Related
Okay so I've got a theory about Motorola encrypted bootloaders like the ones on DX and Milestone. What I'm looking for is definitive information on the droid x lockout mechanism. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Also, if anyone knows of a broken DX to utilize for this experiment please let me know. It involves a hardware based process so a complete functional phone is not necessary. This method has been known to work with RSA encryption so it shows promise. Thank you.
MrKaz
From what I've heard, the "key" so to speak, in burned into the CPU itself. Its my understanding the only true way to unlock the BL is with Moto's keys, which we wont be getting any time soon. Whatever your plan is, I wish you the best. But we've had roughly 20+ of these threads come and go on here with everyone thinking they can crack it, and nothing ever pans out. Its a matter of the right people with knowledge and the right equipment to do the job, but those things have just not come together yet.
Once again, I wish you the best!
You may want to contact @aliasxerog, @_mrbirdman_, and/or @nenolod on twitter as they have all worked on trying to break/circumvent the bootloader. @P3Droid may be knowledgeable as well.
Yeah, I realize there's been a lot of threads on this. Having read a good deal of them I've determined that for the most part the consensus is that it can't be done, or at least not by any brute force means. However, I'm interested in other ways like signal injection and other hardware based avenues. After all, it is a chip and chips have flaws... Maybe I don't know enough to realize what it would take, and maybe being too stupid to understand that it can't be done is exactly what is required...
Thanks for all your input
MrKaz
MrKazman said:
Yeah, I realize there's been a lot of threads on this. Having read a good deal of them I've determined that for the most part the consensus is that it can't be done, or at least not by any brute force means. However, I'm interested in other ways like signal injection and other hardware based avenues. After all, it is a chip and chips have flaws... Maybe I don't know enough to realize what it would take, and maybe being too stupid to understand that it can't be done is exactly what is required...
Thanks for all your input
MrKaz
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
MrKaz,
+1 to your idea. Hey, who knows what will work.. with all that is going on, I wouldn't be surprised if the one idea that works..is some off the wall idea such as a chip flaw... Go for it man... I say take the idea and run with it.
best of luck
Your idea is one that I have been working on. All that needs to happened is find a way to dump the info to a computer and resign or make a dummy key to patch and inject back in.. unfortunately I have yet been able to inject anything because once dumped and cleared it doesn't regonize still active.. blah DX
MrKazman said:
Okay so I've got a theory about Motorola encrypted bootloaders like the ones on DX and Milestone. What I'm looking for is definitive information on the droid x lockout mechanism. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Also, if anyone knows of a broken DX to utilize for this experiment please let me know. It involves a hardware based process so a complete functional phone is not necessary. This method has been known to work with RSA encryption so it shows promise. Thank you.
MrKaz
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is this the electron starvation method that you speak of? From my understanding, that's a server exploit. Not really useful for a DX.
You want to be gamed up with the isht? #milestone-modders on freenode
gpaulu said:
You may want to contact @aliasxerog, @_mrbirdman_, and/or @nenolod on twitter as they have all worked on trying to break/circumvent the bootloader. @P3Droid may be knowledgeable as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Boooooooooooooooo...
_mrbirdman_ & nenolod dropped the ball and jumped ship.
P3Droid is better at BS and espionage than development. I mean, who actually uses tranquility? Or hasn't been bricked by it? Beside, what's been the biggest draw TBH has had to their app? The tether patch? If you were me, you'd be LYAO... LOL
As for @aliasxerog, from what I've seen, I've got very little faith that his efforts will pan out. Unless he stops looking to the above mentioned "devs", and starts working with the milestone guys. Especially yakk, who's probably done the most work on the kexec kernel module(Funny, aliasxerog's src makes no mention. He just says he ported it from the milestone efforts.). Yakk hasn't even released all of his code for kexec, so what aliasxerog is working with is incomplete, and certainly not up-to-date. His source doesn't even compile. Not even on my trusty build system that built the first DX overclock kernel module for Froyo, which jumped off JRummy's DX career(Jared didn't even bother to say "hey, mind if I use the module you built?"). Gotta love the DX devs! They bring so much laughter into my life!
.....
With that said, MrKazman, good luck in your efforts.
http://www.and-developers.com/boot:boot_chain
You may want to take a look at this. I think it's about the milestone, but it is similar to if not the same as the droid x
tekahuna said:
Is this the electron starvation method that you speak of? From my understanding, that's a server exploit. Not really useful for a DX.
You want to be gamed up with the isht? #milestone-modders on freenode
Boooooooooooooooo...
_mrbirdman_ & nenolod dropped the ball and jumped ship.
