Related
i think guy brings up a good point and perhaps a decent solution. why not allow/encourage the dev's to explain a bit more. I'm a fairly adept nerd but when i'm installing an app sometimes i'm just not sure why in the world this app needs that permission...how is my mom or sister or anyone that i advocate Android to going to figure it out? why does this app need my coarse or fine location or full network access or access to the contact list etc...
and please do not say 'if you don't like what's listed, don't install the app'. that is exactly the point of this thread. the line items in the Review Permissions window don't always make sense. how can the average end user make a educated guess with the current system...they don't, they just start doing the same thing they do on their Windows Desktops...just click right on thru it. then what happens? some jerk writes a piece of malware. user has an issue. now its all androids fault. and viola, proof that linux based devices are still too geeky for avg use.
http://tech.shantanugoel.com/2010/08/14/android-permissions-malware.html
Unfortunately, there's no denying the cold, hard facts - ignorance is not bliss. Everything has a learning curve. Time and effort must be spent to educate users as to why <this> is happening and what it is doing for them. It's sad but true. Besides, if everything that required higher learning could be easily figured out I'm sure humanity would be freed from the shackles of poverty, war and hunger by now. So, yes, permissions are too obtuse for the average user. Unless they want to educate themselves on more generalized computing skills they'll never get it.
That's just my two cents. Sorry I couldn't be of better assistance
ok. so i wish to educate myself. please provide a full and detailed example listing why which permissions may be needed/used so that i will be able to make an educated choice. where is that link again?
i'm bringing up an issue...not asking for others to chime in and tell me how stoopid the end user base is. i'm an admin for over 10yrs. trust me ... i know. in this case i am also confused as are a large numer of folks. i understand the huge development curve android has experienced over the last 18mths. my concern is that if this issue is not addressed, even the folks that would take the time to read the Review Permissions page will give up. i know i have on more than one occasion. that's a bad trend.
Wow. You bring up a good point. Didn't mean to offend you or anything. I still don't have a good answer for you but I will let you know that I only install apps that I can trust usually after researching them via Google searches and talking about them with people here. I too am an admin (been a long, long 15 years now) and if there's 2 things I learned about recommending custom Android setups they are:
- If you think the user is going to use you as Wikipedia it's probably best to leave them at stock
and
- Only recommend this kind of stuff to users who are willing to accept responsibility for their actions otherwise you'll be the fall guy every time something goes wrong.
Again, I'm sure you know this and I didn't mean to offend you so..... bye.
Users can be pretty obtuse, and I think you're completely correct about the current permission system. However, I don't think it could be made much clearer without multiplying the number of permissions. Malware can exist because users consider certain permissions to be common. Conversely, apps with a good reputation can include permissions that make them wonder, "why would they need that?" Look at keyboards and how many people freak out when they go to enable them.
One thing that would be nice for users is if you could tap on a permission and the phone would display a short explanation of that permission. They probably aren't self explanatory for everyone.
beatblaster said:
- If you think the user is going to use you as Wikipedia it's probably best to leave them at stock
and
- Only recommend this kind of stuff to users who are willing to accept responsibility for their actions otherwise you'll be the fall guy every time something goes wrong.
Again, I'm sure you know this and I didn't mean to offend you so..... bye.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no offense. i do understand. there was a point in time where i used to openly provide paid tech support to home systems of my coworkers....it was a short point in time. lol. but i digress ... i may have come off too strong in my reply, i was just trying to prevent the thread from wandering off.
I've tried to post on this topic in the past but have not nothing useful. in and of itself, i find that kinda sad. I've even seen some folks suggest that people "take a trusting stance because most developers do not intend harm". i wish i could. but i'm out of college.
it would be wonderful if someone (ie: a google dev or just someone with knowledge of these things) were able to create a page that could give real world examples and general rules of thumb. currently i have only found a couple pages that cover a couple settings. not nearly enough to be of much use.
Saturn2K said:
One thing that would be nice for users is if you could tap on a permission and the phone would display a short explanation of that permission. They probably aren't self explanatory for everyone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I concur.....I look at the permissions that apps ask for all the time. However, if I see a battery management app is asking me for full internet access and access to my contacts, I just pass on it. A lot of times you can figure out if an app is requesting bogus permissions just by using common sense.
rugedraw said:
I concur.....I look at the permissions that apps ask for all the time. However, if I see a battery management app is asking me for full internet access and access to my contacts, I just pass on it. A lot of times you can figure out if an app is requesting bogus permissions just by using common sense.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
if your app is paid for by advertisements then it will need Internet Access so it can retrieve ads...thus paying the developer. often that's where i see 'coarse location' used as well...for regional specific ads. so in those cases, not nefarious use but a perfect example of what I'm talking about. thank you.
the problem with the current permissions system is twofold;
1) as mentioned, there is no details WHY or WHAT FOR a particular permission is required
2) its all or nothing, ie you can't give permission for network access and restrict access to contact list, etc. You have to accept all the requested permissions or deny and not install the app.
fwiw: There is an app in the market called "permissions" that tells you not only the permissions each app requires but it gets VERY specific. Within each permission category there is a whole list of specifics.
