Audit my code please - Windows 8 Development and Hacking

Audit my code please - Windows 8 Development and Hacking

Short version: I programmed a Windows 8 Oauth app. I didn't know where to post this, but it's mostly done in javascript and HTML so I figured this forum might be best. If others have time, I'd really appreciate it if someone would audit my code. Due to the nature of the amount my request, I thought it would be best to post a link to the GitHub repo. If this is wrong, please correct me.
GitHub: https://github.com/mepis/Windows8OauthAuthenticator
Long Version: I use 2-step for a lot of my accounts. The problem is, I'm lazy. I don't feel like getting up to get my phone after I set it down at night. I wanted a metro Oauth app for Windows 8. I looked on the store, but didn't recognize any of the developers. Due to the nature of Oauth, I choose to err on the side of caution and not use the apps. I'm not saying that other devs aren't well intentioned and good devs. I'm just saying that it's a better idea in the name of security that I not use the apps if I can't verify anything. So I decided to write my own.
That leaves another issue though. Due to the nature of Oauth, the token device shouldn't be on the same device you're putting passwords in. I'm choosing to ignore this a bit. I do recognize that tokens shouldn't be stored in plain text though in the Windows storage space. Instead, I push and pull the token from the Windows Credential Manager and the password vault.
I was thinking of running the tokens, labels, and account names through an AES algorithm and then storing that information in the credential manager. This would require a user password on opening the app though. I'm not sure I want to go that route yet, though it would be easily implemented later on.
The mission of this app is simple. I want to offer an Oauth app that is open source and able to be audited by the general public. I want others to have access to a free tool that they can trust and review. I will never charge for this app nor ask for donations. It's also posted under the GNU version 3 license.
At some point, I am thinking about porting this app to Windows Phone.
I'm very much a amateur developer though. I was hoping that others could audit my app, offer suggestions, and point out mistakes. I very much appreciate any help or time that any person is willing to offer.

While you may well get some takers, and some of them might even know what they're doing, you realize you're asking for something that is usually done by people who do this stuff professionally for hundreds of dollars per hour, right? It's like writing up a legal contract and posting it online and saying "do you think this will hold up in court?"
OK, training to be a security engineer doesn't take as long as training to be a lawyer. But there's *more* lawyers than there are security engineers, and our time is very much in demand (yes, I'm a security engineer; no, I will not audit your code for free unless I expect to have a use for it personally).
I'm not even sure what you mean by "OAuth app". OAuth is a standardized protocol (v2.0, RFC 6749, is more accurately described as a framework) for delegated authentication. For example, you've seen how a lot of web sites let you sign in using your Facebook account? That's because they use Facebook as an OAuth provider. The website delegates the responsibility of authenticating users to Facebook, which is handy for them because they don't have to handle passwords and so forth, handy for the user because many users already have FB accounts, and handy for FB because they gain information about what kinds of sites you visit and can use that to target ads. It also has downsides, of course; the OAuth client (web site) has to trust that FB knows what they're doing and to remain available, the user gives FB info they might not want FB to have and also ends up essentially re-using passwords across sites (a bad idea), and FB bears the cost and responsibility of managing all those logins.
Now, to make any authentication scheme (including but not limited to OAuth) stronger, you can multi-factor authentication (sometimes called two-factor auth or 2FA). The most common way of doing that is using Time-based One Time Password (TOTP, standardized as RFC 6238) security tokens, either in small hardware devices or in mobile apps. Is that what this is supposed to be? Because... that has nothing to do with OAuth.
I have a hard time imagining a situation in which I'd use a TOTP generator written by somebody who didn't know the difference between TOTP and OAuth.

Well, your response thus far has been excellent (I'm not being sarcastic). I need to read more about Oauth then. I must have my definitions and understanding a bit confused.
In actuality, to phrase it better, the application would be a TOTP app then - like Google Authenticator. I used Javascript provided by Google for the TOTP generation. The app itself is rather simple. My biggest concern though is the safety of the tokens. I used Windows Credential Manager to store the tokens on the device. I couldn't find much information about the security of Windows Credential Manager though. That's my biggest concern.
Other than that, thanks for the information. I'm going to do some more reading.

For what it's worth (and without having read your code), it sounds like you're doing OK; TOTP generators are not complex by themselves, and usually the only threat to them is in the secret storage (which you're addressing). Of course, most of them offer things like QR code scanning (as a way to load secrets more easily) and I don't know if you have anything like that or whether there are any security pitfalls there.

Related

HTC Touch Pro2 as a HACKING tool?

Good evening folks,
I am considering buying the HTC Touch Pro2 when it is released in the USA on Tmobile. I would like to understand what hacking (security testing) tools are available on the Windows Mobile Platform. I am a security professional and have the desire to perform penetration testing from the HTC Touch Pro2.
It seems the MetaSploit framework is not available. I like to work with the command prompt, is the command prompt accessible on the HTC Touch Pro2? I've read some info about being able to mount ISOs or run emulators. Is there WiFi hacking software such as Kismet available?
Does anyone know what hacking tools are available for this platform?
Thank you!

Anyone have any ideas?

It doesn't run real windows, you can't get a command prompt. You'd be better off with a real machine.
There's a couple companies out there that sell WM devices for pentesting, but they are all provided with the hardware since they are focused on wifi and I don't believe the standard WM stuff lets you put it into promiscuous mode.
You'd probably be better off with an android device so you can just compile whatever you want.

MSFT products have never been suitable for comp-sec professionals.
You're better off connecting to a *nix box using either PocketPuTTY or using a webbrowser to connect to a remote server running metasploit.

Check out VxUtil, it gives you DNS, reverse DNS, port scan, ping, finger & so on. Pocket Putty is a good free SSH client, also does port forwarding.
OpenVPN works as well if that takes your fancy. Lots of security tools are available, they are just a bit obscure. I don't think nmap is around though.

thanks for the reply

Our company actually just released a new product (called Security Tools) that lets you ping, traceroute, do a WHOIS lookup, and even do port testing on your Windows Mobile phones. The port testing can even send clear text commands to a port such as 'GET / HTTP/1.0' to verify that it is a HTTP service listening on that port. The traceroute is also able to visually show the trace (if it's public IP address) on a map so you can kind of get a visual representation of where your traffic is going. Please feel free to try our one week free trial which lets you use the application for a week without limitations, so you can make sure everything works as you want before you buy.
You can visit the original post here at xda over at this thread:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=550473
or you can visit the website for the product at:
http://www.securenetworksystems.com/SecurityTools/

Punkster812:
I downloaded "security tool" , installed, got a license - and it was already expired...
Also, your company name is "secure network systems" and your web-pages are hosed in Microsoft IIS, and based on aspx .....seriously, if you wish to appear as a security company, you cannot use that crap.
the program with won't work because you serve old license, but one thing is clear; the icon is of very low resolution, and looks bad on WM6.5 or TouchFlo menu.
And: the long Device-ID is there only to annoy your customers, no pir8 would ever be bothered by it, so you may as well stick to 6 characters alphanumeric code +-+++...