P3Droid is better at BS and espionage than development. I mean, who actually uses tranquility? Or hasn't been bricked by it? Beside, what's been the biggest draw TBH has had to their app? The tether patch? If you were me, you'd be LYAO... LOL
As for @aliasxerog, from what I've seen, I've got very little faith that his efforts will pan out. Unless he stops looking to the above mentioned "devs", and starts working with the milestone guys. Especially yakk, who's probably done the most work on the kexec kernel module(Funny, aliasxerog's src makes no mention. He just says he ported it from the milestone efforts.). Yakk hasn't even released all of his code for kexec, so what aliasxerog is working with is incomplete, and certainly not up-to-date. His source doesn't even compile. Not even on my trusty build system that built the first DX overclock kernel module for Froyo, which jumped off JRummy's DX career(Jared didn't even bother to say "hey, mind if I use the module you built?"). Gotta love the DX devs! They bring so much laughter into my life!
.....
With that said, MrKazman, good luck in your efforts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I love your honesty!
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Syco54645 said:
I love your honesty!
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Beesley doesn't... LOL
http://twitter.com/TheRealBeesley/status/30036655129763840#
@LexusBrian400
build.prop edits vs. Droid X Froyo Overclocking & AP Mode Tethering
Maybe I should put up a donation link, huh? LOL
P.S. I can't help but think your username is a reference to B-Legit's verse on Sideways... Little known fact: The Ambassador himself gave me the handle FreeWELL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YXGvsbSjLw
Didn't notice that you mentioned jared. I rather like him. Let's just leave it at that...
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Update
I'm getting more and more familiar with this situation every day. I'm also starting to realize what a big problem this is. I've spent a good deal of time pouring over the work they're doing with the Milestone which is kind of the same thing but isn't. Nonetheless I applaud the work they do and donate my CPU to Androinc. After that I've been reading and collecting every Block Diagram, Datasheet, Whitepaper, and post about mbmloader, m-shield, omap, and the like. Yeah, its complicated alright. The fact is though that its just a lock. A lock is a system based on deterrent not prevention. Systems built for mass production have accepted flaws to keep costs down. Chips aren't perfect, code is not perfect. Use the weakness against the system and the lock is picked. The more complex the system the more chances to get in....
Eh, I digress...
Anyone wanting to learn more about this let me know.
The search continues....
Kaz
Motorola, I paid for the Hardware. I can handle my own software and security...
The Bootloader has been bypassed, its just that the custom kernel has no drivers to run.
Ubermicro13 said:
The Bootloader has been bypassed, its just that the custom kernel has no drivers to run.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well ill drive to help out...as long as someone has some snaps on the petro!
Sent from my DROIDX using XDA App
If this is anything like any other locked software, it's based around asymmetric encryption: Motorola HQ has a super-secret key that they use to encrypt their bootloaders, and they put the decryption key on every device, so that only things that are encrypted with their key will be decrypted correctly. The only way we're going to get the encryption key is by sleeping with the CEO of Motorola. It is - by design - not on the device.
The only way to replace the bootloader would be to replace the decryption key with one of our own or by bypassing it completely(using a buffer overflow or something similar).
As much as I want to believe that this can be done, its close to impossible and honestly not worth the persons time to try it, they did a good, well great, job of locking this thing down but ill say that liberty actually makes this feel like a new phone.
Sent from my DROIDX using XDA App
IWHBYD said:
If this is anything like any other locked software, it's based around asymmetric encryption: Motorola HQ has a super-secret key that they use to encrypt their bootloaders, and they put the decryption key on every device, so that only things that are encrypted with their key will be decrypted correctly. The only way we're going to get the encryption key is by sleeping with the CEO of Motorola. It is - by design - not on the device.
The only way to replace the bootloader would be to replace the decryption key with one of our own or by bypassing it completely(using a buffer overflow or something similar).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just take one for the team there buddy.... lol
Sent from my DROIDX using XDA App
what does the CEO of motorola look like?
Enjoy
http://mediacenter.motorola.com/Executive-Team/Sanjay-Jha-31da.aspx
openbox9 said:
Enjoy
http://mediacenter.motorola.com/Executive-Team/Sanjay-Jha-31da.aspx
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not it *noses*
Well, i just found out about two things. People including our own designgears have the stock SBF file http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=11952597#post11952597 but seems like they won't give it to us because they think someone will lose their job.
While we don't want anyone to lose their jobs, i don't think they can trace it back so i really don't understand dg's reasoning in this.
The second thing is that since dg is asking how to flash this thing, i'm guessing he has his atrix (or another atrix) back, since his first motivation in returning it was the lack of the sbf in order to unbrick his device.
DG how about you ask your source for his opinion? Does he really think he can get traced to you? If not, i would guess it would be ok with him to leak this to us.
It's only right to HONOR the source's request. You don't like it? Go find a Motorola contact.
If you think that companies like Moto cant digitally sign software. Oh wait whats that boot loader issue again?
franciscojavierleon said:
Well, i just found out about two things. People including our own designgears have the stock SBF file http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=11952597#post11952597 but seems like they won't give it to us because they think someone will lose their job.
While we don't want anyone to lose their jobs, i don't think they can trace it back so i really don't understand dg's reasoning in this.