It won't help with apps you haven't installed yet but it's good info on the ones you already have.
*edit- Just revisited this app, it's not as detailed as I remember.
just a lil bump...
bumpity bump ...
nothing? at all?
Out of curiosity why isn't root allowed out of the box on the Nexus 7?
I mean I get that no one should use superuser access/root privileges on anything more than a "need to use" basis and honestly, I'll even admit that with the way the ecosystem has evolved, root isn't really entirely "needed" but, it still boggles my mind that there is no way I can just open up a terminal, type in a code, and get root.
I've tried googling the issue but, I generally get a bunch of responses about things which aren't quite related.
Snow_fox said:
Out of curiosity why isn't root allowed out of the box on the Nexus 7?
I mean I get that no one should use superuser access/root privileges on anything more than a "need to use" basis and honestly, I'll even admit that with the way the ecosystem has evolved, root isn't really entirely "needed" but, it still boggles my mind that there is no way I can just open up a terminal, type in a code, and get root.
I've tried googling the issue but, I generally get a bunch of responses about things which aren't quite related.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think its fine the way it is. its jailbroken out of the box so you can use your device how you wish and that is what matters. You can't expect a company to support users to change everything about it. Then people complain about bricked devices or contact them for support for some custom rom.
However I believe they made it pretty easy to root. They certainly could have made it a lot harder. Anyone who has the skills (or patience to learn how) to use root certainly can root a device based on the tutorials given. And other users who don't want to worry about it don't ever see it. The little bit of effort helps weed out the people who would mess things up for themselves.
firesoul453 said:
I think its fine the way it is. its jailbroken out of the box so you can use your device how you wish and that is what matters. You can't expect a company to support users to change everything about it. Then people complain about bricked devices or contact them for support for some custom rom.
However I believe they made it pretty easy to root. They certainly could have made it a lot harder. Anyone who has the skills (or patience to learn how) to use root certainly can root a device based on the tutorials given. And other users who don't want to worry about it don't ever see it. The little bit of effort helps weed out the people who would mess things up for themselves.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't expect a company to support me changing anything I want about it. If I misuse root privileges, then I don't expect to have a lifeline when I call asus/google. I don't expect say Dell or HP to cover my PC if I try to install ubuntu and I botch something up.
However, refusing to let me have root because "might" mess something up is also flawed logic. I may also for one reason or another need root access.
While I am glad they make it easy to root, the reality is there is they are being counter productive. Honestly, just leaving in root access would decrease the chances of me bricking my device at this point. As of now to get root access I'll have to flash a custom recovery compared to just giving the ability to go into a terminal and type in "oem -su enable" or something.
If the flashing issue is really that big of a deal, then why force users to flash to get what they want in the first place?
Snow_fox said:
I don't expect a company to support me changing anything I want about it. If I misuse root privileges, then I don't expect to have a lifeline when I call asus/google. I don't expect say Dell or HP to cover my PC if I try to install ubuntu and I botch something up.
However, refusing to let me have root because "might" mess something up is also flawed logic. I may also for one reason or another need root access.
While I am glad they make it easy to root, the reality is there is they are being counter productive. Honestly, just leaving in root access would decrease the chances of me bricking my device at this point. As of now to get root access I'll have to flash a custom recovery compared to just giving the ability to go into a terminal and type in "oem -su enable" or something.
If the flashing issue is really that big of a deal, then why force users to flash to get what they want in the first place?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Root can cause problems. It can cause security problems if not used right and can brick not only while rooting but while flashing custom roms and things.
while you and I don't go asking for support, a lot of people do. People try to pass things off as warrenty problems and do call and email asking for support for things not originally on that phone.
And it hurts them in other ways. Google makes pretty much all their money from ads. Rooting makes it easy to block ads and you average rom might have it built right in. The only reason google bothers with android was for the ad money. So there is no incentive for them give root out of the box. They already are more open and free than their main competitions.