AlCapone said:
Punkster812:
I downloaded "security tool" , installed, got a license - and it was already expired...
Also, your company name is "secure network systems" and your web-pages are hosed in Microsoft IIS, and based on aspx .....seriously, if you wish to appear as a security company, you cannot use that crap.
the program with won't work because you serve old license, but one thing is clear; the icon is of very low resolution, and looks bad on WM6.5 or TouchFlo menu.
And: the long Device-ID is there only to annoy your customers, no pir8 would ever be bothered by it, so you may as well stick to 6 characters alphanumeric code +-+++...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am sorry that you had troubles with the trial download, if you PM me with your Device ID I can get you one. We are aware of the low resolution, but rather than focusing on a pretty icon, we worked hard on a functional program. The long Device ID is not to annoy customers, it is actual a very secure method that we use and if you are able to break it, I would be very impressed; I know it's long but it's to protect our intellectual property and no other licensing method existed that prevent piracy like this does. We know ever method is breakable, but this accomplished our goal of restricting to the pirates that are going to steal software no matter what.
As far as the server... you are using a Microsoft product as well for you phone. We very rarely use Asp.net through our site, in fact it's only for license generation and to set up an order, but doesn't actually handle purchases. So the site is secure and I am confused on why you think our site is so insecure. I love Linux and Apache as much as the next network administrator. 4 out of 5 of my personal pc's run Linux with one set up with Apache for my personal site, but for our business needs, we went with IIS.
Again I am sorry that it didn't work for you, I will double check to see if it's still properly generating license, and remember, the trial starts from when you download the license, not run the application with the license.

regarding IIS: http://www.internetnews.com/securit...Microsoft+Rushes+to+Patch+FTP+Hole+in+IIS.htm
This finally got some attention, it was in fact being exploited for years, over several versions.
Hosting software on vulnerable servers gives an opportunity for hackers to easily repack your CAB with spyware/dialer, and you can guess the rest. - such CABs must be inspected for each download.
Regrading long serial number, it only makes a brute force attack harder, at best, which is usually not the method used. You can as well trunk it to a 6-7 char/alphanumeric number, and it will work the same, but annoy people less.
Remember you are at a forum where people often reflash, and entering long serials each time (if cannot be exported from registry) - is boring, and a motivation to workaround.

I can't remember what it's called, but there is a CAIN port for Windows Mobile.

Fmstrat said:
I can't remember what it's called, but there is a CAIN port for Windows Mobile.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you are right; - it's simply "Cain for PPC:"
http://www.oxid.it/downloads/Cain_setup_PPC.ARM.exe
and yes, it's far away from the "real" Cain.

AlCapone said:
regarding IIS: http://www.internetnews.com/securit...Microsoft+Rushes+to+Patch+FTP+Hole+in+IIS.htm
This finally got some attention, it was in fact being exploited for years, over several versions.
Hosting software on vulnerable servers gives an opportunity for hackers to easily repack your CAB with spyware/dialer, and you can guess the rest. - such CABs must be inspected for each download.
Regrading long serial number, it only makes a brute force attack harder, at best, which is usually not the method used. You can as well trunk it to a 6-7 char/alphanumeric number, and it will work the same, but annoy people less.
Remember you are at a forum where people often reflash, and entering long serials each time (if cannot be exported from registry) - is boring, and a motivation to workaround.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the link, I looked into and we are not vulnerable against the attack and never have been due to the attacks requirements (http://blogs.technet.com/srd/archive/2009/09/01/new-vulnerability-in-iis5-and-iis6.aspx). As far as brute forcing, without going into to much details, would be extremely difficult to do as it uses standards proven encryption algorithms. The extremely long serial that you are talking about is a unique ID for your phone. We know it's long and are always looking for ways to improve the licensing we use. The license is a file and not something that you key in, you copy to the installation directory; so you can keep a copy in your email, on your computer, flash drive, where ever for back up purposes in case you need to reload the app.
As far as reflashing, that is a very valid point. I am not 100% sure, but I believe reflashing should not hurt the license, which would hopefully mean you wouldn't have to enter your device id again. But if any one could confirm this, that would be appreciated. We know a lot of the people here are very advanced and know more about their phones then most the people at service providers or even the phone manufactures themselves sometimes, which is why we enjoy releasing our products here for testing before we release them to the public. In the little time that Security Tools has been up we have received some constructive feedback on what could be improved.

Punkster812 said:
As far as brute forcing, without going into to much details, would be extremely difficult to do as it uses standards proven encryption algorithms.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right, that's why I said long numbers would be good for only that, once the calculation/verification routine is extracted for a keygen, it's no more job whatever the result is 6 or 50 digits long.
- Therefore, you might save your customers from all the boring entry, because no keygen /(or crack) will be more difficult by having more digits.

Pls let someone explain!

I wonder why some apps require access to gps/my location and phone calls although they are not supposed to be in need of them, for instance some games like toss-it etc. Internet access may be required because of ads, and system tools for using the accelerometer sensor. That's it!
Really appreciate a reasonable, concrete response to this query as I principally refuse such apps as soon as I see such irrelevant demand on access although actually want to get them.
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App

I doubt that anyone can give you a definitive answer on this one, because it is going to be application dependent.
The whole point is that when you install an application, you review the list of permissions that it is requesting and then make a judgement as to whether you deem these to be acceptable or not. For example, if I were to download an application a video player, I wouldn't generally expect it to require location information and/or involve services that cost me money (e.g. sending SMS's), so I would refuse permissions for that app.
Regards,
Dave

Google or we -users/customers/cunsomers or whatever you may call- should request developers/sellers to specify why the particular app requires such accesses. They must include some clarifying statements in descriptions.
Personally I think I have right to know that, so that -more or less- we can keep us away from malicious softwares.
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App

iLHaNroID said:
Google or we -users/customers/cunsomers or whatever you may call- should request developers/sellers to specify why the particular app requires such accesses. They must include some clarifying statements in descriptions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Given that you can install applications from a non-Market source, this would be impossible to police for the most part. It could be implemented within the Market, but since you can submit apps to the Market without peer review, anyone submitting an application could post gibberish or blatant lies instead of clear statements.
Apple get around this by forcing all applications to undergo peer review, but then you only get to see the saccharin sweet Apple view of the world. Unfortunately, the threat of malware is the price you pay for an open system.
Regards,
Dave

[SDK] Promocodes for your app

Hello!
I'm software developer from Russia, and made one very popular app in local market. Very soon I realized that I need an ability to give licensed version of app for my friends or reviewers or someone else.
Unfortunately AppHub doesn't provide such functionality(private distribution is pain in ass), so I created a webservice for myself.
After two days I realized that it may be useful for other developers, so here it is:
promo.g33k.ru (here I wanted to post url, but I can't due to low post count. You may find it in my profile->interests)
Now it has:
- JSON/SDK with RSA1024/SHA1 sign for additional security checks
- Binary SDK available
- Russian localization(if anyone cares ) (btw, if you can help translating to other language(s) or correct english misspellings - i will appreciate this).
Now this service works in beta mode.
So for developers I have two questions:
1) Is such service useful for you?
2) How to develop it further, in which way?