The second thing is that since dg is asking how to flash this thing, i'm guessing he has his atrix (or another atrix) back, since his first motivation in returning it was the lack of the sbf in order to unbrick his device.
DG how about you ask your source for his opinion? Does he really think he can get traced to you? If not, i would guess it would be ok with him to leak this to us.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its clearly stated in the thread, the source does not want the file given out. Mods can we please close this thread before it starts a war over a file thats not being released.
I understand the source wants it kept on the DL... But why even bother giving it out at that point?
That's like someone saying here's a free lambo, but the catch is you can't take it out of the garage so I don't get in trouble.
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
Clienterror said:
I understand the source wants it kept on the DL... But why even bother giving it out at that point?
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because the Atrix isn't accepting the file through RSD, xoom uses a similar chipset. So hes asking the Xoom devs for help making RSD work. Hes not flaunting hey I got the sbf and you don't.
YellowGTO said:
Because the Atrix isn't accepting the file through RSD, xoom uses a similar chipset. So hes asking the Xoom devs for help making RSD work. Hes not flaunting hey I got the smf and you don't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh no I understand DG isn't being an ass or anything, I was just curious.
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
Clienterror said:
Oh no I understand DG isn't being an ass or anything, I was just curious.
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can promise you, if anything comes out of this. DG will give out all the info he can.
well of course i don't mean to start a war but yes i am curious i thought any sbf file would work with rsd lite and when i started the thread i didn't see an indication that the file didn't work right now. Rather, i was happy because it looks like dg got an atrix back (he even said in another topic that he tested debian on the atrix)
I would understand if the file hasn't been leaked because it didn't work, although dg isn't the only dev and maybe the other guys can make something about it, but the file can't get traced back to the original insider.
Probably just need the right version of RSD lite
sorry i am not a dev i am just curious on dev, what is the significance of a SBF file? is that equalivent of an OS of a pc? where we can wipe the pc clean and load os at will?
it lets you reload your stock os if the phone gets bricked so hard and adb cannot be used. it's basically the #1 reason of why dg returned his phone, because he had the risk to brick his phone and couldn't go back to stock. it seems that he has his phone back which is very nice for us.
franciscojavierleon said:
it lets you reload your stock os if the phone gets bricked so hard and adb cannot be used. it's basically the #1 reason of why dg returned his phone, because he had the risk to brick his phone and couldn't go back to stock. it seems that he has his phone back which is very nice for us.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you have the SBF and software to flash it, motorola phones become stupidly hard to actually brick. It saved me a couple times on my old backflip
The sbf will, from what I understand, give devs a better idea on how the bootloader works. Hopefully this takes them.one step closer to unlocking it.
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App
If it's true that DG has his Atrix back, then woot! At least he'll be able to dev much more safely, and won't go through 9999 devices.
Clienterror said:
I understand the source wants it kept on the DL... But why even bother giving it out at that point?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As DG is valued member of the developer community I imagine that someone more or less attempted to bribe him with it to keep his atrix and continue developing. This in no way is meant as a slight against his source or DG.
Man_of_Leisure said:
As DG is valued member of the developer community I imagine that someone more or less attempted to bribe him with it to keep his atrix and continue developing. This in no way is meant as a slight against his source or DG.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea, I could see someone giving him a bribe especially if they had a captivate before this (been running perception for a llllooonnggg time now). Although I respect the leeks wishes, I do think he/ she is maybe a tad paranoid. I'm sure enough people have access to this at moto that they couldn't trace it back with any amount of certainty.
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
franciscojavierleon said:
well of course i don't mean to start a war but yes i am curious i thought any sbf file would work with rsd lite and when i started the thread i didn't see an indication that the file didn't work right now. Rather, i was happy because it looks like dg got an atrix back (he even said in another topic that he tested debian on the atrix)
I would understand if the file hasn't been leaked because it didn't work, although dg isn't the only dev and maybe the other guys can make something about it, but the file can't get traced back to the original insider.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
franciscojavierleon said:
Well, i just found out about two things. People including our own designgears have the stock SBF file http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=11952597#post11952597 but seems like they won't give it to us because they think someone will lose their job.
While we don't want anyone to lose their jobs, i don't think they can trace it back so i really don't understand dg's reasoning in this.
The second thing is that since dg is asking how to flash this thing, i'm guessing he has his atrix (or another atrix) back, since his first motivation in returning it was the lack of the sbf in order to unbrick his device.
DG how about you ask your source for his opinion? Does he really think he can get traced to you? If not, i would guess it would be ok with him to leak this to us.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Clienterror said:
Yea, I could see someone giving him a bribe especially if they had a captivate before this (been running perception for a llllooonnggg time now). Although I respect the leeks wishes, I do think he/ she is maybe a tad paranoid. I'm sure enough people have access to this at moto that they couldn't trace it back with any amount of certainty.