You could look at samsung. THey make their money of the hardware and so have been more open with rooting with odin, thought they still don't really care for it (probably because of the support issue)
And the carriers are even worse because rooting allows for things like wireless tethering for free and data is their biggest costs. Their certnaly isn't any reason for carriers to push for root.
I honestly don't know the true answer; only Google would know.
But in my opinion, it's because Android is an open source OS, and giving users root access allows them to alter .apk's very easily. This is bad for developers, because most developers make money from advertisements or in-app currency, and allowing users to alter their .apk to easily block ads or change in-app currency would thwart developer interest.
In Windows for example, the OS is not open source, but users have "root" access because they can always get to the root of every program/file. BUT users CANNOT EASILY alter the programs installed on Windows - if they want a hacked version, they usually have to download a hacked version that someone else hacked.
Whereas in Android, it's very easy for me to download any .apk I want, run my hack app that says "Search for this value and change it to this" and BAM it's now hacked in literally seconds.
firesoul453 said:
Root can cause problems. It can cause security problems if not used right and can brick not only while rooting but while flashing custom roms and things.
while you and I don't go asking for support, a lot of people do. People try to pass things off as warrenty problems and do call and email asking for support for things not originally on that phone.
And it hurts them in other ways. Google makes pretty much all their money from ads. Rooting makes it easy to block ads and you average rom might have it built right in. The only reason google bothers with android was for the ad money. So there is no incentive for them give root out of the box. They already are more open and free than their main competitions.
You could look at samsung. THey make their money of the hardware and so have been more open with rooting with odin, thought they still don't really care for it (probably because of the support issue)
And the carriers are even worse because rooting allows for things like wireless tethering for free and data is their biggest costs. Their certnaly isn't any reason for carriers to push for root.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not going to deny adblocking is one of my many vices. While many people have many views on it, all I can say is until ads no longer break my experience completely, I'll be stuck using adblockers. While this is becoming less of a problem with phones/tablets that have faster processors I've had my entire phone lock up before because of certain types of ads my phone couldn't handle. On top of that many are frustrating to deal with as there is no "x" visible for me to tap and I have to back out of whatever I was doing because the phone can't handle the discrepancy in size and find some way to navigate around the ad.
While this is only one example there have been other issues. Hell I had to use a script that required root back when I had my captivate just to get it it to work on my schools wifi. There were a number of issues and I imagine there are still a number of issues that make the lack of root almost a deal breaker.
Sure you can argue from a support issue point of view but, realistically as I already said, I wouldn't have to flash anything if I had access to root... I guess they just chalk it up to "some people are going to do whatever it takes anyway...." but, that just doesn't make much sense to not let people have it anyway.
Geodude074 said:
I honestly don't know the true answer; only Google would know.
But in my opinion, it's because Android is an open source OS, and giving users root access allows them to alter .apk's very easily. This is bad for developers, because most developers make money from advertisements or in-app currency, and allowing users to alter their .apk to easily block ads or change in-app currency would thwart developer interest.
In Windows for example, the OS is not open source, but users have "root" access because they can always get to the root of every program/file. BUT users CANNOT EASILY alter the programs installed on Windows - if they want a hacked version, they usually have to download a hacked version that someone else hacked.
Whereas in Android, it's very easy for me to download any .apk I want, run my hack app that says "Search for this value and change it to this" and BAM it's now hacked in literally seconds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is actually one of the best reasons I think I've ever heard and I've actually asked this question a lot in different places over the years. That's a pretty feasible answer.
Geodude074 said:
I honestly don't know the true answer; only Google would know.
But in my opinion, it's because Android is an open source OS, and giving users root access allows them to alter .apk's very easily. This is bad for developers, because most developers make money from advertisements or in-app currency, and allowing users to alter their .apk to easily block ads or change in-app currency would thwart developer interest.
In Windows for example, the OS is not open source, but users have "root" access because they can always get to the root of every program/file. BUT users CANNOT EASILY alter the programs installed on Windows - if they want a hacked version, they usually have to download a hacked version that someone else hacked.
Whereas in Android, it's very easy for me to download any .apk I want, run my hack app that says "Search for this value and change it to this" and BAM it's now hacked in literally seconds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Rooting has nothing to do with decompiling apks. apk hacking is bad but thats a whole other thing. Anyone can get a hold of pretty much every apk easliy, no need for root.
Windows doesn't really have root, its pretty different. You can give programs administrator privileges I guess, but not exactly the same. Decompiling apks is only easier because its java, it has nothing to do with the os or root privileges.
Don't expect any of these companies support to support root until they have a reason to.
Saw this yesterday on xda tv and found article at UK info site concerning Chainfire.
Apparently Chainfire has come up with a whole new different approach to rooting once marshmallow becomes the standard.