Not yet clear
I am sorry, but after reading your post and also checking your website I am still not sure what you offer. For me there is just not enough information to understand and then judge the usefulness of your service.
Maybe you could give a step-by-step scenario: Dev does this, then interested user does that, dev then this ...

Ok, I'll try to describe a little more details:
1) Developer wants to add capability of promo codes in his app(to give some specific users full licensed app).
The first problem is that developer need his own server for checking of promo code validity(hardcoding is not an option, of course).
2) So, Developer registers in my service, add his app's guid to his app list and create a promo code for specific app via web.
3) Developer adds support for promo codes in his app by:
a) adding an text box for user to enter promode
b) adding a web request to specific URL for promocode activation
c) adding to his license check web request for checking is current user activated a promo code.
Benefits for developer:
- Add support for promo codes without owning a server.
- Simple way to give full version of program to friends
Benefits for users:
- User may found promo code for specific app somewhere and use it to get full version of app in simple manner.
Benefits for reviewers/portals:
- Developers can easily give promo code for reviewing purpose or as giveaway for news post.

Clear now
Thanks for the additional info, now it's clear
Well yes, sounds useful. Properly implemented is probably really easier than Microsoft's "closed beta" mechanism, and of course can be used for other, non-beta apps as well.
The icing on the cake would be a "frame application" as sample code that basically does nothing more than asking for a promo code and then check against the list of valid codes on your server.

Sounds intresting but how do you ensure security?

chabun, I thought about security and situation is same as with default checking for trial - there is no security Man-in-the-Middle and direct cracking of xap will work, and there is no way out. I could use RSA signing for MitM, but still cracking of xap is very easy option today, so no one really interested will try to use MitM. When WP8 SDK will be out(I believe it will be in several weeks) - some developers may implement trial checks in native code - this will be much harder to crack.
As for server part there are following possible problems
- App's ID squatting(same as domain, someone else could reserve developer's app's guid). Don't know yet what to do with this, may be think about it later when this happens?
- Promocode's for App ID bruteforce - could be easily avoided via server throttling, if this ever happens - i'll add such checks
- Server DDoS - every webmaster's nightmare, I hope this never happens(or my Amazon AWS will pour my purse empty
rbrunner7, nice idea, I'll add a sample app as soon as possible on site.

This looks like an interesting concept
Sent from my SGH-i917 using XDA Windows Phone 7 App

Yop, you can never avoid direct cracking... However, RSA signing would be good I'd say as it will avoid MitM - with MitM you could create simple tools which can be used by every noob outhere. Cracking xaps requires some skill and it will need an unlocked WP7 as well.

I can see this working i have been thinking about something similar also. You can encrypt the data on device before sending it off to the cloud, you can than verify the encrypted data with a password and compare it to the codes registered on the server. Than link a code to a certain device id (once the code becomes 'registered') if a certain code is already coupled to a deice id and the device is not the same than the app will jump back into trial mode. Otherwise one can use the paid mode.
This can defenetly work and will prevent reselling th codes. Although it requires a server. And users can still hack/patch the app ofcourse but that will require an unlocked device so I should not worry to much about it.
Also to prevent spoofing you can frequently check with the server if this device is legitetmately registered.

Marvin_S said:
I can see this working i have been thinking about something similar also. You can encrypt the data on device before sending it off to the cloud, you can than verify the encrypted data with a password and compare it to the codes registered on the server. Than link a code to a certain device id (once the code becomes 'registered') if a certain code is already coupled to a deice id and the device is not the same than the app will jump back into trial mode. Otherwise one can use the paid mode.
This can defenetly work and will prevent reselling th codes. Although it requires a server. And users can still hack/patch the app ofcourse but that will require an unlocked device so I should not worry to much about it.
Also to prevent spoofing you can frequently check with the server if this device is legitetmately registered.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's what I thought of... private/public key

chabun, so, for example, how about following scenario:
for each developer server creates public/private key pair.
when checking license on server: if success server encodes userid with developer private key
when checking license in app: server response decoding via public key(hardcoded in app) and comparing to userId. if ok -> licensed.

You might want to ask @ngreader guys on twitter. They do have this concept implemented in their app.

diverofdark said:
chabun, so, for example, how about following scenario:
for each developer server creates public/private key pair.
when checking license on server: if success server encodes userid with developer private key
when checking license in app: server response decoding via public key(hardcoded in app) and comparing to userId. if ok -> licensed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure if it would be good to encode the request to the server as well but otherwise it sounds really cool now... I'll use this service when I need this (and tell my friends about it)

Here is one way to do it http://stackoverflow.com/questions/599837/how-to-generate-and-validate-a-software-license-key

wpxbox said:
Here is one way to do it http://stackoverflow.com/questions/599837/how-to-generate-and-validate-a-software-license-key
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, what they suggest is not as good as diverofdark's service which is a lot more secure and still easy to use for the customers...

Greetings everyone!
Today I updated promo.g33k.ru, now it has:
- more detailed about page,
- SDK now includes RSA1024/SHA1 sign for additional security checks
- Binary SDK available
- Russian localization(if anyone cares ) (btw, if you can help translating to other language(s) or correct english misspellings - i will appreciate this).
- Many minor bugfixes.
So, from now this service works in beta mode

diverofdark said:
Greetings everyone!
Today I updated promo.g33k.ru, now it has:
- more detailed about page,
- SDK now includes RSA1024/SHA1 sign for additional security checks
- Binary SDK available
- Russian localization(if anyone cares ) (btw, if you can help translating to other language(s) or correct english misspellings - i will appreciate this).
- Many minor bugfixes.
So, from now this service works in beta mode
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks! I will check this out

Hey diverofdark
It would be nice if you update the first post in the thread with all information. That's the way it's usually done in the forum.
A possible user (here dev ) can read it and without having to browse the whole thread, he can use your promocode service...

Thanks for mentioning it, I updated the first post.