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, you guys seem to be pretty certain about something you know not much about then again it is not your job that is on the line here. I find it even more interesting that you think because many people have access to it that is difficult to trace. I can tell you from experience depending on the deployment method, you can trace this stuff to a particular machine and user. I personally do not know what motorola is doing but I am glad he is respecting the source wishes.
Back in WM days Microsoft was known for doing this stuff. Many time when you got an internal leaked build, you had to go through it to ensure there were no finger prints. You literaly had to scrub it to ensure traces were gone.
Thread Closed, any sub-sequential threads regarding this will also be closed in respect for DG and his source. Do not press this issue.
Un-root And update download the file from here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=975888 and apply. This will give you stock and S-on.
That simple!
Thanks for the info, but the fun is just beginning. This is always good to have just in case you have to return it.
You should be able to load any stock RUU. As long as the hboot and the recovery exist in the RUU, it should return you to a stock condition.
Jaywan, how about a simple root and s-off?
It's simple to make a app run the commands needed to make a one click rooter. And easier to edit a already working rooter to work for this phone. Idk why he don't want the one click released. Took me 30 minutes to root.. maybe he only want people to root using his method. I not gonna step on his toes by posting one tho...
Sent from my ADR6400L using XDA Premium App
ok ok, I hear yah. I will just bite the bullet and type in all 90 of the commands tomorrow when I get off work.
BTW, I left the MT4G and came over to verizon also. I went to the SGS4G before I left tmobile. Lack of dev support for that phone made me give it up. Thanks for coming over to the Thunderbolt.
also, take a look at this thread I started. Somethings up with this one click unroot deal.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1004567
Jaywan said:
It's simple to make a app run the commands needed to make a one click rooter. And easier to edit a already working rooter to work for this phone. Idk why he don't want the one click released. Took me 30 minutes to root.. maybe he only want people to root using his method. I not gonna step on his toes by posting one tho...
Sent from my ADR6400L using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I heard him meantion he wants people to learn adb so if something happens further down the line they can use it
Seriously I'm with him, the hardest part about adb for me was getting it installed. The root was easy and took 30 min
sent from my Thunderbolt
For what its worth, he said feel free to post the one clicks, just give credit. I dont honestly care however, copy, paste, seemed simple enough. Was no where near as hard as the original root method for the DInc.
Sent from my ADR6400L using XDA App
The only legitimate reason I could buy about not wanting a one click released, is if SOMEHOW it would make our phones vulnerable to some sort if attack.
As background, I've ben using custom roms since my old g1 was new and JesusFreke was just getting started and I dont ever recall ANY dev with holding something that would make the users lives easier. In recent history I've done a ton of flashing roms with both mine and my wifes old vibrants and the only time I used adb was if I wanted to push a file to the phone without mounting it on my computer.
PERSONALLY, this whole mess sounds of ego and elitism. I am incredibly greatful to the devs who have paved the way, but fearful of what they are trying to do. No one should have the right to prevent another from releasing something, it's in gross violation of the gpl. If a dev wants to code something under a different license, fine. However it needs to be clearly annotated as such, and devoid of any gpl work itself. In other words, it basically can't contain anything related to android unless it was developed 100% blind through an emulator.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk
Can't step on my toes, I got stealtoe boots...
I want a chance to review any one clicks before release. I REALLY want new users to understand what they are doing BEFORE they try one clicking.
I want proper md5sum verifications, I want proper warnings, etc.
I already stopped the release (until fixed) of one 1click root that would of been REALLY bad for the community and anyone using it.
Ppl need to stop blaming me for this crud.
ShanDestromp said:
The only legitimate reason I could buy about not wanting a one click released, is if SOMEHOW it would make our phones vulnerable to some sort if attack.
As background, I've ben using custom roms since my old g1 was new and JesusFreke was just getting started and I dont ever recall ANY dev with holding something that would make the users lives easier. In recent history I've done a ton of flashing roms with both mine and my wifes old vibrants and the only time I used adb was if I wanted to push a file to the phone without mounting it on my computer.
PERSONALLY, this whole mess sounds of ego and elitism. I am incredibly greatful to the devs who have paved the way, but fearful of what they are trying to do. No one should have the right to prevent another from releasing something, it's in gross violation of the gpl. If a dev wants to code something under a different license, fine. However it needs to be clearly annotated as such, and devoid of any gpl work itself. In other words, it basically can't contain anything related to android unless it was developed 100% blind through an emulator.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you a troll or do you really believe all that crock you just posted?
The issue with one clicks was an increased risk of bricking with this method. And where does the GPL even come in here at, any GPL code we used as released before the root was even up.?
I stopped a one click from being released today that not only left your phone vulnerable to an attack, but also left you with an outdated, faulty radio and other faulty firmware.
Either you are a troll, have a personal issue with me, or have a seriously problem.
jcase said:
Can't step on my toes, I got stealtoe boots...
I want a chance to review any one clicks before release. I REALLY want new users to understand what they are doing BEFORE they try one clicking.