At this point in time we will wait and see after we get marshmallow.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/supersu-v2...-marshmallow-without-modifying-system-1526678
Pp.
I wonder if it'll mean we can avoid tripping knox.
From what I read it sounds like this method circumvents firmware and security protocols.
It could be a knoxless process.
Pp.
The latest scoop, Chainfire has gone to the dark side.
He has sold out to some big entity (no name mentioned) and is pouring his recourses into this entity.
This is one way to stop tampering with your product, hire the person with the smarts to hack your product and make him work for you.
Rooting is going to have to wait for the next root savant.
Pp.
PanchoPlanet said:
The latest scoop, Chainfire has gone to the dark side.
He has sold out to some big entity (no name mentioned) and is pouring his recourses into this entity.
This is one way to stop tampering with your product, hire the person with the smarts to hack your product and make him work for you.
Rooting is going to have to wait for the next root savant.
Pp.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where'd you see this?
The Root said:
Where'd you see this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Reading in the link I posted in op, followed some comments and links I came across what appeared to be a disgruntled modder.
Read for about 15min before I can across the post.
Edit***
It was in the Nexus 6 link taking you to xda.
Pp.
I do not see what you're talking about. Can you be more specific? Maybe supply the link?
njdevils28 said:
I do not see what you're talking about. Can you be more specific? Maybe supply the link?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Will find and post, it could have been a link to the Nexus 6 thread where I read it .
》》》 Edit 《《《
Here's something else I found, not the same article but it spells it out for you.
http://www.androidpolice.com/2015/0...n-involved-in-the-project-for-two-more-years/
Pp.
Here's a link and a copy of op where I found info on Chainfire defection.
WARNING: This is not a place for you to come to say how great you think Chainfire is. I'm not calling his character into question, only his methodologies and the character of the outfit he sold out to (and I don't question the act of selling out, that's business, pays the bills, and puts kids through college). The debates about what people prefer and why are as old as the first software. And of course, I will not tell you what to do, no matter how much I disagree with you. If you UNDERSTAND what I have to say, then THIS software is for you. If you don't, you are probably better off with binaries.
The root situation on Android 5.x left a lot to be desired. There was basically just one distributor of a functional substitute user command (su), and it was binary. Recently, ownership of that binary and all of its history has become the property of a previously unknown legal entity called "Coding Code Mobile Technology LLC". While it was presented as a positive thing that that entity has a great involvement with android root control, this is actually a VERY frightening development.
There are precisely two motives I can imagine for buying up all the root control software for Android;
1) monetizing it, which is contrary to the user's best interests,
2) something very frightening and dangerous involving the potential exploitation of everybody's devices.
You don't know the owners, and they are distributing a binary, so who the heck knows WHAT is going on.
Now a few important considerations with respect to your security and privacy;
1) Obfuscated binary cannot be sanely audited.
2) Function of this binary depends on the ability to manipulate selinux policies on the fly, including RELOADING the policy altogether and replacing it with something possibly completely different. Frankly, I've never heard a single reason why this should be necessary.
3) While a root control application may give you nice audits over other software that is using its service, it can *EASILY* lie about what it is doing itself. It can delete logs, it can share root with other applications that they have made deals with, it can directly sell you out to spammers, etc.
That is WAY too dangerous, and not worth the risk.
Frankly, you are safer if you disable selinux AND nosuid, and just run the old style of root where you set a copy of sh as 6755. And that is FRIGHTENINGLY dangerous.
So not satisfied with this state of root, and especially now with a new unknown entity trying to control the world, we bring you the rebirth of the ORIGINAL Superuser:
https://github.com/phhusson/Superuser
https://github.com/lbdroid/AOSP-SU-PATCH (this one is mine)
From the history of THAT Superuser:
http://www.koushikdutta.com/2008/11/fixing-su-security-hole-on-modified.html
Yes, look at the Superuser repo above and see whose space it was forked from.
Note: This is a work in progress, but working VERY well.
Use my patch against AOSP to generate a new boot.img, which includes the su binary.
Features:
1) selinux ENFORCING,
2) sepolicy can NOT be reloaded.
3) It is NOT necessary (or recommended) to modify your system partition. You can run this with dm-verity!
The source code is all open for you to audit. We have a lot of plans for this, and welcome suggestions, bug reports, and patches.
UPDATE NOVEMBER 19: We have a new github organization to... "organize" contributions to all of the related projects. It is available at https://github.com/seSuperuser
UPDATE2 NOVEMBER 19: We have relicensed the code. All future contributions will now be protected under GPLv3.
