my git repo.
UNFORTUNATELY, the repo command isn't smart enough to apply a patch that it created itself. That means that you are going to have to split up the patch into the individual projects and apply them separately to the different repositories. This isn't that hard of a step though, since there are only FOUR repositories I've modified... build/ (this just makes it possible to build with a recent linux distro that doesn't have an old enough version of openjdk by using oraclejdk1.7. The boot.img doesn't actually need the jdk to install anyway -- its just part of the checking stage, so its up to you.), device/moto/shamu/, external/sepolicy/, system/core/.
After applying the patches, copy the su binary you generated with eclipse into device/moto/shamu/
Then ". build/envsetup.sh; lunch aosp_shamu-userdebug; make bootimage". That should take a minute or two to complete and you will have a boot.img built from source in out/target/product/shamu/
NEW UPDATE!!!!
While I haven't yet gotten around to running a complete cleanup (very important family stuff takes priority), I *HAVE* managed to find a half hour to get on with the Android-N program. If anybody takes a peek at the AOSP-SU-PATCH repository on the AOSP-N branch, you should find some interesting things there.
One warning first though... I updated the patches to apply against the N source code, and then updated some more to actually compile, and compiled it all. BUT HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TEST IT YET.
Nice thing you came up. Sounds awesome.
We should have an alternate to all LLC thing, no matter how much respect (I owe you Chainfire thing) we got for the man who created CF Root (since Galaxy S days) and SupeeSU.
wow, tyvm for this! Will definitely test for ya and let you know.
I already applied your patch, built my own binaries and the boot.img but won't have a chance to test anything until tomorrow. Would love to get this %100 working fine and yeah, will use this from here on out instead of supersu.
Thanks again and yeah, will post when I have something ^^
I will be following progress closely, as should others. Without something like this, many in the community may naively let a corporate entity control root access on their devices. This is extremely frightening, it may not happen right away but if you believe the an entity will not monetize or exploit the current situation I believe you are sadly mistaken.
I could be wrong, however, it's not a risk I will take lightly and no one else should either.
Thanks for this.
Nice work!! Will be following this thread closely.
Time for me to learn eclipse. And do a heck of a lot more reading.
Larzzzz82 said:
Time for me to learn eclipse. And do a heck of a lot more reading.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just note that I use eclipse because I'm used to it. Its become the "old" way for android dev.
i just paid for superSU is this the same people?
TheLoverMan said:
i just paid for superSU is this the same people?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure what you are asking... are you asking if I am in any way affiliated with supersu, then you probably failed to read the first post in this thread altogether.
Charging money for a binary blob to use root on your device is borderline criminal, and unquestionably immoral. I'm sorry to hear that they got something out of you.
This is pretty great. I'll be watching this as well.
Perhaps this is not the place to take the tangent but why does root behave as it does and not more similar to a standard linux distro? It seems like it would be much more secure to have a sudo function as opposed to an all encompassing root. I'll admit I'm not that familiar with the inner working of the android OS but off hand I can't think of any program that absolutely needs to be automatically granted root every time it wants to run (I'm sure there are but even in this case the power user could chown it to standard root).
Wouldn't it be much more secure if you had to go in to developer options (which are already hidden by default) and turn on the option for sudo. This would then require a sudo-user password (perhaps even different than the standard lock screen password). Need to run a adblock update? Enter the password. Need to run Titanium backup? Enter the password... etc. Much more secure than a push of "accept".
Sorry for off topic but it's always made me wonder and seems like it would be root done right (see how I tied that back to the topic ) If elevating programs/tasks to a superuser was more secure perhaps it would not need to be such an issue...
^ Some root functionality is just too common for a Linux like sudo password to be usable at all. I'll give 2 examples:
1. Since Lollipop Google disabled access to mobile network settings for third party apps. Now it's only possible with root. I have an app that together with Tasker automates my network changing. That network app needs root access EVERY time there is any changes to the connected network and when it wants to change the settings.
Phone connects to a different cell tower? Root needed to detect this and determine the mobile network status.
You can figure how many times this is required per day.
2. I use Greenify to force some misbehaving apps to sleep after the screen goes off. It needs to request root every time it wants to sleep one of those apps. In other words every time I use them, after my screen goes off and I turn it back on I'd be facing both my secure lockscreen and the sudo password.
There's are plenty of other apps that need to request root access on a regular basis. These were just a few examples. If you only need root for TiBu then a sudo password type of security measure would work. In my case all I'd be doing with my phone would be typing that password again and again.
Beyond what is said above, to my understanding... What "root" is is just a way to install the "su" binary to your phone, with a nice GUI to make it more friendly for phone/tablet use.
Being rooted, if memory serves, is being able to access and change any file in your root directory, at least that's a simplified way to see it. The SU app is a GUI that is mostly used to control the ability of apps to access and change the root directory.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Interesting thread. Thanks for your work....subscribed
doitright said:
There are precisely two motives I can imagine for buying up all the root control software for Android;
1) monetizing it, which is contrary to the user's best interests,
2) something very frightening and dangerous involving the potential exploitation of everybody's devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would suggest that there is a third potential motive here - that having control over the "only" way of rooting Android devices might be attractive to Google.
I've read a few articles suggesting that they would prefer to prevent people from rooting their phones (partially so that they can monetise Android Pay - which requires a Trusted Computer Base, which means unrooted - as well as controlling Ad Blockers, which affect a revenue stream). I also suspect that only a tiny minority of Android users - and most of them are probably on here - actually root their devices.
Regardless of the motives, having a technological monoculture is never a good thing, especially when it is delivered as a binary owned by an unknown organisation.
(No disrespect to Chainfire - I have had many years of root access to my devices thanks to his efforts.)
scryan said:
Beyond what is said above, to my understanding... What "root" is is just a way to install the "su" binary to your phone, with a nice GUI to make it more friendly for phone/tablet use.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not quite.
"root" is the *name* of a privileged user, with user id of 0.
The "su" command (short for substitute user), is used to substitute your current user for another user, but most particularly root.
Every application and many subsystems in Android are granted each their own user, which are very restrictive, hence the need to escalate to root to obtain necessary privileges.
Philip said:
I would suggest that there is a third potential motive here - that having control over the "only" way of rooting Android devices might be attractive to Google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What does that have to do with the third party? I doubt very much that Google would appreciate the security of their users being compromised by a 3rd party.
urrgevo said:
Being rooted, if memory serves, is being able to access and change any file in your root directory, at least that's a simplified way to see it. The SU app is a GUI that is mostly used to control the ability of apps to access and change the root directory.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope. The root directory can be setup to be accessible by specific users just by applying the appropriate permissions to the files.
The root directory and root user are not specifically related.
doitright said:
What does that have to do with the third party? I doubt very much that Google would appreciate the security of their users being compromised by a 3rd party.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because the "third party" might actually be Google (or an organisation funded by them).
---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:02 ----------
doitright said:
Every application and many subsystems in Android are granted each their own user, which are very restrictive, hence the need to escalate to root to obtain necessary privileges.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Shouldn't need to su to root to do this - that's what setuid and setgid are for.