I want proper md5sum verifications, I want proper warnings, etc.
I already stopped the release (until fixed) of one 1click root that would of been REALLY bad for the community and anyone using it.
Ppl need to stop blaming me for this crud.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
omfg most of us been rooting since g1 came out THE FIRST DAY come on if modaco was working on this aka paul. like his app visionary he would have it out.... who cares most of us know adb... but i dont want to turn s off i just want root access to remove **** and do a couple mods. why is this such a big fuc88ing deal just release the app and we will all be grateful of who release one click root
jesemalave1 said:
omfg most of us been rooting since g1 came out THE FIRST DAY come on if modaco was working on this aka paul. like his app visionary he would have it out.... who cares most of us know adb... but i dont want to turn s off i just want root access to remove **** and do a couple mods. why is this such a big fuc88ing deal just release the app and we will all be grateful of who release one click root
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
o.m.g.
Dude it doesn't work that way on this phone. It is not the G1, z4/visionary/anyonphoneroot does not work, root REQUIRES adb (even with one click).
Fact is, you can't root this phone, temp or perm, one click or not, without ad.
If you can find a way, please do. We are awaiting your one click, root that does not use adb, and is not dangerous.
fyi one click has been released, hours before your post.
Code:
while (true) {
facepalm();
}
I'm going to cut out all your attacks, because you've clearly missed my point in its entirety and decided to get defensive.
jcase said:
The issue with one clicks was an increased risk of bricking with this method. And where does the GPL even come in here at, any GPL code we used as released before the root was even up.?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I brought the GPL in because like it or not, you don't have the right to say who can and cannot release anything regarding "one click" roots UNLESS you yourself made an essential piece of the current rooting method, that is in its entirety your own. To make an analogy, you can't patent (and thus control the distribution) to a Toyota Carolla, simply because you assembled the whole thing from spare parts. If you were to completely design and fabricate a motor vehicle without using off-the-shelf parts you WOULD have that right.
There is nothing personal in my view of this against you, I don't hold any grudges against anyone; but its the mentality here that irritates me, and it just happens that you're the one that posted it:
jcase said:
I want a chance to review any one clicks before release. I REALLY want new users to understand what they are doing BEFORE they try one clicking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand you want people to learn; I really do. I've done enough work with computers that I too get really irritated at people who demand answers to questions answered much faster by doing a quick search. I also understand why you want to avoid screw ups because of a poorly made one click. HOWEVER, just because you WANT people to get them cleared through you first; does not mean they HAVE to or that you have a right to demand that they do.
jcase said:
I stopped a one click from being released today that not only left your phone vulnerable to an attack, but also left you with an outdated, faulty radio and other faulty firmware.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And thus you've found the wonder of open source software. Sometimes crap gets released. But guess what? Every one of us here are supposed to be adults, or at the very least the authorized users of our phones; which means that if we screw something up, or use something that screws up; its our own damn fault.
The whole purpose of OSS is to allow freedom of ideas and development. I don't know how old you are, or what your experience with OSS outside of Android phones are; but I personally have seen PLENTY of OSS software that started out as utter crap, turn into wonderful software packages. Maybe you're old enough to remember KDE2 vs KDE4, or how about pre v1 Mozilla vs modern versions of Firefox.
I'm not some OSS nutter; I've got no problem with closed source or proprietary software; just a problem with others trying to control things they have no right to.
All that having been said, maybe you DO hold software rights related to some piece of the current rooting method. If so I've seen nothing indicating so, nor anything indicating that any part of the rooting method is not OSS; however if you DO, then you have my apologies, as you would indeed have control over distribution of that specific piece. You still would not be able to prevent distribution of any one click that were released provided they simply had users download your piece separately.
You are missing the point, and obviously did not read anything. This will be my last time wasting time with you until then.
I never said THEY CANT release, I asked them not to, until we had a safer way and time to check it out. Big difference. I stopped one from going out today that would of more or less ruined phones until someone fixed them.
Fact is, MOST of the one clicks I have seen lately, violate the GPL, why don't you go after them, or hell even better we could really use you to go after HTC (in all seriousness).
ShanDestromp said:
I'm going to cut out all your attacks, because you've clearly missed my point in its entirety and decided to get defensive.
I brought the GPL in because like it or not, you don't have the right to say who can and cannot release anything regarding "one click" roots UNLESS you yourself made an essential piece of the current rooting method, that is in its entirety your own. To make an analogy, you can't patent (and thus control the distribution) to a Toyota Carolla, simply because you assembled the whole thing from spare parts. If you were to completely design and fabricate a motor vehicle without using off-the-shelf parts you WOULD have that right.
There is nothing personal in my view of this against you, I don't hold any grudges against anyone; but its the mentality here that irritates me, and it just happens that you're the one that posted it:
I understand you want people to learn; I really do. I've done enough work with computers that I too get really irritated at people who demand answers to questions answered much faster by doing a quick search. I also understand why you want to avoid screw ups because of a poorly made one click. HOWEVER, just because you WANT people to get them cleared through you first; does not mean they HAVE to or that you have a right to demand that they do.