*** Regarding the license change; according to both the FSF and the Apache Foundation, GPLv3 (but not GPLv2) is forward compatible with the Apache License 2.0, which is the license we are coming from. http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html . What this means, is that it is *ILLEGAL* for anyone to take any portion of the code that is contributed from this point onward, and use it in a closed source project. We do this in order to guarantee that this VITAL piece of software will remain available for EVERYONE in perpetuity.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=63436951
Pp.
i want a 5.1.1 root without tripping knox.
ourfear said:
i want a 5.1.1 root without tripping knox.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't think it's possible after last update.
Back in the beginning with 502 and first 511 update it was possible but updates patched exploits in kernel , not now. You either windup with tripped Knox or brick.
I'm a diehard rooter but have learned to live /like factory stock on this super phone.
With over 20 disable junk apps I get fenomenal battery life and trouble free functions on my phone the way root would make it in the past.
And that's all I want from this device.
Pp.
I have a rooted box and on certain programs that require root access it removes the allow screen too fast for me to click allow and therefore cannot use the addon. Is there a way to make it simply auto allow everything? On the 1st get I was able to do this but not on the second gen. And when clicking on supersu you cannot launch it to edit any options so basically I am stuck.
Have you tried editing /data/data/eu.chainfire.su/files/supersu.cfg? In particular, change "access=2" to "access=1" as the default.
retyre said:
Have you tried editing /data/data/eu.chainfire.su/files/supersu.cfg? In particular, change "access=2" to "access=1" as the default.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No I have not. Not exactly sure what that means. Is that an adb command?
danknasty said:
No I have not. Not exactly sure what that means. Is that an adb command?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Open the file in any text editor (e.g., ES File Explorer has a Note Editor) and make the change to the default. If you can't, do an adb pull of the file, edit on another device, and put it back to its original location. Make sure you set permissions back to 600.
retyre said:
Open the file in any text editor (e.g., ES File Explorer has a Note Editor) and make the change to the default. If you can't, do an adb pull of the file, edit on another device, and put it back to its original location. Make sure you set permissions back to 600.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was going to try this but remembered that rooting on fire tv uses the a to a usb cable method and all the files are transferred automatically. I do not have a super user file... would I install another one and overwrite it on the box?
sure you do. How would you have root without su? Just look for the file mentioned above and edit it as per retyre's post above.
danknasty said:
I was going to try this but remembered that rooting on fire tv uses the a to a usb cable method and all the files are transferred automatically. I do not have a super user file... would I install another one and overwrite it on the box?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Regardless of the method used to root, rooting involves the install of su and something like SuperSU to make it easier to work with. The fact that you're being prompted to allow su access is proof enough.
Install a root file explorer (I use ES File Explorer), allow it su access, go to the root of the device ("/") and look for the file in the location mentioned above.
retyre said:
Regardless of the method used to root, rooting involves the install of su and something like SuperSU to make it easier to work with. The fact that you're being prompted to allow su access is proof enough.
Install a root file explorer (I use ES File Explorer), allow it su access, go to the root of the device ("/") and look for the file in the location mentioned above.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wasn't saying I didn't have supersu just that the method I use doesn't allow me access before I transfer but I see what you mean I can do this from the box itself. Was hoping I could do it to the supersu file on the computer so that when I root another box I wouldn't have to change the text file again. But I'll try this out later and see how it goes.
retyre said:
Regardless of the method used to root, rooting involves the install of su and something like SuperSU to make it easier to work with. The fact that you're being prompted to allow su access is proof enough.
Install a root file explorer (I use ES File Explorer), allow it su access, go to the root of the device ("/") and look for the file in the location mentioned above.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I tried accessing supersu in two root browsers and it gives me a bunch of greyed out permissions... I am not sure how to even open it with notepad on es file explorer. This is a little different than the first gen as everything must be installed through tw recovery. Before Supersu would just ask me if i wanted to approve everything I clicked ok and never had to check it again. Is there any way I can edit any of the text that is being injected into the box when installing the firetv recovery via the usb cable method.. I believe this is where supersu is being transfered.
update: ok I found supersu inside the prerooted rom... I opened it as a text file and its pages and pages of random symbols etc.
harlekinade said:
Comedy gold.
I suggest you swipe left.
Or start reading what other people actually posted in here before. Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiler or what a filepath is, or why you shouldnt try to resell Fire TVs - just in case...
Here is why - I havent encountered any case where the allow root access prompt would be on screen for less than 15 seconds during which you have to press down/right/enter to grant it permissions - and it only pops on when you are actively launching anything that tries to pull root rights - so you already have the remote in your hands.