Warning about TextSecure App: Possible Compromised Development

Some of us use Textsecure as replacement for Stock SMS app. Textsecure provides encryption for your SMS. However, my recommendation is: stay away or at least don't update to 2.X... versions.
The developer has introduced Google Cloud Messaging, which means that even if your sms are secure, the fact you are using the app will be recorded in Google Centralized database. In addition, he removed the ability of the user to regenerate new identity key. In last couple of releases, he forced the user to allow the app to contact the internet (otherwise, the app would crash). That is even if you compile the app from sources, which I did a couple of hours ago. If you download the app from Store, you can't even use it without Google account and GSF, the latter will record your every keystroke including the password used to encrypt the messages. In further addition, the app is only available through Googleplay and the developer is actively resisting third party distribution. If that is not enough, you should know that Whisper systems is owned by Twitter, which is a red flag in of itself. The code is growing larger and is more difficult to examine for back door purposes.
My advice: stay away from this development, which in my view is compromised...
Edit. In January of this year, the developer left Twitter. Interestingly, he is still working on Textsecure and it is published under Whisper, which is Twitter. About the same time, all those things described above started to happen. Also interesting is that the developer was put on federal watch list and was continuously harrased by various agencies when flying. So, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that his new employer is the previous harraser...
All more reasons to stay away from this app.

optimumpro said:
Some of us use Textsecure as replacement for Stock SMS app. Textsecure provides encryption for your SMS. However, my recommendation is: stay away or at least don't update to 2.X... versions.
The developer has introduced Google Cloud Messaging, which means that even if your sms are secure, the fact you are using the app will be recorded in Google Centralized database. In addition, he removed the ability of the user to regenerate new identity key. In last couple of releases, he forced the user to allow the app to contact the internet (otherwise, the app would crash). That is even if you compile the app from sources, which I did a couple of hours ago. If you download the app from Store, you can't even use it without Google account and GSF, the latter will record your every keystroke including the password used to encrypt the messages. In further addition, the app is only available through Googleplay and the developer is actively resisting third party distribution. If that is not enough, you should know that Whisper systems is owned by Twitter, which is a red flag in of itself. The code is growing larger and is more difficult to examine for back door purposes.
My advice: stay away from this development, which in my view is compromised...
Edit. In January of this year, the developer left Twitter. Interestingly, he is still working on Textsecure and it is published under Whisper, which is Twitter. About the same time, all those things described above started to happen. Also interesting is that the developer was put on federal watch list and was continuously harrased by various agencies when flying. So, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that his new employer is the previous harraser...
All more reasons to stay away from this app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And here is some more fresh evidence. Today I posted this info on Cyanogen site related to Textsecure Push for CM.
http://www.cyanogenmod.org/blog/whisperpush-secure-messaging-integration
The site says it is neither censored no monitored. Within 5 minutes, the post has disappeared... . So, stay away from this app as the development has been compromised. In my view, of course...

You have no clue what youre talking about.

Corndude said:
You have no clue what youre talking about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, pal... for a very, very thorough, thoughtful and factual argument.
Edit: by the way, what does no gapps project have to do with textsecure being compromised?

Thanks for the heads up. Something is really amiss, and I won't want to directly experience it. I'm staying away from TextSecure for sure.

abdelazeez said:
Thanks for the heads up. Something is really amiss, and I won't want to directly experience it. I'm staying away from TextSecure for sure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most messenger apps today work with Google Push Notifications, seems to be no problem for people there. Funny that it is here. As for SMS, I would never use that through another app. Besides, the phone carrier companies save those probably too, whats so different with that you said ? Text Secure is a very nice app I think. Right now people on iOS don't have that app yet, which makes it hard to establish in mixed system userbases among people. But I hope that will change.
Besides, most people here probably use Twitter. Funny to complain about something that might be related to Twitter then, isn't it ?
Wolfseye

wpkwolfseye said:
Most messenger apps today work with Google Push Notifications, seems to be no problem for people there. Funny that it is here. As for SMS, I would never use that through another app. Besides, the phone carrier companies save those probably too, whats so different with that you said ? Text Secure is a very nice app I think. Right now people on iOS don't have that app yet, which makes it hard to establish in mixed system userbases among people. But I hope that will change.
Besides, most people here probably use Twitter. Funny to complain about something that might be related to Twitter then, isn't it ?
Wolfseye
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The difference is that Textsecure/Whisperpush/CMpush tell you your SMS are encrypted. If they are indeed encrypted and there are no backdoors, your carrier (and others) can only get encrypted SMS (good luck to them trying to decipher). All other SMS apps are in plain text. In my view earlier versions of Textsecure are indeed secure. Starting from version 2.X, we no longer know that considering all the facts I mentioned in the OP.

You should really get your facts straight. Twitter bought Whisper Systems in 2011, mainly to get Moxie and the other Whisper Systems folks to work for them.
Moxie went on to lead Twitters security team. Twitter allowed them a month or so after they aquired Whisper Systems to open source their apps TextSecure and RedPhone. In January 2013 Moxie left Twitter and started Open Whisper Systems with a few others. They took the newly open sourced apps and developed them further.
This is also covered in their FAQ.
You can see all of their code on GitHub.
And if you don't have GAPPS installed, you will simply get a message that you won't be able to use push messages and that's it. Several friends of mine use it for SMS only, with Xprivacy restricting the internet access. It doesn't crash or anything.
If you experience this, you may either have a problem with your build or it's a bug specific to your device/Android version.
Moxie also wrote exactly why he doesn't want TextSecure to be released via F-Droid: for security reasons. They use central signing, which may very well compromise the update channel.
The whole discussion can be found in the most infamous thread in their GitHub: #127

lindworm said:
You should really get your facts straight. Twitter bought Whisper Systems in 2011, mainly to get Moxie and the other Whisper Systems folks to work for them.
Moxie went on to lead Twitters security team. Twitter allowed them a month or so after they aquired Whisper Systems to open source their apps TextSecure and RedPhone. In January 2013 Moxie left Twitter and started Open Whisper Systems with a few others. They took the newly open sourced apps and developed them further.
This is also covered ir FAQ.
You can see all of their code on GitHub.
And if you don't have GAPPS installed, you will simply get a message that you won't be able to use push messages and that's it. Several friends of mine use it for SMS only, with Xprivacy restricting the internet access. It doesn't crash or anything.
If you experience this, you may either have a problem with your build or it's a bug specific to your device/Android version.
Moxie also wrote exactly why he doesn't want TextSecure to be released via F-Droid: for security reasons. They use central signing, which may very well compromise the update channel.
The whole discussion can be found in the most infamous thread in their GitHub: #127
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which fact did I not get straight? You can't get the app anywhere other than from Googleplay and for Googleplay you need GSF, which records your every keystroke. And by the way, try to restrict getnetworkinfo in internet settings in Xprivacy and the app will crash as soon as you try to open a conversation (checked on several devices). And why was it necessary to prevent users from generating new identity key? Why not have an app available on Whisper's github, as many devs do. And by the way, I asked the same questions on github and f-droid threads and in response got a suggestion to build an equivalent of Google's GCM, so then Moxie would stop using Google.