And thus you've found the wonder of open source software. Sometimes crap gets released. But guess what? Every one of us here are supposed to be adults, or at the very least the authorized users of our phones; which means that if we screw something up, or use something that screws up; its our own damn fault.
The whole purpose of OSS is to allow freedom of ideas and development. I don't know how old you are, or what your experience with OSS outside of Android phones are; but I personally have seen PLENTY of OSS software that started out as utter crap, turn into wonderful software packages. Maybe you're old enough to remember KDE2 vs KDE4, or how about pre v1 Mozilla vs modern versions of Firefox.
I'm not some OSS nutter; I've got no problem with closed source or proprietary software; just a problem with others trying to control things they have no right to.
All that having been said, maybe you DO hold software rights related to some piece of the current rooting method. If so I've seen nothing indicating so, nor anything indicating that any part of the rooting method is not OSS; however if you DO, then you have my apologies, as you would indeed have control over distribution of that specific piece. You still would not be able to prevent distribution of any one click that were released provided they simply had users download your piece separately.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree!! If anyone is in violation of GPL license it is HTC.
And once we have that kernel source in the hands of the community amazing things will happen!!
Once the custom kernels start flying you will see the TB doing crazy things. I can only imagine 2GHz speeds or insanely efficient battery life (to name a few)!
ShanDestromp says "And thus you've found the wonder of open source software. Sometimes crap gets released. But guess what? Every one of us here are supposed to be adults, or at the very least the authorized users of our phones; which means that if we screw something up, or use something that screws up; its our own damn fault. "
This has got to be the stupidest statement I have read in a long time, I can guarantee, If you used a 1-click method and it bricked your phone you would be screaming " where's the oversight in this forum, I cant' believe that that mods would allow faulty programming to be posted."
Jcase I for one am glad you are stepping up and doing what needs to be done to prevent a potential $750 brick, thank you sir.
jcase said:
I never said THEY CANT release, I asked them not to, until we had a safer way and time to check it out. Big difference. I stopped one from going out today that would of more or less ruined phones until someone fixed them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not privy to any private conversations, nor do I read every thread here on XDA, so my general impression, which I'm sure is shared based upon what others have said, was of a more explicit "No you cannot," not a "do you mind if I take a peek first". Furthermore, I did not name any one individual "responsible" for any blockade; I only began to interact with you once you brought yourself into the thread. Beyond that, if you go back to my original post, I explicitly thank the people who made root possible at all.
jcase said:
Fact is, MOST of the one clicks I have seen lately, violate the GPL, why don't you go after them
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For starters I don't know much, if anything about them other than they exist. Unless I personally see something that I think is in violation, I assume good faith. I certainly don't seeking violations.
jcase said:
or hell even better we could really use you to go after HTC (in all seriousness).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm guessing you're referring to the fact that they didn't release the kernel source as expected this week? I'd mentioned it in another thread, though I don't recall which anymore; but from what I recall of GPLv2 developers have 60 days from the "official" binary release to provide source. To expand on that, HTC has 60 days from when the phone officially went on sale, to provide upon request the source code to any GPL licensed software, however it is version specific. That is to say 60 days from March 17th to make available the source to the firmware that was on the phone when released (since to the best of my knowledge there have been no other OFFICIAL firmware versions released).
Of course any such source will inherently exclude any third party proprietary software, for example if HTC used a closed-source bluetooth stack (not saying they did, just a hypothetical example). Additionally, there isn't any specific method to release stipulated. If HTC wishes they could mail out copies of the source on 3.5" floppies and still be within the rules; and all this assumes GPLv2 is how Android is licensed. If its v3 then I honestly have no clue if any time provisions exist.
I just want to reiterate, I have no ill-will to you nor anyone else. It appears as though the whole issue stems from miscommunication.
Hi everyone,
as the LG G2 is produced by the same manufacturer (LG) as the Nexus 5 and has the same chipset (despite some minor differences e.g. Battery, Display,...), I have been wondering if there is a way to port the Kali-Linux Android ROM (Nethunter) to work with the LG G2.
LINK: http://http://www.kali.org/kali-linux-nethunter/
LINK:http://http://www.offensive-security.com/kali-linux-nethunter-download/
The mere existence of a MAHDI ROM port from N5 to G2 makes me think, that it should be possible.
I would also be quite keen on getting involved in such an effort but I am not very fluent in porting Android ROMS.
I have basic coding skills and am not afraid of learning new stuff so I'd really appreciate if one of the Android-Gurus would kind of orchestrate the whole thing.
Thanks for your attention and good bye.
mick
That would be really awesome!
Yeah, but it seems it will remain a dream, as the members to whom this is addressed to, obviously do not read the Q&A Forums. Why should they anyway?