Automating root prompt behavior to grant root by default is a really bad idea in general and you asking not only how to automate it, but also automate further installations of such a setup, suggests that maybe you are battling with user behavior of folks that don't know what a superuser prompt is and that go with default settings in most cases. Ethically it is hard to support any of this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow that was really presumptuous and didn't at all relate to anything or help me.... excellent work. I suggest before attempting to troll a post you read the entire post so you can at least have a firm grasp on your ridiculous comments. 9 posts in you're doing great. Lol "ethically it is hard to support any of this." At least you made me laugh. I guess it's unethical in your opinion for me to paint my car red also since it comes from the dealership blue. Btw it never occurred to me to push down right then enter with the remote thanks problem solved.....
danknasty said:
I tried accessing supersu in two root browsers and it gives me a bunch of greyed out permissions... I am not sure how to even open it with notepad on es file explorer. This is a little different than the first gen as everything must be installed through tw recovery. Before Supersu would just ask me if i wanted to approve everything I clicked ok and never had to check it again. Is there any way I can edit any of the text that is being injected into the box when installing the firetv recovery via the usb cable method.. I believe this is where supersu is being transfered.
update: ok I found supersu inside the prerooted rom... I opened it as a text file and its pages and pages of random symbols etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why are you trying to edit SuperSU (the app)? You should edit supersu.cfg, which is the text config file for SuperSU. Look for supersu.cfg in the location mentioned earlier.
retyre said:
Why are you trying to edit SuperSU (the app)? You should edit supersu.cfg, which is the text config file for SuperSU. Look for supersu.cfg in the location mentioned earlier.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only supersu I was able to find using es explorer was the supersu file in the system folder... data showed up as black. I was finally able to find it using a different root browser I changed the setting for the app it self to 1 and it works. The only program that this gives me this issue with is teamviewer and I am wondering if it has to do with using a launcher version of kodi as it always kicks me out of the allow root selection screen, automatically disallows root and jumps to the kodi screen. But doing what you recommended worked. Thanks
harlekinade said:
Thank you for explaining your issue a little bit further. Changing the default of a superuser prompt to "yes" is something that shouldnt be considered an "easy fix" you could integrate into an image an then roll out on several devices.
Even if you LOL at the ethics of this, as you so eloquently put it - its still not something you should consider doing, generally speaking.
Just like you - trying to edit the Superuser binary in a texteditor - people can ruin their devices beyond repair, the default on "no" is a behavioral crutch to make it less likely that they find themselves in that situation.
Not sure if it would work for you - but I posted a teamviewer alternative in the general section (Exposed modules and root apps thread), that you might want to take a look at, as it doesnt require the app to be launched every time you want to access the Fire TV via VNC - as it runs as a service in the background.
I'm not exactly sure what you try to accomplish with teamviewer and why you want to roll out this configuration on multiple devices - so I'm not sure if it fits your purpose, but it might.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My issue was explained in the first post but i think you're really thanking me for telling you that I don't intend to sell rooted fire tv's with super user permissions on yes by default for malicious purposes... as you so eloquently put it.. I was actually laughing at the fact that you are on a forum that is primarily devoted to rooting and customizing devices but you draw the line at me wanting to default the supersu permissions on my devices because of ethical reasons. Anyways I'll check out that alternative to teamviewer you spoke of. I intend to use teamviewer for the purpose it was created which is to remotely access devices from my computer.
I actually did confirm that it was the launcher version of kodi that was kicking me out of the supersu prompt for anyone that was interested.. I turned off the xposed module to confirm.
harlekinade said:
You wanted support, you did get what you asked for, and then you almost ruined your device, because you din't see the file you were told to edit, and decided to open a different one. Then you blamed it on your root explorer app.
In the opening posting you stated that you wanted to change the default, but not why - and when I criticized this as being not needed in general, risky - and if you'd planned to roll it out to several installations, other people might use - as your postings intended, even unethical.
Unethical because of two concepts -
- You usually don't think about automation for mass deployment - if you don't plan an reselling devices, and we have a big problem with resellers in this community, not taking the responsibility "clause" seriously. Because of a principle you could describe as "sell and vanish". Which almost ruined the Kodi community, and arguably has impacted this one as well.
There is this distinct sense of "wasteland" after a general interest crowd was allowed to promote their interests (ad hoc, personal problem solving assistance) for a few months, by moderators that have no stake in this specific scene at all. I can only repeat that.
- It is ethically problematic to tell users like you how to change an important default and not what comes with it. The entire filesystem model and security in operating system depends on escalating user account rights. With root - you always grant access to everything.