optimumpro said:
Which fact did I not get straight? You can't get the app anywhere other than from Googleplay and for Googleplay you need GSF, which records your every keystroke. And by the way, try to restrict getnetworkinfo in internet settings in Xprivacy and the app will crash as soon as you try to open a conversation (checked on several devices). And why was it necessary to prevent users from generating new identity key? Why not have an app available on Whisper's github, as many devs do. And by the way, I asked the same questions on github and f-droid threads and in response got a suggestion to build an equivalent of Google's GCM, so then Moxie would stop using Google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are not even trying to learn/understand why things are done the way they are done, but instead chose to blast an open source project by a security expert who has spoken at defcon various times and who is on a national security list and gets severely hassled by the TSA every time he tries to travel because of his involvement with secure communication projects.
You don't show the slightest form of objectiveness either. The truth content of what you are writing varies between "flat out wrong" and "there is a reason for how they do it that way, which you either didn't care to research or willingly ignored".
1. You can sideload the apk either from http://apps.evozi.com/apk-downloader/ or any of the dozens of sites that mirror packages from the app store.
They do not provide apks because it is a security risk: there is no automated upgrade channel from where a user can get a new version which may fix serious security flaws.
Everybody who is able to compile from source however should understand the importance of updating regularly and can do so on his/her own.
Moxie stated all of that in the github ticket I linked to.
2. GSF doesn't record your keystrokes.
3. If you had bothered to look it up, getNetworkInfo returns if a certain interface (like wifi) is used for internet.
This leaks no interesting information whatsoever. And it especially doesn't mean that TextSecure doesn't work without internet, because this permission does not give an app internet access. Xprivacy actually expects this behaviour by apps, that's why those fields are by default not restricted even if you restrict internet access of an app.
The program crashes without this, because it expects to get a needed value returned, which you chose to block. This is not something they willingly built in, to stop you from using it without Google Play.
If you can't manage the complexity of the permissions, you should use a simple firewall like AFwall+ to restrict internet access.
4. This was probably removed because it doesn't add any significant security and adds clutter to the user interface, because average users have no idea what it's for. The identity keys you are talking about are long term identity keys. TextSecure uses different keys in every message and actually uses the most secure protocol I know of. It has excellent forward secrecy, future secrecy and deniability. More so than OTR, which it is derived from.
You can learn more about that in their blog:
https://whispersystems.org/blog/simplifying-otr-deniability/
https://whispersystems.org/blog/asynchronous-security/
https://whispersystems.org/blog/advanced-ratcheting/
5. You asked them to not use the only free world wide push network that has contracts with all major providers to not kill idle TCP connections.
Moxie always answered that they would love to use something else, but none exists. And that they don't have the resources to build a push network themselves.
This is all in the comments to https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-new-textsecure/ and on ycombinator:
https://pay.reddit.com/r/Android/co..._cyanogenmod_is_integrating/cdyfxhm?context=3
https://pay.reddit.com/r/Android/co..._cyanogenmod_is_integrating/cdyfrv0?context=3
They are however working on using emails as identifiers and websockets as an alternative to GCM. Websockets are already implemented on the server side and people are working on the client side.
Right now you can use encrypted SMS without GCM, no problem at all. If you want to use it over the internet, you can help to speed up the websocket development:
https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure/issues/1000

lindworm said:
You are not even trying to learn/understand why things are done the way they are done, but instead chose to blast an open source project by a security expert who has spoken at defcon various times and who is on a national security list and gets severely hassled by the TSA every time he tries to travel because of his involvement with secure communication projects.
You don't show the slightest form of objectiveness either. The truth content of what you are writing varies between "flat out wrong" and "there is a reason for how they do it that way, which you either didn't care to research or willingly ignored".
1. You can sideload the apk either from http://apps.evozi.com/apk-downloader/ or any of the dozens of sites that mirror packages from the app store.
They do not provide apks because it is a security risk: there is no automated upgrade channel from where a user can get a new version which may fix serious security flaws.
Everybody who is able to compile from source however should understand the importance of updating regularly and can do so on his/her own.
Moxie stated all of that in the github ticket I linked to.
2. GSF doesn't record your keystrokes.
3. If you had bothered to look it up, getNetworkInfo returns if a certain interface (like wifi) is used for internet.
This leaks no interesting information whatsoever. And it especially doesn't mean that TextSecure doesn't work without internet, because this permission does not give an app internet access. Xprivacy actually expects this behaviour by apps, that's why those fields are by default not restricted even if you restrict internet access of an app.
The program crashes without this, because it expects to get a needed value returned, which you chose to block. This is not something they willingly built in, to stop you from using it without Google Play.
If you can't manage the complexity of the permissions, you should use a simple firewall like AFwall+ to restrict internet access.
4. This was probably removed because it doesn't add any significant security and adds clutter to the user interface, because average users have no idea what it's for. The identity keys you are talking about are long term identity keys. TextSecure uses different keys in every message and actually uses the most secure protocol I know of. It has excellent forward secrecy, future secrecy and deniability. More so than OTR, which it is derived from.
You can learn more about that in their blog:
https://whispersystems.org/blog/simplifying-otr-deniability/
https://whispersystems.org/blog/asynchronous-security/
https://whispersystems.org/blog/advanced-ratcheting/
5. You asked them to not use the only free world wide push network that has contracts with all major providers to not kill idle TCP connections.
Moxie always answered that they would love to use something else, but none exists. And that they don't have the resources to build a push network themselves.
This is all in the comments to https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-new-textsecure/ and on ycombinator:
https://pay.reddit.com/r/Android/co..._cyanogenmod_is_integrating/cdyfxhm?context=3
https://pay.reddit.com/r/Android/co..._cyanogenmod_is_integrating/cdyfrv0?context=3
They are however working on using emails as identifiers and websockets as an alternative to GCM. Websockets are already implemented on the server side and people are working on the client side.
Right now you can use encrypted SMS without GCM, no problem at all. If you want to use it over the internet, you can help to speed up the websocket development:
https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure/issues/1000
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your original statement was that I got my facts wrong. Since you have not cited any instance where I came up with a wrong fact, I will address your opinions.
Number one: you say GSF does not record keystrokes. How do you know? Have you seen the source (which is closed)? If you did, you work for Google and then everything you say is propaganda that has zero factual value. If you don't, then you are just speculating. You pick whichever is worse. If you use Google proprietary blobs, your device is totally open and there is no security measure/app on earth that is effective against this. That GSF phones home at regular intervals and transmits data there is a known fact. You can use encryption from Mars and yet it won't work because raw data (before encryption) is open to Google. As another user noted, having GSF and other closed source apps is like having a lock installed on your house door and not knowing who has access to it besides you.
Number two: inability to generate new identity key: It was there for a reason, the same way PGP or GPG keys have the ability to be limited in time, revoked or regenerated. It is a good security standard and removing it represents weakening. Clutter? LOL. A regular user wouldn't even be able to find it. Certainly, it does not pop up anywhere, one has to find it.
Number three: Sideload or compiling: a regular user will do neither, he/she will simply download the app from the market, which means he has to have Google blobs. Or you are suggesting that users should download the app from the market and then remove GSF and other Googleapps? LOL again.
As I said earlier, Moxie's argument that allowing third party apps on your device is a greater security risk than having closed source blobs is wrong and grand BS (especially coming from someone who is considered a security expert). It is security through obscurity, which is no security at all. The value of his open source project is completely defeated by having closed source blobs by a known private branch of known three letter agencies.
Now, these are facts. Let's get to opinions. I think that this deliberate weakening of security (again coming from a security expert) is a strong indication that development and/or developer has been compromised. And that is why I recommend to stay away from this app. But that is just my opinion, which is nonetheless based on facts.