The problem is, if I open a development-thread it's not unlikely, that someone will be playing the wrong-forum-double-post-card.
mickmattes said:
Yeah, but it seems it will remain a dream, as the members to whom this is addressed to, obviously do not read the Q&A Forums. Why should they anyway?
The problem is, if I open a development-thread it's not unlikely, that someone will be playing the wrong-forum-double-post-card.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To be honest, I'd say look at Dr87's github. He ported Mahdi over... Though really I don't think that the rom itself is "ported" so much as the drivers/kernel/ramdisk need to be modified to work with the code on this device.
I would suggest starting by getting the rom source you want. Then setting up the device in the source using the devices/kernel/vendor files he made. You'll likely get errors during the build, but it would give you a starting point.
There are many, many guides out there on porting roms to new devices. Read through some of those if you haven't and it might help to steer you in the right direction.
Yoinx said:
To be honest, I'd say look at Dr87's github. He ported Mahdi over... Though really I don't think that the rom itself is "ported" so much as the drivers/kernel/ramdisk need to be modified to work with the code on this device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you mean, that it is not "ported" due to the fact that the chipsets of both devices are the same?
I would suggest starting by getting the rom source you want. Then setting up the device in the source using the devices/kernel/vendor files he made. You'll likely get errors during the build, but it would give you a starting point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I'm going to try that. Sounds promising.
There are many, many guides out there on porting roms to new devices. Read through some of those if you haven't and it might help to steer you in the right direction.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't want to look lazy, but as you pointed out, there are many guides out there. Some are old, most are really old. Can you name one or two particularly good ones?
Anyway, thanks for your suggestions...it's going to be a long night.
No, I mean the rom source doesn't seem to need heavy changing typically. Usually the changes to the rom code at large is pretty minimal. Most of the time you need to tweak the device files to work with the rom (caf changes and such).
To be honest, I'd point you toward the Cyanogenmod guides... they have some custom commands but their guide would probably be the most up to date of any.
That should be correct. They have a FAQ at the Nethunter site where they say, that one could use the rom by building a rootfs. This would imply, however, that one could not use the features that come with a dedicated kernel.
So, yes, the rom part should not be the problem. The kernel part will be problematic. I think I'll send a message to dr87, perhaps he has some advice,too.
Just to make it clear, I bought this device some days ago and I want to be quite sure that my messing around with it will not brick or damage it somehow.
Ok. So I'll have a look at the CM-Guides.
I just read about this for the nexus 5 and googled for the lg g2 and came across this thread. I would love to get this working on my g2, gonna do some more googling and see if I can find anything else going on.
twist said:
I just read about this for the nexus 5 and googled for the lg g2 and came across this thread. I would love to get this working on my g2, gonna do some more googling and see if I can find anything else going on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hello
Is it possible to install NetHunter a device is jailbroken.
My phone Is LG G2 ....
.........0x0........
Would be freaking awesome!!
I am learning how to port Ubuntu, at the moment. Once I learn that, I can attempt to do it with Kali. Sound good? It may a take a bit, but better than no one trying at all.
SamsungIsBetterThanApple said:
I am learning how to port Ubuntu, at the moment. Once I learn that, I can attempt to do it with Kali. Sound good? It may a take a bit, but better than no one trying at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so, its been 6 years... Did u do it?
Hey there XDA! I need a little help with something. I'm trying to test some new optimizations, and there's one change that could make a huge difference or no difference at all, and I need more people than just me to help test it. The rom used for testing is my build of PureNexus, due to its closeness to stock aosp and assortment of features. Please make sure the rom fits our needs if you are unfamiliar. No user-end features have been changed. Both of the roms are compiled with a custom SaberMod 4.9 toolchain and DragonTC 3.9.
Obligatory "im not responsible if you brick your device"
The Experiment:
There are 2 builds that will be in the link downloads folder, Test A and Test B. There is one change between the two, in fact, it's just one Boolean value. Please help by downloading and flashing them, and reporting your experience.
The Rules:
Run each build for at least 1 day
Use your normal kernel with your normal settings
Please don't use xposed
Include your favorite benchmark and examples of differences (ex. app opening is slower/faster)
The experiment will end April 15th, please submit your results by then
The Downloads:
https://basketbuild.com/devs/frap129/Nexus%206%28shamu%29/Test
Thanks in advanced! The changes I made and the difference between the two will be released after the experiment ends!
Reserved for results and such
I'd love to flash this and test it out, but I'm going to need a bit more info. What are the changes you made? Also, if I do flash, is a full wipe necessary before I try the first as well as in-between the two?
It seems that a lot of what you are trying to test (benchmark, lag, possibly battery life) is a strong function of the kernel and not the ROM. So if your are asking the people to use their own kernel I'm not sure the feedback you get is comparable from person to person.
