Related
hi, sorry if this isn't the right place, but wasn't sure where to post.
if i were - for example - a malicious android rom maker - i could add routines, backdoors etc etc into the rom i push out for evil intent. for example i see so many apps in the market wanting fine location (gps) permissions, and reading of phone data contacts when it shouldn't need it. the worst part is, i wouldn't know as any backdoors would be ingrained into the system.
so how do i know that roms out don't do this at all?
bump for an aswer?
MarkusPO said:
hi, sorry if this isn't the right place, but wasn't sure where to post.
if i were - for example - a malicious android rom maker - i could add routines, backdoors etc etc into the rom i push out for evil intent. for example i see so many apps in the market wanting fine location (gps) permissions, and reading of phone data contacts when it shouldn't need it. the worst part is, i wouldn't know as any backdoors would be ingrained into the system.
so how do i know that roms out don't do this at all?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A tl;dr version : You don't know, and can't tell easily.
The full version: If you go for a ROM from a trusted and reliable person, you should be OK. It's fairly hard to check everything, but it is possible. You just need to be careful...
Droidwall is potentially of use if you want to block internet access, though obviously it would only be of use if you could whitelist the apps you WANT to ALLOW, as a malicious app wouldn't necessarily get blacklisted by you.
This isn't fool-proof though, as someone could (in theory) put something in a system app. But there is the issue of the fact that someone with skills to do that wouldn't be doing such a thing, as they have better things to do with their time, and they wouldn't dream of doing it.
For ultimate safety, compile yourself from AOSP sources
So basically, you can't tell, but just stay away from ROMs from new users with no history, or people who may have "shady pasts", and it should be OK.
Hello,
I noticed that several apps I install require that I enable my location/position.
For several of them my location has nothing to do with the purpose of the app.
For instance: Bubble Birds.
I was wondering why??! And also, are the developers using the users' location info for some reasons?
Thank you.
This is something that irks me too, and is often a deciding point on whether I buy/install said app.
I can see it as being used for statistical purposes, but still brings out the conspiracy theorist in me.
I think it might be for ads. Maybe it is for stats though
Sent from my HD7 using XDA Windows Phone 7 App
The "ID_CAP_LOCATION" capability is included by default when creating a new project. If the location requirement is derived from this, it could mean that many developers just haven't removed it before submission, making it look like the application needs location info. This would probably be pointed out during submission, though. Maybe it's for the ads?
Thank you for all the answers.
I suppose it's not for the ads. I live in France and, luckily, all the ads are totally irrevelant and in English.
arturobandini said:
Thank you for all the answers.
I suppose it's not for the ads. I live in France and, luckily, all the ads are totally irrevelant and in English.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On my App, I have a trial mode that uses ads. If you pass the location information to the adControl, it enhances the selection process for the ads and will provide better focused ads, which also enhances money the developers receive.
AFAIK, WP7 doesn't support the ability to say "no" to the location and still use the app. If you decline the location, the application will not run. It would be nice to deny access to Location to the app, and still let the application run.
spokanedj said:
On my App, I have a trial mode that uses ads. If you pass the location information to the adControl, it enhances the selection process for the ads and will provide better focused ads, which also enhances money the developers receive.
AFAIK, WP7 doesn't support the ability to say "no" to the location and still use the app. If you decline the location, the application will not run. It would be nice to deny access to Location to the app, and still let the application run.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well they have a very strict policy with the location service, it should be comppetely turned off from within the app if the user desires, i had an app with a button to activate and find the current location and it failed certification since the user could not bypass this button! If the user does not want to supply his location dont press te button and the location service will remain off, but this was not strict enough there should have been an extra switch to deactivate this button....
Weird policy really really weird
i just wanted to share this article for everyone to see!
http://privacy-pc.com/articles/bypassing-the-android-permission-model.html
what do you guys think about this? and about android as a whole (security wise)?
jamcar said:
i just wanted to share this article for everyone to see!
http://privacy-pc.com/articles/bypassing-the-android-permission-model.html
what do you guys think about this? and about android as a whole (security wise)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldn't say that the permissions system is "completely flawed," though it does lack significantly in key areas. Some of the permissions would be better served if they were split into multiple sub-permissions (eg. phone ID), but I'm relatively content with the current status quo.