optimumpro said:
Your original statement was that I got my facts wrong. Since you have not cited any instance where I came up with a wrong fact, I will address your opinions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you even read what I write?
If that is not enough, you should know that Whisper systems is owned by Twitter, which is a red flag in of itself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I explained he does now work there any more.
You seem to have noticed that too:
Edit. In January of this year, the developer left Twitter. Interestingly, he is still working on Textsecure and it is published under Whisper, which is Twitter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you kidding me? How the flying **** did you get to this conclusion? The company that was bought by twitter was Whisper Systems.
They are publishing the new source under Open Whisper Systems. (none of those was ever called Whisper)
See the difference? They also state this here: http://support.whispersystems.org/customer/portal/articles/1474591-is-textsecure-owned-by-twitter-
And here is some more fresh evidence. Today I posted this info on Cyanogen site related to Textsecure Push for CM.
http://www.cyanogenmod.org/blog/whis...ng-integration
The site says it is neither censored no monitored. Within 5 minutes, the post has disappeared... . So, stay away from this app as the development has been compromised. In my view, of course...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you are saying CyanogenMod is part of this grand conspiracy of yours? Come on...
GSF, which records your every keystroke.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Number one: you say GSF does not record keystrokes. How do you know? Have you seen the source (which is closed)? If you did, you work for Google and then everything you say is propaganda that has zero factual value. If you don't, then you are just speculating. You pick whichever is worse. If you use Google proprietary blobs, your device is totally open and there is no security measure/app on earth that is effective against this. That GSF phones home at regular intervals and transmits data there is a known fact. You can use encryption from Mars and yet it won't work because raw data (before encryption) is open to Google. As another user noted, having GSF and other closed source apps is like having a lock installed on your house door and not knowing who has access to it besides you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a binary blob and it sends data to google, but you have no proof whatsoever if it records keystrokes. You can know if you want to tough. Decompile it and analyze it. I don't like binary blobs, but you can't just say they do something without having any proof. I may not be able to guarantee that they don't do something, because I have not personally decompiled and analyzed every bit of it, but until you have and have proof that it does do something you can't just claim it does.
Number two: inability to generate new identity key: It was there for a reason, the same way PGP or GPG keys have the ability to be limited in time, revoked or regenerated. It is a good security standard and removing it represents weakening. Clutter? LOL. A regular user wouldn't even be able to find it. Certainly, it does not pop up anywhere, one has to find it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is not something the average user should have access to, for several reasons. The TextSecure V2 protocol is NOT comparable with PGP/GPG because it has forward secrecy and deniability. The keys that are actually used to encrypt a message are not static as with PGP.
They are derived from the original keys and are changed with every message. No need to change them after X days/months/years.
Even if one key is intercepted, you would only be able to decrypt one message and not every message as it is the case with PGP.
If you get a new key, all your contacts get alerts that your key changed and that somebody may be listening in. That's not something the average user should be exposed to. If you think for whatever reason that you really want to do this, back up your conversations, uninstall TextSecure, install it again, import the backup and you have your new key.
Number three: Sideload or compiling: a regular user will do neither, he/she will simply download the app from the market, which means he has to have Google blobs. Or you are suggesting that users should download the app from the market and then remove GSF and other Googleapps? LOL again.
As I said earlier, Moxie's argument that allowing third party apps on your device is a greater security risk than having closed source blobs is wrong and grand BS (especially coming from someone who is considered a security expert). It is security through obscurity, which is no security at all. The value of his open source project is completely defeated by having closed source blobs by a known private branch of known three letter agencies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Every average user has the google blobs, because they are preinstalled on nearly every phone and it's nearly unusable without them. This app is supposed to make encryption available to the masses.
Google may be undermined by your beloved three letter agencies, but it's not one of them. This is not to hide from them.
You have your threat model wrong.
No app alone can ever protect you from those agencies. They have hundreds of 0days for every platform and will simply own your Android, open source or not.
And this is not what TextSecure tries to do. They protect the content of every conversation with extremely strong encryption, no matter what the transport is. This does protect you from dragnet surveillance. But they can not protect you from someone who targets you and is willing to spend hundreds of thousands or millions to break into your operating systems.
If the NSA really wants you they get you, period. But TextSecure protects you from theives, cyber criminals and nearly everybody else who wants to read your messages.
You say you think the encrypted SMS mode was safe? With this your provider (and thus your government and every agency that wants it) has all the metadata. Who sent something to whom etc.
Google on the other hand has actually LESS meta data, because your phone sends the message to the TextSecure server, which relays the message to GCM. GCM then delivers the message. Because everything is encrypted none of the servers get contact data. But google only gets the receiver, not the sender. Your provider gets everything.
A global passive adversary may still do time corellation attacks, by listening who sends something when and who receives something at this time. After some sessions it's pretty clear who is talking to whom. It doesn't matter if Google is evil or not in this case. They get the metadata if they want to.
If you want protection against something like this take a look at pond, or meet i person: https://github.com/agl/pond
Now, these are facts. Let's get to opinions. I think that this deliberate weakening of security (again coming from a security expert) is a strong indication that development and/or developer has been compromised. And that is why I recommend to stay away from this app. But that is just my opinion, which is nonetheless based on facts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I explained there is no weakening whatsoever. Even if you consider google the adversary, they get less meta data than your SMS provider.
You can use this exactly as before without the google blobs if you want to.
They are actively working on a way to get away from the play store and GCM by building their own distribution method (which is finished, but not yet released, see #127 in their github) and implementing Websockets (server works, client is on the way).
Before you start slamming something you should really understand how it works, or ask if you understood it correctly.