Also, as mentioned in the past above, it helps if you explain what these roms are, what they are based on, if you have complied them yourself or not, do they have any built in features different from stock, etc.
mrjiggywiggy said:
I'd love to flash this and test it out, but I'm going to need a bit more info. What are the changes you made? Also, if I do flash, is a full wipe necessary before I try the first as well as in-between the two?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The point of the experiment is to be a double blind test, therefore I would prefer not to say what change has been made. I have compiled both of these from source using SaberMod 4.9 and DragonTC 3.9, if that helps you at all. Thanks for your interest.
najoor said:
It seems that a lot of what you are trying to test (benchmark, lag, possibly battery life) is a strong function of the kernel and boot the ROM. So if your are asking the people to use their own kernel I'm not sure the feedback you get is comparable from person to person.
Also, as mentioned in the past above, it helps if you explain what these roms are, what they are based on, if you have complied them yourself or not, do they have any built in features different from stock, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your first statement is part of why I want to do this. Because the change was not to the kernel, any increase in performance should be maintained regardless of the kernel, though it may vary. In regards to your second statement, I stated in the OP that they are my builds of PureNexus. Obviously, no features were changed to remain consistent for the sake of the test. Nonetheless, thank you for your input. I will add more info to the OP
frap129 said:
.... I would prefer not to say what change has been made.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You should tell !
Will flash A tomorrow and B the day after tomorrow in a MultiROM (need Android N this week)
Also, any interest in a revival of G Watch developing?
NLBeev said:
You should tell !
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will once the experiment is over!
konradit said:
Will flash A tomorrow and B the day after tomorrow in a MultiROM (need Android N this week)
Also, any interest in a revival of G Watch developing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the help! and not at the moment. I had started working on a new rom, but then 6.0 came out and I had to scrap most of my work. Maybe when I get a little more free time.
frap129 said:
I will once the experiment is over.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK. You are using the 'placebo effect'.
The user/patient may think it works. But in practice more that 50% may become unsatisfied.
Good luck with the experiment!
NLBeev said:
OK. You are using the 'placebo effect'.
The user/patient may think it works. But in practice more that 50% may become unsatisfied.
Good luck with the experiment!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope, for this to be placebo I would have to say which one should work better for the user to believe that it actually works better. There is a legitimate difference between the two, but one is not necessarily "better"
You are gonna be hard pressed for people to test this out with the vague way you put it. Let alone using those 2 useless tool chains. Many wont look twice just because of those.
Also one boolean change is not gonna make any real diff.
zelendel said:
You are gonna be hard pressed for people to test this out with the vague way you put it. Let alone using those 2 useless tool chains. Many wont look twice just because of those.
Also one boolean change is not gonna make any real diff.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Neither of them are useless, and this one boolean actually caused a major difference by changing the way that ART is compiled and targeted for a device. Please don't spread ignorant garbage without a little thought. It only hurts the community.
frap129 said:
Neither of them are useless, and this one boolean actually caused a major difference by changing the way that ART is compiled and targeted for a device. Please don't spread ignorant garbage without a little thought. It only hurts the community.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not. Many developers have already called out the so called tool chains making a big diff. Why do you think none of the temp use them?
Either way good luck to you
to avoid all the arguing would it be possible for you to make 2 builds one pure untouched aosp with pure untouched aosp kernel and the other with just your one change based off the first? Seems that would simplify things greatly
adm1jtg said:
to avoid all the arguing would it be possible for you to make 2 builds one pure untouched aosp with pure untouched aosp kernel and the other with just your one change based off the first? Seems that would simplify things greatly
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well then I would have to download AOSP source code, which would take about a day with my internet speeds (and im not that patient lol). I honestly don't understand why using PureNexus is a problem.
frap129 said:
Well then I would have to download AOSP source code, which would take about a day with my internet speeds (and im not that patient lol). I honestly don't understand why using PureNexus is a problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have to understand that people will not run a rom just to test something that most devs say are placebo.
A few months ago tool chains were all the talk and people found out for themselves.
zelendel said:
You have to understand that people will not run a rom just to test something that most devs say are placebo.
A few months ago tool chains were all the talk and people found out for themselves.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I stated before, the difference between the two builds is not a toolchain, both use the same ones.
I imagine self reporting will be .... Anecdotal and skewed. Unless a person does exactly the same things in the same amount, error will ensue. Also use will likely vary moreso between a typical weekday and a Friday. If he dataset is big and diverse enough, these can be considered nominal but that means many hundreds of instances at the least. How do u plan to normalize the data, will there be measures of dispersion published?.... Don't mean to be that guy but unless u control the controls the results will not be robust and conclusive. I want to see this work and not have people's impressions be skewed by systemic flaws! I'm all about empirical evidence and ROM development and promotion are laden with unverifiable claims about performance and battery life. "Benchmarks don't matter" is all I hear. I would love to see standardized testing with repeatable data producing unbiased comparisons so the mystery is removed and claims are verifiable.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Guess the test is over with few to no takers.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using XDA Free mobile app
Nothing