Additionally, using Facebook, or heck, a mobile device on it's own even, means that you already thrown away any claims to your own data and privacy. While there is always room to better the system, it is important to remember that we've all signed clauses with a bold BUYER BEWARE heading. It is the user's job to take additional steps to secure all that, rather than waiting on Google to clean up their act IMO.
If you have any concerns about privacy on an Android device, I highly suggest using this app LBE Security Master http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1422479 (there's a hint of irony there, as the app is from China with root and internet access). That one works on JB unlike the previous released with worked up to ICS.
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
Is the builtin app named "Storagemanager" a hidden system administrator in LineageOS 19.1?
I ask this because in LineageOS 14.1 Storagemanager is a systemadministrator app.
In LineageOS 14.1 under > settings > apps > special app access > deviceadministrators, nothing showed up by default, but then i pressed the three dots on the top right and selected "show system", then storage manager was shown as active system administrator app.
I had the option to disable it, which i did, as i dont want ANY app to be administrator as i consider myself as the device owner being the administrator in place, no need for an app to have any such administrative permissions.
Now in LineageOS 19.1 when you navigate to > settings > apps > special app access > deviceadministrators > the three dots on the top right corner to show system apps ARE GONE.
This makes me think storage manager is a secret/hidden system administrator that cannot be disabled in lineageOS 19.1 because the three dots at the top right have been removed in 19.1 basically making it IMPOSSIBLE to the device owner to remove unwanted systemadministrator apps.
If infact storagemanager is a secret systemadministrator app, why is that so, why was the option to disable this app from being a system administrator removed??
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Another question, in LineageOS 14.1 when i tried to open the calendar app, there was a prompt/popup saying "to use the calendar app you must add atleast one google account to your phone".
To be honest that scared me... considering that i use LineageOS purely for privacy and Google is the opposite of privacy.
That being said please keep in mind (this is very important), in LineageOS 14.1 when i opened the calendar app i was asked to add a Google account...
Here comes the things, in LineageOS 19.1 when i open the calendar app the prompt/popup says this: "before you can use the calendar app you must add atleast one calendar account".
That sounds very suspicious to me, because in 14.1 it was called google account and now in 19.1 its called callendar account, obviously my question is now... is the callendar account a google account just being called out in another way...?? If yes this is obviously a major manipulation because not naming google here will trick most likely any LineageOS user to creating a callendar account without even knowing that in reality what they just did was to create a goolge account on their privacy phone...... what sort of manipulative person would make such a nightmare come true? At this point i must ask if LineageOS even is a privacy option anymore... or has it been inflitrated by google already...
Another suspicous change i detected after switching from LineageOS 14.1 to 19.1 is that under > settings > apps > special app access > useage access, zero apps are listed, but once i pressed the three dots in the top right corner, bluetooth, media storage, nfc service, package installer, permissions controller, phone services, shell, storage manager, and systemui where ALL shown as "access to useage data = allowed". This really makes me woonder what is going on with LineageOS, what reason is there to grant all these apps access to useage data by default?? In LineageOS 14.1 there was not a single app even the system ones, that had useage data access set to allowed, infact in 14.1 all apps where set to be not allowed to access useage data. What is going on here and why??
Another change i noticed from LineageOS 14.1 to 19.1 is that under > settings > privacy, in 14.1 i was able to edit individual app permissions and enable or disable the privacy mode, in 19.1 there seems to be a new service so called "trust" which is responsible for privacy, im fine with that, however i am missing a very important privacy setting that was present in 14.1 but is not in 19.1 and that is "start on boot". On 14.1 i was able to select any specific app and deny or allow it's access to start itself on boot. Why is this important setting not present in 19.1?
In 19.1 under > settings > privacy > permissions manager, there is no option to deny apps to "start on boot".
My guess is, either 19.1 blocks all apps from starting on boot by default, or it allows it by default for all apps and there is simply no option to stop that which would be a major privacy downgrade compared to older versions...
thank you for posting this, my eyes have been opened.
Already 100+ views but only 1 comment, hmm...