Yes XDA (or what this community stood for in the past) is all for root (the rights to do whatever you want in an OS) - but ostensibly not for handing those permissions over to every user, or making sure that root level rights are granted by just pressing the big OK button on a TV remote, whenerver a popup comes up. The prompt is there for a reason. So is the default to no. If you want to change that because of a very specific personal problem, thats fine - you can (thats the "self empowerment" part), its the "mass rollout" of this configuration you hinted at - that rang some alarmbells - so to speak. Just from a "you might cause more problems than you solve" in the longterm - standpoint.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well just to clarify not at one point did I ever almost ruin my device that's just pure imagination on your part furthermore I did not blame any program for my own actions I stated my experience. Secondly I can do whatever I want with a device I purchase, are you attempting to police the entire community with our own personal "ethical" standards on what should and should not be done with their property? I can tell you're biased because people sell these and it makes you upset. I've identified as not part of that community and honestly I don't owe you any explanation on what I want to do with my devices period. The quantity is also irrelevant can one not own more than two tvs? But again the issue was solved mainly by the aid of the others contributing to this post thanks for your ethical input though. Lol.
harlekinade said:
Then a simple question.
Did you plan, at any point, to sell rooted AFTVs with Teamviewer on them and Superuser modified in a way that defaults to granting root rights to any process that asks for them?
Because thats a major issue. Not only because we saw in here over the past few months what happens if some peaple sell other people "free and easy" and then arent able to assist them if something breaks. The influx of technically illiterate users - having been sold on "free" and then not getting what they paid for in the end, looking for "support" everywhere they could think of, has scared the enthusiasts community in this sector for years to come.
And amazons moves surrounding it (explained away by product bloggers as "easier for most people" and "necessary") ended up establishing blacklists on consumer android devices for the first time in history (?), and almost killed Kodi as an afterthought (there was money to be made, if you faltered and bowed to amazons restrictions).
Resellers were and still are misusing this community by playing out entities that at no point had a self concept of becoming "product support helplines" and destroying the open source ethos by funneling a mainstream clientel through small community channels, that werent created to handle them.
If you look around you - in this forum, on reddit - even on aftvnews - this is what is left at this point, and some of us have no interest in rekindling the hype.
Part of demanding questions from an open source community is also, that you reflect, contrast, rethink and tinker with ideas in the open. XDA becoming a place for the masses to get personal support services - actually destroys communities like this. People demanding that you attend to their personal needs first, and always are respectful, charming and considerate can become problematic also.
When you had opened the Superuser binary in the texteditor, complaining that it only shows you "cryptic symbols" you were exactly one or two steps away from ruining Superuser on your device. Namely - changing ANY of those cryptic symbols and then saving the file you had already opened with the intent to edit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're still on about me reselling devices I don't know what to tell you I'm not gonna respond to it anymore. I was never close to bricking my device but I love how you decided to map out a scenario where I could have. You seem to be dead set on policing this forum (this post) and I find it odd you're talking about the history of this community after just 10 posts. I never demanded anything, this is a forum as you stated. I made an inquiry you can either help or you can ignore (I thanked those who helped). Or you can force your own moral agenda down everyone's throat that would be option c, the one you chose. Anyway there's really nothing left to be said my issue was resolved with the help of those interested in the actual question. I know people sell these things so does everyone else, this is not relevant to this post however.
harlekinade said:
I have a history in here beyond those 10 postings - but thats a story for another day..
My intent may have been to rattle some notions - but not to "police" by mentioning the concept of ethics once. I'm merely a peasant at this point in time, with a handful of soil in his hand, muttering "what have you done to this place"..
If I had any real power left to wield in here, arguing over concepts would be higher rated than providing "easy solutions". It isn't.
Also, sorry that I have borrowed your thread - and thank you for the conversation. I enjoyed it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I figured there was more to your ten post history. Perhaps maybe you were not so ethical at one point to have lost those powers??? [emoji50] But hey like I said you made me laugh so no complaints here. Continue to enjoy the forum as will I.
Hello. I am using a Samsung Galaxy S20+ 5G, Model SM-G986U
Android Version 11
Kernel version 4.19.113-20290031
Build number RP1A.200720.012.G986USQS1CTL1
I did both a Google search and a search using the xda-forum search bar.
First off: Kudos to whoever worked on the forum search feature. It is infinitely better today than it was years ago.
Unfortunately, while the question I have has been asked several times, it looks like no clear answer is given to any of the inquirers.