lindworm said:
Do you even read what I write?
As I explained he does now work there any more.
You seem to have noticed that too:
Are you kidding me? How the flying **** did you get to this conclusion? The company that was bought by twitter was Whisper Systems.
They are publishing the new source under Open Whisper Systems. (none of those was ever called Whisper)
See the difference? They also state this here: http://support.whispersystems.org/customer/portal/articles/1474591-is-textsecure-owned-by-twitter-
So you are saying CyanogenMod is part of this grand conspiracy of yours? Come on...
It's a binary blob and it sends data to google, but you have no proof whatsoever if it records keystrokes. You can know if you want to tough. Decompile it and analyze it. I don't like binary blobs, but you can't just say they do something without having any proof. I may not be able to guarantee that they don't do something, because I have not personally decompiled and analyzed every bit of it, but until you have and have proof that it does do something you can't just claim it does.
It is not something the average user should have access to, for several reasons. The TextSecure V2 protocol is NOT comparable with PGP/GPG because it has forward secrecy and deniability. The keys that are actually used to encrypt a message are not static as with PGP.
They are derived from the original keys and are changed with every message. No need to change them after X days/months/years.
Even if one key is intercepted, you would only be able to decrypt one message and not every message as it is the case with PGP.
If you get a new key, all your contacts get alerts that your key changed and that somebody may be listening in. That's not something the average user should be exposed to. If you think for whatever reason that you really want to do this, back up your conversations, uninstall TextSecure, install it again, import the backup and you have your new key.
Every average user has the google blobs, because they are preinstalled on nearly every phone and it's nearly unusable without them. This app is supposed to make encryption available to the masses.
Google may be undermined by your beloved three letter agencies, but it's not one of them. This is not to hide from them.
You have your threat model wrong.
No app alone can ever protect you from those agencies. They have hundreds of 0days for every platform and will simply own your Android, open source or not.
And this is not what TextSecure tries to do. They protect the content of every conversation with extremely strong encryption, no matter what the transport is. This does protect you from dragnet surveillance. But they can not protect you from someone who targets you and is willing to spend hundreds of thousands or millions to break into your operating systems.
If the NSA really wants you they get you, period. But TextSecure protects you from theives, cyber criminals and nearly everybody else who wants to read your messages.
You say you think the encrypted SMS mode was safe? With this your provider (and thus your government and every agency that wants it) has all the metadata. Who sent something to whom etc.
Google on the other hand has actually LESS meta data, because your phone sends the message to the TextSecure server, which relays the message to GCM. GCM then delivers the message. Because everything is encrypted none of the servers get contact data. But google only gets the receiver, not the sender. Your provider gets everything.
A global passive adversary may still do time corellation attacks, by listening who sends something when and who receives something at this time. After some sessions it's pretty clear who is talking to whom. It doesn't matter if Google is evil or not in this case. They get the metadata if they want to.
If you want protection against something like this take a look at pond, or meet i person: https://github.com/agl/pond
As I explained there is no weakening whatsoever. Even if you consider google the adversary, they get less meta data than your SMS provider.
You can use this exactly as before without the google blobs if you want to.
They are actively working on a way to get away from the play store and GCM by building their own distribution method (which is finished, but not yet released, see #127 in their github) and implementing Websockets (server works, client is on the way).
Before you start slamming something you should really understand how it works, or ask if you understood it correctly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Decompile GSF"
You are kidding. Aren't you? If one can examine closed source the same way as open one, then all problems would be solved. And by the way, there would be no point in having proprietary software. Would it? Of course Java is easier to reverse engineer, but want to try Oracle's java?
"Google" Google has root access to your device: It can pull/install any application without you noticing it. They can install another version of TextSecure with backdoors. They can do whatever they want or told to. So, if you have Google, there is no point in any security at all. And when a developer forces users to have Google for his app to work, that's no security at all.
Cyanogenmode/Conspiracy? There is no conspiracy. The US has a law that requires providers to have back doors in their software/hardware for law enforcement, and there are wild claims (by those who know (and don't) what they are talking about) of TextSecure as "weapon" against this kind of surveillance. And that is pure bull. All that the app can provide is the false sense of security, while in reality making users more transparent to surveillance.
Phone service providers vs. internet: when you use Textsecure as a pure sms app, your provider gets gibberish, but they have no way of knowing what you are using. With GCM/GSF/Googleplay, they know exactly what you are doing, as you are marked as using this particular app. So, Moxie is making life of "survaillors" much easier.
Thanks for telling me to uninstall the app if I want to generate new key. So, if I do it this way, you think my contacts won't receive a message that my key has changed?
Here is how I began to suspect foul play: First I noticed the app wanted access to the internet, then I discovered that I can no longer generate a new key, then I went to read about F-droid/Whisper problems. Then I read that he wants the app be available through Google only, because he cares about security and does not want users to allow third party apps (BS). Then I read about feds harassment. You think the 3 letter agencies wouldn't like to have him?
In my view, Moxie's arguments no longer make sense. And by the way, when he is against the wall, he tells you to create a world wide push service - alternative to GCM. LOL.
For me that's enough to stay away from the app. Others will decide accordingly...

Does anybody work on an alternativ push service in order to replace hard requirement on Google services for TextSecure, Redphone and lots of other useful apps?

I understand that GAPPS are needed to run textsecure.
Is it possible/ has anyone succeed to get it to run with the no GAPPS apps such as the blank store etc or is the app relying too much on google infrastructure?

i can use textsecure sms without internet. besides registering with push is not mandatory at all so the crash you've experienced must be a bug in the version of textsecure you're using. also why compare it to pgp/gpg? textsecure uses otr with improvements to deniability and forward secrecy. also textsecure supports mms (which uses internet).
if you're really that paranoid, avoid android at all and stop spreading FUD claiming it to be fact. i don't find the statement factual at all. it lacks any evidence (show us the code with the backdoor first).
and also avoid openguardian project too as they conspire with textsecure since they are recommending it.
and by the way, whisper and openwhisper are different.

It really is ashamed when misinformed people comment on things they do not have enough information to intelligently speak about. Especially when it discourages people from using an application that is one of the only current means of communicating over SMS in a secure manner. Is it perfect? Certainly not... Security and encryption are never perfect, and there will always be flaws to be found, but to insist that someone such as Moxie Marlinspike is somehow working against the security researcher community in some undercover role as an agent of the government or some corrupt company is really insulting. If you have some absolute proof, or even a reasonable solid suspicion, please share it, but otherwise do not taint these incredible people with false accusations. Learn a bit about encryption, reverse engineering, and packet inspection, and then come back and give an intelligent analysis of your findings of the application you suspect to be playing some nefarious role. Until then, your accusations are completely unfounded and damaging to the community as a whole. There are many people who have worked hard to make this product a reality, and I believe they should be praised for their efforts. Obviously these are my own opinions, and you are free to dismiss them outright as you have done to others in previous posts. In addition, I realize I am not an active member of the xda community, but I am an active member of the security/reverse engineering community. My job and nearly all of my free time is spent reverse engineering software and I see no basis for your accusations.

Here is more update on Textsecure: there was a major vulnerability found last October-November. And Moxie's response (not surprisingly) - fixing "feels pretty cumbersome" and "I dunno."
Also, Open Whisper is now accepted into the family of such a bastion of privacy, as Facebook (kids love it, NSA approves). So, If you had any doubt about this app before, now you can sleep well at night (sarcasm).
https://moderncrypto.org/mail-archive/messaging/2014/001029.html
https://moderncrypto.org/mail-archive/messaging/2014/001030.html
To those who like to attack the messenger ( I call them Google thugs or pacifier babies). One says decompile GSF, the other - false accusations and absolute proof?! Wake up and get the pacifier out of your mouth. There is no such thing in real life. I give you the dots, you can't connect them with the pacifier in your mouth.