Nobody knows anything?
I seriously want to get ansers to the above questions... these are real concerns to me.
My questions don't seem to get to much attention here, not even to mention a reply.
Does anyone know a forum or another place where i can ask what is written above?
I wan't answers, these are real privacy concerns!
Hmmm. I don't have answers to your specific questions. In another thread, you posted, generally, that most people don't care about your concerns. Very true. I wholeheartedly support you advocating your views; however encourage you to tread lightly if you want people to reply to you.
The only sure answer to your situation, and for me, also, is to grab the source of the rom which suits you, one without gapps, and then hire a dev to help go through the source to answer your questions. Then edit as needed and re-compile.
I am familiar enough with the process in general however don't have the skills to do it myself. LOS and its variants are probably a good place to start. I am using a vanilla build of RROS on A10 on a Oneplus8 pro. Since we have tools for A11 that is good but the tools generally aren't available for some time after a new Android release.
Your question might be asked of the Lineage devs, though I am sure they are busy and they are not forcing you to use their (free) product. There are also Linux phones available, although so far the hardware I have seen is not great.
What phone are you using? If you are serious about this, and are willing to support a dev project as above, we would have to settle on one or two similar OSes on the same Android version, and hire someone for a few days. This would be expensive. I, for one, would contribute. If we found 10 or 20 like minded people a crowdfunding page could be set up. If we did not reach the necessary amount then the money could be refunded.
To tell the truth, G keeps putting more obstacles in the way of modders and I am getting to the point where its not worth the trouble. Hopefully the hardware for Linux phones will improve.
Thoughts??
gregpilot said:
Hmmm. I don't have answers to your specific questions. In another thread, you posted, generally, that most people don't care about your concerns. Very true. I wholeheartedly support you advocating your views; however encourage you to tread lightly if you want people to reply to you.
The only sure answer to your situation, and for me, also, is to grab the source of the rom which suits you, one without gapps, and then hire a dev to help go through the source to answer your questions. Then edit as needed and re-compile.
I am familiar enough with the process in general however don't have the skills to do it myself. LOS and its variants are probably a good place to start. I am using a vanilla build of RROS on A10 on a Oneplus8 pro. Since we have tools for A11 that is good but the tools generally aren't available for some time after a new Android release.
Your question might be asked of the Lineage devs, though I am sure they are busy and they are not forcing you to use their (free) product. There are also Linux phones available, although so far the hardware I have seen is not great.
What phone are you using? If you are serious about this, and are willing to support a dev project as above, we would have to settle on one or two similar OSes on the same Android version, and hire someone for a few days. This would be expensive. I, for one, would contribute. If we found 10 or 20 like minded people a crowdfunding page could be set up. If we did not reach the necessary amount then the money could be refunded.
To tell the truth, G keeps putting more obstacles in the way of modders and I am getting to the point where its not worth the trouble. Hopefully the hardware for Linux phones will improve.
Thoughts??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My knownledge on programming is very limited, i would not be able to contribute to any meaningful software really. Indeed my language can quickly become not so nice when it comes to privacy, i don't like how the masses throw away their freedom.
Think about it, google chrome holds around 60% market share, then combine all chromium browsers and we are at around 90% while Firefox is at around 4%. Then think about how many people use Gmail and how many use privacy alternatives like Protonmail. Think about how many people use the standard google android os on their phone and how many have iphones and compare that to how many people use a linux phone or a custom os like lineage or graphene...
Anyone can protect their privacy, there are many great videos on youtube.
Here are some examples:
The Hated One
Creating deeply researched and well-sourced essays critiquing some of the most important issues of our time in a non-partisan, non-sectarian way. Mass surveillance is a backdoor into freedom of speech. Knowledge is power. And power corrupts. https://twitter.com/The_HatedOne_...
yewtu.be
Rob Braxman Tech
I'm the Internet Privacy Guy. I'm a public interest hacker and technologist. I use my extensive knowledge of cybersecurity and tech to serve the public good. I care about privacy. I warn you of digital manipulation, disinformation, mass surveillance. I also discuss alternative communication...