I would like to be able to bypass or override whatever flag or feature it is that lets app developers disallow users to take screenshots. I would like to be able to take screenshots in apps like Microsoft Teams (and a few other apps), even when the organization has chosen not to permit it. This is something I need to do for work. I can take screenshots in Teams just fine from a Windows PC regardless of policy. I am trusting there exists some method of doing the same from an android device.
What I would not like to do is have a discussion about the merits of enabling or disabling this security feature. Some of the previous users that have inquired were met with discussion about the wisdom of their decision instead of answering their questions directly. This time, I'd like for replies to assume that my mind is already made up and that it isn't changing. If this is something that simply cannot be done, I can accept that answer. Though I don't readily believe it. I believe that just like with a PC, there exists some method of capturing all data sent to the phone, regardless of the sender's intention.
Thank you.
Try any third party app to capture what is on screen, I think you can't do it with stock method of taking screenshot. From android 7 or 8 , they introduced new Methods to not to capture what is available on screen so that any hackers can't capture our passwords using banking apps. I think ms have implemented same strategy. So you can't do it until you have root permissions
I am 100% willing to root the device if necessary, but do want some confirmation beforehand that rooting it will enable me to screen capture from whatever app I want.
r0b126 said:
Hello. I am using a Samsung Galaxy S20+ 5G, Model SM-G986U
Android Version 11
Kernel version 4.19.113-20290031
Build number RP1A.200720.012.G986USQS1CTL1
I did both a Google search and a search using the xda-forum search bar.
First off: Kudos to whoever worked on the forum search feature. It is infinitely better today than it was years ago.
Unfortunately, while the question I have has been asked several times, it looks like no clear answer is given to any of the inquirers.
I would like to be able to bypass or override whatever flag or feature it is that lets app developers disallow users to take screenshots. I would like to be able to take screenshots in apps like Microsoft Teams (and a few other apps), even when the organization has chosen not to permit it. This is something I need to do for work. I can take screenshots in Teams just fine from a Windows PC regardless of policy. I am trusting there exists some method of doing the same from an android device.
What I would not like to do is have a discussion about the merits of enabling or disabling this security feature. Some of the previous users that have inquired were met with discussion about the wisdom of their decision instead of answering their questions directly. This time, I'd like for replies to assume that my mind is already made up and that it isn't changing. If this is something that simply cannot be done, I can accept that answer. Though I don't readily believe it. I believe that just like with a PC, there exists some method of capturing all data sent to the phone, regardless of the sender's intention.
Thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My simple reply,, is when I got that security
policy violation I was either A) trying to capture a
Kodak moment of my current bank balance in hopes of an securing an outcome, that while only temporary was nonetheless a mutually desired and shared experience with a member of the opposite gender, also, FLAGGED AS GOOD TO GO, or, MAJORLY way less interesting, B) the never to miss a trick bastards just don't want me swiping an awesome wallpaper idea right from under their greedy noses! Dammit man, I'll always choose A)..habit, I guess? lol
'back in the day' i've used smalipatcher.
This disables the security flag completely.
Not sure if it works with android 11.
Requires root.
Easiest way; You could also mirror the screen to your pc, and make screenshots from your pc.
r0b126 said:
Hello. I am using a Samsung Galaxy S20+ 5G, Model SM-G986U
Android Version 11
Kernel version 4.19.113-20290031
Build number RP1A.200720.012.G986USQS1CTL1
I did both a Google search and a search using the xda-forum search bar.
First off: Kudos to whoever worked on the forum search feature. It is infinitely better today than it was years ago.
Unfortunately, while the question I have has been asked several times, it looks like no clear answer is given to any of the inquirers.
I would like to be able to bypass or override whatever flag or feature it is that lets app developers disallow users to take screenshots. I would like to be able to take screenshots in apps like Microsoft Teams (and a few other apps), even when the organization has chosen not to permit it. This is something I need to do for work. I can take screenshots in Teams just fine from a Windows PC regardless of policy. I am trusting there exists some method of doing the same from an android device.
What I would not like to do is have a discussion about the merits of enabling or disabling this security feature. Some of the previous users that have inquired were met with discussion about the wisdom of their decision instead of answering their questions directly. This time, I'd like for replies to assume that my mind is already made up and that it isn't changing. If this is something that simply cannot be done, I can accept that answer. Though I don't readily believe it. I believe that just like with a PC, there exists some method of capturing all data sent to the phone, regardless of the sender's intention.
Thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
very well put, i don't get it, what's wrong with these androids
actually considering getting an iphone for this stupid problem
youre best bet would be without rooting use this method, i used it, it worked on some apps and unfortunately some banking apps are just not cloneable, whatsapp is not too