Here is some more damning evidence that Textsecure is a totally compromised project no longer to be trusted: during 2013-2014 Open Whisper Systems received over $1.3 mln from BBG, which is an arm of US Government and its 3-letter-agencies.
http://pando.com/2015/03/01/internet-privacy-funded-by-spooks-a-brief-history-of-the-bbg/
So, Moxie, it appears, has turned from someone who was harrased by TSA in airports (presumably for a failure to cooperate with the government) to a receipient of major funds from the same government. I am not even talking about him getting a once in a life-time project to work on "securing" Facebook's What's up application. Pitty and shame...

Replacement for Textsecure
Here is a pure sms app, which replaces compromised Textsecure, as well as stock messaging. There is no over the internet messaging, no google binaries and no Google Services Framewor all closed sourse. In addition, starting from version 2.7, textsecure no longer encrypts SMS. Pitty.
Here is the latest version: http://forum.xda-developers.com/android/apps-games/sms-secure-aes-256-t3065165

[Q] First Timer - App Advice Needed

PREMISE
see mockup attachment. fyi, some minor details are left out to protect the premise.
the purpose of the app is to create a countdown clock. and we intend to have different sponsors.
FRONT-END REQUIREMENTS
when the clock expires, it will have beep and vibrate.
to make money, when someone brings up the app on their phone, they would see a coupon from a sponsor company. and upon the launch screen, if the person likes the coupon, they can request to have it e-mailed to them. there's two options to have at this point. a) the app sends me (the app business owner) an e-mail confirming that this individual has requested this coupon. and I'll e-mail it to them whenever I get a chance [but this could get messy if there is a ton of users] b) the app somehow automatically send an e-mail right then and there to the individual [this could be a Day 2 project].
regardless of whether or not the visitor has requested the coupon e-mailed to them, when they click the "ENTER APP" button, they should be transferred to the APP SCREEN.
BACK-END REQUIREMENTS
a. we will NOT store any customer data or e-mails or anything else. we will simply generate a one-time e-mail to that address and that's it.
b. we would like to track a) how many downloads so we can tell potential sponsors b) how often people use the app and how long it's open on their phone for.
c. needs to work on android, IOS and windows phones. we do not care about tablets or computers. smart phones users will be 99% of our audience.
d. we need some sort of back-end or web interface where I can enter in new sponsor names, logos and coupons.
QUESTIONS
1. I'm not going to learn to build this myself. i have no knowledge of how to build one and don't have the time to learn. i plan to hire an overseas freelancer through odesk.com. what program should I ask they use to build this? I've heard terms like swift, xcode, ruby on rails, twitter bootstrap, etc… ideally, is there one go-to popular program that creates a cross-platform compatible app? my fear is that if I have to drop a programmer in the middle of the project and pick up another, will the new person be able to pickup where the last guy left off?
2. how would I go about changing the coupons? and changing the sponsor banner ads? would there need to be some sort of web interface? would I need to purchase a website and hosting account and have some functionality built there? is there some dashboard somewhere else?
3. how big scale a project is this? roughly how many hours should this take a COMPETENT app developer? seems to me like one of the most basic apps you could build but what do I know.
4. at what point does an app get submitted to google play? apple store? windows whatever they have? or do I even need those entities or could I just let people somehow download it from a website? if so, what would I be missing out by not getting it listed under those marketplaces?
5. anything else I have not thought about that I should be aware of?
please advise. thanks in advance!!!

sixrfan said:
PREMISE
see mockup attachment. fyi, some minor details are left out to protect the premise.
the purpose of the app is to create a countdown clock. and we intend to have different sponsors.
FRONT-END REQUIREMENTS
when the clock expires, it will have beep and vibrate.
to make money, when someone brings up the app on their phone, they would see a coupon from a sponsor company. and upon the launch screen, if the person likes the coupon, they can request to have it e-mailed to them. there's two options to have at this point. a) the app sends me (the app business owner) an e-mail confirming that this individual has requested this coupon. and I'll e-mail it to them whenever I get a chance [but this could get messy if there is a ton of users] b) the app somehow automatically send an e-mail right then and there to the individual [this could be a Day 2 project].
regardless of whether or not the visitor has requested the coupon e-mailed to them, when they click the "ENTER APP" button, they should be transferred to the APP SCREEN.
BACK-END REQUIREMENTS
a. we will NOT store any customer data or e-mails or anything else. we will simply generate a one-time e-mail to that address and that's it.
b. we would like to track a) how many downloads so we can tell potential sponsors b) how often people use the app and how long it's open on their phone for.
c. needs to work on android, IOS and windows phones. we do not care about tablets or computers. smart phones users will be 99% of our audience.
d. we need some sort of back-end or web interface where I can enter in new sponsor names, logos and coupons.
QUESTIONS
1. I'm not going to learn to build this myself. i have no knowledge of how to build one and don't have the time to learn. i plan to hire an overseas freelancer through odesk.com. what program should I ask they use to build this? I've heard terms like swift, xcode, ruby on rails, twitter bootstrap, etc… ideally, is there one go-to popular program that creates a cross-platform compatible app? my fear is that if I have to drop a programmer in the middle of the project and pick up another, will the new person be able to pickup where the last guy left off?
2. how would I go about changing the coupons? and changing the sponsor banner ads? would there need to be some sort of web interface? would I need to purchase a website and hosting account and have some functionality built there? is there some dashboard somewhere else?
3. how big scale a project is this? roughly how many hours should this take a COMPETENT app developer? seems to me like one of the most basic apps you could build but what do I know.
4. at what point does an app get submitted to google play? apple store? windows whatever they have? or do I even need those entities or could I just let people somehow download it from a website? if so, what would I be missing out by not getting it listed under those marketplaces?
5. anything else I have not thought about that I should be aware of?
please advise. thanks in advance!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi i have read your long query,The app which you described and checking out the mockups seems to be pretty less complicated and i will give you some answers for it.
1) The best thing to do is make an app in popular cross platform frameworks better use html5 frameworks such a sencha touch,jquery mobile etc with phonegap. Look for developers in this category.
2)Changing the banner ads and coupons is simple.Just host that in your server,app will load those ads and banners whens it loads for the first time ,we can refresh the content later by periodic service calls
3) its a small scale project .Just building the app alone will take atmost 30 hours including creating for 3 platforms and excluding testing.
4) its always better to upload the apps their respecttive stores.Apple wont allow apps to sideload fro other sources.For getting listed on those stores you need to get developer licenses 100$ for apple store,25$ for google play store etc
5)Just be aware that the app should work on all ost of the devices ,gives timely updates etc
also you can track the number of downloads from the respective stores,also you can include some analaytic sdk like flurry etc to get the details like "how often people use the app and how long it's open on their phone for".
i am an Cross platform app developer.If you are interested we can talk in Pm. hope i helped

Develop Bugs

welcome