yewtu.be
Techlore
Techlore was built to prove privacy & security are not just achievable - but simple and accessible. We manage several projects, communities, and content to spread privacy & security to the masses. Visit our Website: https://techlore.tech
yewtu.be
Mental Outlaw
Only cool people visit https://based.win/
yewtu.be
Naomi Brockwell: NBTV
www.nbtv.media NBTV teaches people how to reclaim control of their lives in the digital age. We give people the tools they need to take back their data, money, and free online expression. - Your Money - Your Data - Your Life Empower Yourself. Created and hosted by Naomi Brockwell Our...
yewtu.be
Louis Rossmann
I discuss random things of interest to me. This is, and always will be, my personal variety show. I teach Macbook component level logic board repair from a common sense, everyman's perspective. I try to make it seem viable, and entertaining. I also go over business concepts & philosophy that...
yewtu.be
The Linux Experiment
Making Linux accessible: no techno lingo, no super technical content. Just Linux desktop news, simple tutorials, application spotlights, and opinion pieces trying to stay positive, without gatekeeping. 👏 SUPPORT THE CHANNEL: Get access to a weekly podcast, vote on the next topics I cover, and...
yewtu.be
I use yewtu.be over youtube.com to avoid google.
See, google chrome and google search know all of your browsing history, there is no privacy, they make a profile of everyone who uses any of their services. Even if you use google without an account chances are they can identify you and your device. Same with gmail... it reads (scans) all of your emails and sell the content to adverstisers. I don't know how people can be ****** enough to use these services when you can simply switch to alternatives that are working perfectly flawless and don't spy on you.
Privacy can be easy.
Instead of google chrome > Firefox or even better Librewolf
Instead of google search > brave search or duckduckgo
Instead of gmail > protonmail
Instead of google android > lineage or graphene
It's not that hard...
Nobody forced me to use lineageos obviously i installed it on my own, i don't like the changes from 14.1 to 19.1 as they seem very suspicious to me, but i will still preffer LOS at any time over the standard google crap.
Before using a google phone id rather not use a phone at all.
Speaking about phones, people who buy iphones have lost their mind, i mean it.
My phone is a samsung S7, as long as it is functional i will not buy a new phone, besides i don't have the money now... your suggestion sounds interesting but i'm not into that really.
In the mean time i will repeat what you said, we can only wait for linux phones to support modern hardware and get one of those in the future.
GrapheneOS seems like the best choice as of now but it's really ironic that it works only on google pixel phones...
Most people don't care that they are been spied on. They are after the they easy life. Want all the mod cons to make things easier. Unfortunately you can't change peoples habits. Have started seen a lot of custom rooms with suspicious files, that makes a person wonder if google is paying the devs to include their software.
ShaunSmit said:
Most people don't care that they are been spied on
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, plenty of people do. For example, just see XDA's thread for FairEmail:
https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/...en-source-privacy-oriented-email-app.3824168/
Privacydroid said:
builtin app named "Storagemanager" a hidden system administrator in LineageOS 19.1?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Privacydroid said:
My questions don't seem to get to much attention here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, I am interested in and have subscribed to this topic... it's just that LOS19 is still not really a hot topic for me yet (still fighting with LOS18, lol).
SigmundDroid said:
Well, plenty of people do. For example, just see XDA's thread for FairEmail:
https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/...en-source-privacy-oriented-email-app.3824168/
Well, I am interested in and have subscribed to this topic... it's just that LOS19 is still not really a hot topic for me yet (still fighting with LOS18, lol).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My bet lineage 1.18 is also affected by what i described above.
there might be some privacy oriented custom roms. have you checked ?
e Foundation - deGoogled unGoogled smartphone operating systems and online services - your data is your data
your data is YOUR data
e.foundation
or
Purism– Librem 5
Introducing the – Librem 5 by Purism
puri.sm
Fytdyh said:
there might be some privacy oriented custom roms. have you checked ?
e Foundation - deGoogled unGoogled smartphone operating systems and online services - your data is your data
your data is YOUR data
e.foundation
or
Purism– Librem 5
Introducing the – Librem 5 by Purism
puri.sm
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Never heared about https://e.foundation/ will have a look at that one.
