Can it be done?
emudojo said:
Can it be done?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, search next time please =)
Short answer is no with an adp build but if you really want paid apps you can install JFRC33 to get access to them.
I don't know where these guys are coming up with their info. You most definitely CAN access paid market with ADP, IF you have installed the update available at www.htc.com in the support section.
The only requirement is that you have a US or UK sim card installed, I don't think that it is necessary for the card to be active.
not so short answer
Well, people are kind of right about not being able to download paid apps. I have an ADP1 1.1 phone using Three as my provider here in the UK and I see SOME charged apps. BUT apps that the developer 'copy protects' arel not available. (see below for the unfiltered version)
This is a load of cr4p on Google's part because the 'copy protection' is simply installing the app to a protected directory (no encryption, no validation, nothing). As the ADP1 phone has root, we can get easy access to the apk file, and since we are all criminals we will post them to warz sites. Of course the reality is that there are far more rooted G1s out there (that CAN get all forms of paid apps) then there are ADP1s.
But, of course, Google has plausible denyability when it comes to hacked G1s. This is not the case with ADP1s. I suspect that this was a decision from the law department in Google.
The only sure way to get ALL the apps on an ADP1 is to install one of the hacked JesusFreek ROMS or flash it to a stock G1
Here is the official word from the android developers (http://android-developers.blogspot.com/)
"Some developers have asked about the support for copy-protected apps on developer devices, and indeed there is a limitation you should be aware of. Many developers are concerned about the unauthorized redistribution of their applications, so they make use of the copy-protection feature (known as "forward locking") which prevents applications from being copied off devices. However, developer phones like the ADP1 allow for unrestricted access to the device's contents, making it impossible to enforce copy protection. As a result, the Market application on such devices is not able to access copy protected apps, whether they are free or paid. If you choose to add copy protection when you upload your application to the Android Market, then you won't be able to test it on the ADP1's Android Market client. Your application will always be accessible to users who have standard configurations though, and if your application (whether it is free or paid) is not copy-protected it will appear on all devices, including developer configurations."
lbcoder said:
I don't know where these guys are coming up with their info. You most definitely CAN access paid market with ADP, IF you have installed the update available at www.htc.com in the support section.
The only requirement is that you have a US or UK sim card installed, I don't think that it is necessary for the card to be active.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What update????
Try clicking on the link and going to the support section as I said. THAT update.
I don't see any updates for the G1 under the support section, only FAQ, User Guides, and Tips & Tricks. Do you have a direct link?
http://www.htc.com/www/support/android/adp.html
Thanks for the direct link. I was looking under G1... opps. I want to try and switch over to adp, but wont flashing the updates from the link mean I cant flash to a modded build? Even if I can see protected apps with this update, if I chose to use a Modded image, then I will lose the ability once again right?
Im sorry if im not getting this, but I just want to be on an ADP1.1 build that allows me to see AND purchase all apps... Even protected ones, while still being able to run the scripts and other developments that this community has brought. Will this help me accomplish that???
Sorry in advance
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.
Malicious code was found in a patch disguised as an official Google update designed to remove malware from Android-powered smartphones, according to security firm Symantec.
The impostor Android smartphone security patch was discovered at third-party Chinese marketplace and is called "Android Market Security Tool," the same title Google gave its authentic over-the-air update.
Symantec's find is the latest development in the wake of a hack on about 50 Android apps at the Android Market that affected approximately 260,000 downloads.
The outbreak of the DroidDream malicious code prompted Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) to take measures to shore up smartphone security for the family of Android handsets and to issue an over-the-air update to remove the malware from users' handsets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Found at internetnews.com/mobility/article.php/3927771
Probably won't affect many people here since it's in a third-party Chinese marketplace but I figured it was still worth posting.
From what I've heard the security tool is an OTA and you get notification by email. I'm not sure why anyone would download the trojan.
Googles Bouncer is basically an app-crawler that scans all the apps in the Android Market, including every new submission. It checks for known trojans and malware, much like a security app on your phone might, while also analyzing how apps run in a virtual machine, to try and ferret out new threats. Finally, Bouncer also tracks developer account behavior, so repeated offenders are caught when they open a new account to cause havoc with.
Another technique by google is use of sand-boxing to prevent malware from accessing data. it doesn’t have permission to the system itself, and the fact that Android is designed so that malware can’t make changes to the OS itself – which means all you have to do to clean an infected phone is remove the offending app.
what do you think of new security features?
I would be interested in sandboxing on my phone, do you have any tutorial links or just general information for me you can share?
can anyone make a patch for all variants of hd2 roms from gb up i used the bluebox app to check if my phone was vunerable for this bug 13678484 (fake id) and my daily driver barebone cm7 v2b was, and id say all roms developed for hd2 are vunerable have searched the net for how to patch this vunerability but cant find the info abywhere this is something i think all xda devs for this device will have to sort out as we cannot get help from carriers on this as this is what advice is given "contact your carrier or phone vendor for patch. if anyone has advice on how to sort this out would be very thankful i think xda should run a piece about this vunerability and what steps are being taken by all devs on xda to patch this vunerabilitu for older handsets likemy hd2.
Bluebox Security revealed a significant security flaw that affects all Android devices since version 2.1. Our hyperbolic title mocks the fact that he had little to ignite the Internet powders. If the fault is real, it should take a step back and put the case in context instead of screaming panic for nothing.
A serious flaw that affects a large number of terminals
Very schematically, the fault Fake ID allows malware to authenticate using the signature of a known application to hide its true origin. The firm provides an example of a virus masquerading as an Adobe Systems and Google software which would be able to become a Trojan horse or steal data used by Google Wallet acquiring the necessary permissions without using the user.
The flaw is serious. However, Google has already been made aware, he has already released a patch he sent to his partners, he corrected the flaw in Android 4.4 KitKat, he scanned the Google Play and can say that no application in its store uses this vulnerability. Finally, Verify Apps, which monitors the behavior of applications on an Android device, is also fixed and can detect an application attempting to exploit Fake ID.
A patch already in place and a flaw in a very limited scope that still show that Google still has work to do in terms of security
In short, it is true that it is possible to be a victim of this fault, but it requires a terminal that has not been updated, download an application containing malware does not come from Google and Play Verify Apps have disabled or have an Android version of which is free. Suffice to say that the cases in question are very limited.
This flaw shows that Google still has work to do in terms of its security strategy. Last month, we décriions lax features the Play Store. Today, we are dealing with a flaw of a limited scope, but was discovered by analyzing the shortcomings of the source code of the operating system.
This flaw shows that Google still has work to do in terms of its security strategy. Last month, we décriions lax features the Play Store. Today, we are dealing with a flaw of a limited scope, but was discovered by analyzing the shortcomings of the source code of the operating system.[/QUOTE]
while the info you have given is fine and i thank you for it, but there are other app stores people use beside google play store and reading up on this bug it is still possible their phones could become compromised downloading apps from them?
A Big Big Thank You
Just an update: opssemnik backported the fake id xposed module and it works perfectly with gb roms a big big thank you to him. he also supplied a link in the comments on http://www.xda-developers.com/android/fight-fake-id-vulnerability-xposed/ So once again a big thank you to opssemnik