The librem 5 has outdated hardware and is expensive, but that's not the problem... the shipping times are totally ******. Can take years for you to ever recive that phone.
Besides, that doesn't anser any of my above questions about LOS, guess that wasn't your intention anyways.
Privacydroid said:
Never heared about https://e.foundation/ will have a look at that one.
The librem 5 has outdated hardware and is expensive, but that's not the problem... the shipping times are totally ******. Can take years for you to ever recive that phone.
Besides, that doesn't anser any of my above questions about LOS, guess that wasn't your intention anyways.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
about your privacy related inquiries, i recon that Lineage, while it used to stand for privacy in the first years, it started to be seen more as a way to get updates on no longer supported devices. and given that almost every user that uses lineage also had flashed gapps, makes sense for them to add gapps in their everyday custom rom as well. Google has its sets of downsides and upsides. Privacy is good, but functionality is more important. a lot of good apps rely on google implemented functionality. Say that i would need to drive around the country. Privacy is my preference, but i need a fully functional bugless waze. Waze without google play services is a mess, if you get it working. Android Auto without gapps isnt possible.
For my devices, at least, Lineage did not have gapps baked in. For me, a good thing. There are a few vanilla roms left out there. Even without gapps, there are still leaks to google (the captive portal connectivity check, for one) but the footprint is much smaller.
For me, I have found open source alternatives to ALL of googles bloat and spyware. Not as convienient, sure. Pain in the a** sometimes, yes. Wayze? Host your own cameras, use openstreetmap (osmand) instead. google has made it very convienient with their ecosystem. I, for one, do not wish to share my life with them.
Fytdyh said:
about your privacy related inquiries, i recon that Lineage, while it used to stand for privacy in the first years, it started to be seen more as a way to get updates on no longer supported devices. and given that almost every user that uses lineage also had flashed gapps, makes sense for them to add gapps in their everyday custom rom as well. Google has its sets of downsides and upsides. Privacy is good, but functionality is more important. a lot of good apps rely on google implemented functionality. Say that i would need to drive around the country. Privacy is my preference, but i need a fully functional bugless waze. Waze without google play services is a mess, if you get it working. Android Auto without gapps isnt possible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No idea why people use gapps or microg, it's anti privacy so i do not ever use any of that.
I do not use any google services in my life and i don't miss them or need them for anything, i have alternatives.
I have to disagree on this phrase "Privacy is good, but functionality is more important".
If you are forced to give up privacy to use a service or product then the service or product is not worth being used.
Privacy is way more important than functionality, besides 90% of the time you can find perfectly working privacy friendly alternatives for almost anything.
Instead of google maps for example i use these:
Map at DuckDuckGo
DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.
duckduckgo.com
OpenStreetMap
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
www.openstreetmap.org
Not sure if that is helpful while driving, would be fine for me, never heared about waze.
I banned Google of my life and im happy with that, wasn't that hard after all.
gregpilot said:
For my devices, at least, Lineage did not have gapps baked in. For me, a good thing. There are a few vanilla roms left out there. Even without gapps, there are still leaks to google (the captive portal connectivity check, for one) but the footprint is much smaller.
For me, I have found open source alternatives to ALL of googles bloat and spyware. Not as convienient, sure. Pain in the a** sometimes, yes. Wayze? Host your own cameras, use openstreetmap (osmand) instead. google has made it very convienient with their ecosystem. I, for one, do not wish to share my life with them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My lineage version also doesn't have gapps in it, atleast nothing that is visible or accessable to me..
Not sure about the calendar thing described above..
What do you mean by captive portal connectivity check, what's that?
I beleve LOS uses Googls SUPL Server's too.
Great to meet someone with the same mindset, way to many people throw away their privacy which is equal to freedom, for "convienience"... It's crazy.
What do you mean by captive portal connectivity check, what's that?
I beleve LOS uses Googls SUPL Server's too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Every time your device makes a network connection (wifi or cellular) it pings "connectivitycheck.gstatic.com". Not really a ping, its a http request to check for internet connectivity. Successful completion will remove the "x" by the wifi and/or cell data icon. Although if the address is blocked on your router the "x" will remain, and your device will complain about not having internet access....but it does! (so long as your wifi router/cell net has access). But wifi calling won't work.
For more, go here:
https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/guide-how-to-avoid-the-captive-portal-checkin-to-google.3927561/
You can host your own check server, or....just disable the check.
I have confirmed this works on A9 and A10 AOSP roms. There are different variants of this command for different roms. You may have to try several of them.
From an adb shell: (needs root)
Code:
:/ # settings put global captive_portal_mode 0
***********THIS DISABLES GOOGLE CONN CHECK***** A9 and 10
To verify it is disabled:
Code:
:/ # settings list global | grep portal
Should return "captive_portal_mode=0"
If you do connect to a captive portal page (public wifi, open connection) where the owner wants a login cred then the side effect of this is that it won't work.
The issue is that everytime the check is run, google will get your IP address and browser/OS and can infer your coarse location even if location services are turned off. I have all google domains blocked on my wifi so to keep my wife happy I disable the check on her phone also so she does not get the "no internet" notification.
Another hole is the agps (assisted gps) database downloaded from google or your phone carrier regardless of enabled location. I believe you can edit the server which is contacted, again, will require root.
This post says you can edit the gps.conf file:
https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/a-gps-supl-protocol-and-privacy-breaching.3602863/
Anyone try that? What abour removing "supl" from the apn type?
But I'm not there, yet, I usually have location selected off. Rob Braxman has a good vid here, use freetube:
https://github.com/FreeTubeApp/FreeTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbBkZ-MROEk?
Again as stated earlier the best fix is to find a AOSP source of a rom you like, edit (or hire a dev) to edit out all of the bloat and google tracking which may remain, and re-compile.
gregpilot said:
Every time your device makes a network connection (wifi or cellular) it pings "connectivitycheck.gstatic.com". Not really a ping, its a http request to check for internet connectivity. Successful completion will remove the "x" by the wifi and/or cell data icon. Although if the address is blocked on your router the "x" will remain, and your device will complain about not having internet access....but it does! (so long as your wifi router/cell net has access). But wifi calling won't work.
For more, go here:
https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/guide-how-to-avoid-the-captive-portal-checkin-to-google.3927561/
You can host your own check server, or....just disable the check.
I have confirmed this works on A9 and A10 AOSP roms. There are different variants of this command for different roms. You may have to try several of them.
From an adb shell: (needs root)
Code:
:/ # settings put global captive_portal_mode 0
***********THIS DISABLES GOOGLE CONN CHECK***** A9 and 10
To verify it is disabled:
Code:
:/ # settings list global | grep portal
Should return "captive_portal_mode=0"
If you do connect to a captive portal page (public wifi, open connection) where the owner wants a login cred then the side effect of this is that it won't work.
The issue is that everytime the check is run, google will get your IP address and browser/OS and can infer your coarse location even if location services are turned off. I have all google domains blocked on my wifi so to keep my wife happy I disable the check on her phone also so she does not get the "no internet" notification.
Another hole is the agps (assisted gps) database downloaded from google or your phone carrier regardless of enabled location. I believe you can edit the server which is contacted, again, will require root.
This post says you can edit the gps.conf file:
https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/a-gps-supl-protocol-and-privacy-breaching.3602863/
Anyone try that? What abour removing "supl" from the apn type?
But I'm not there, yet, I usually have location selected off. Rob Braxman has a good vid here, use freetube:
https://github.com/FreeTubeApp/FreeTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbBkZ-MROEk?
Again as stated earlier the best fix is to find a AOSP source of a rom you like, edit (or hire a dev) to edit out all of the bloat and google tracking which may remain, and re-compile.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for this interesting reply, i will attempt to remove captive portal connectivity check / connectivitycheck.gstatic.com with adb by following your provided command
settings put global captive_portal_mode 0
settings list global | grep portal
However you mentioned this needs root, my device is not root so this basically wont work without root?
I could use magisk for rooting.
Rob Braxman is great, watching all of his content. But i couldn't find any instructions to disable googles SUPL.
I also don't think rob has a video for captive portal connectivity check, or does he?
From my experience with his videos he acts as if degoogled phones with lineage are 90% better than normal phones, so i guess the other 10% are things like SUPL and captive portal connectivity check which are not that easy to disable..? If google knows my locations on a degoogled device with lineageos by using captive portal connectivity check then hell, that#äs really disturbing i had no idea that they still know where my phone is / where i am, very scary...
However you mentioned this needs root, my device is not root so this basically wont work without root?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, the command needs root. Also there are some differences based on your version of Android.
The following is old, but has some good stuff:
https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/cldrym
The biggest help for this is to not install google services, and use a vanilla rom without it.
As far as captive portal, that is fixable.
The DNS servers can be changed from googles, but it is less straightforward.
NLP is not present without gapps, from what I have read
The SUPL issue, for me, is a WIP. I will happily deal with slow GPS TTFF. What I don't know:
1. Editing (removing) the supl entry in the APN file, what affect, if any;
2. Editing /vendor/etc/gps.conf (newer roms have the file in /vendor) to show a non g server;
3. the big question, which GPS radio chips may or may not have SUPL on the hardware level and therefore, if so, we are unable to fix.
gregpilot said:
Yes, the command needs root. Also there are some differences based on your version of Android.
The following is old, but has some good stuff:
https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/cldrym
The biggest help for this is to not install google services, and use a vanilla rom without it.
As far as captive portal, that is fixable.
The DNS servers can be changed from googles, but it is less straightforward.
NLP is not present without gapps, from what I have read
The SUPL issue, for me, is a WIP. I will happily deal with slow GPS TTFF. What I don't know:
1. Editing (removing) the supl entry in the APN file, what affect, if any;
2. Editing /vendor/etc/gps.conf (newer roms have the file in /vendor) to show a non g server;
3. the big question, which GPS radio chips may or may not have SUPL on the hardware level and therefore, if so, we are unable to fix.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just tried using your solution for the onnectivitycheck.gstatic.com issue by using the provided command
:/ # settings put global captive_portal_mode 0
Before i that i rooted the phone with magisk, the command did not work (i attempted executing the command on cmd in windows inside the adb/fastboot folder, usb drivers are also installed.
I was able to start the daemon by using adb devices but the command you provided didn't work.
The phone was booted normally during the test, maybe i should instead go to downloadmode or recovery mode? The link you send for more instructions says we should use a cmd app on the phone to exectue this command (a pc is not mentioned), however i don't find any cmd app on the phone (lineageos 19.1).
Privacydroid said:
I just tried using your solution for the onnectivitycheck.gstatic.com issue by using the provided command
:/ # settings put global captive_portal_mode 0
Before i that i rooted the phone with magisk, the command did not work (i attempted executing the command on cmd in windows inside the adb/fastboot folder, usb drivers are also installed.
I was able to start the daemon by using adb devices but the command you provided didn't work.
The phone was booted normally during the test, maybe i should instead go to downloadmode or recovery mode? The link you send for more instructions says we should use a cmd app on the phone to exectue this command (a pc is not mentioned), however i don't find any cmd app on the phone (lineageos 19.1).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, the command is made from a root shell on the phone directly, or through an adb shell.
First:
open a cmd window on your pc, cd to your adb folder. Do you have "minimal adb and fastboot" installed on your pc? Its on the forums here.
Plug in your phone to USB, do not boot to recovery or download mode. Just the normal system.
From the open cmd window, issue "adb devices". What appears?
If "unauthorized", you have to enable adb debugging in developer options. You have that enabled, right? If you do you will get a prompt on the phone to allow adb debugging access when you connect over USB.
If you get "device XXXXX", I do not recall the number of characters, then you can proceed.
issue "adb shell"
you should get a shell prompt (your phone cmd shell)
Issue "su"
If you are rooted magisk may prompt you to allow root
issue "whoami", this has to return "root".
Then issue the command I gave you. " settings put global captive_portal_mode 0"
The second string "settings list global | grep portal" is only to verify the success of the first command.
You don't need adb for this, you can also enable the "local terminal" in developer options. Or use your favorite terminal. I like Termux.
Open the terminal from your app drawer
issue "su"
Again, you should get a magisk prompt requesting permissions, allow it
issue "whoami" , verify root
then issue the same two commands.
What version of Android are you on?