Related
The answer is simple: do not include any non-open source apks or code that you have not explicitly received permission to distribute.
Instead, after building your entire update.zip, strip out all the proprietary software. Then, create a .bat and/or .sh file that will perform the following tasks:
- Download the official update.zip from the google.com site.
- Extract the required apks, obexes and jars.
- Add them to the correct locations in your update.zip
- Sign the update.zip (so include signapk.jar with your script)
- Rename the file update.zip
Name your zip as "incomplete-update.zip" (or something of the sort) and include your completer script with the file. Users will run the script and receive a complete update.zip as you had intended to distribute. THAT'S IT! A completely license-abiding way to distribute cooked "roms" without infringing on Google's licenses.
I wish google or HTC would contact me, I would say huh, what, me no speak spanish.... lol
Only if that would actually stop lawyers. God I hate lawyers. If that defense worked MMOGlider.com would still be working.
TheArtiszan said:
Only if that would actually stop lawyers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It would, atleast in this case.
TheArtiszan said:
Only if that would actually stop lawyers. God I hate lawyers. If that defense worked MMOGlider.com would still be working.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Glider actually had a detrimental effect to the community, these mods don't. Horrible comparison.
afflaq said:
Glider actually had a detrimental effect to the community, these mods don't. Horrible comparison.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One man's detriment is another man's free market. It's a tough question.
Disclaimer: I hated MMOGlider and the people who use it, and wish they would've died in car crashes.
jashsu said:
The answer is simple: do not include any non-open source apks or code that you have not explicitly received permission to distribute.
Instead, after building your entire update.zip, strip out all the proprietary software. Then, create a .bat and/or .sh file that will perform the following tasks:
- Download the official update.zip from the google.com site.
- Extract the required apks, obexes and jars.
- Add them to the correct locations in your update.zip
- Sign the update.zip (so include signapk.jar with your script)
- Rename the file update.zip
Name your zip as "incomplete-update.zip" (or something of the sort) and include your completer script with the file. Users will run the script and receive a complete update.zip as you had intended to distribute. THAT'S IT! A completely license-abiding way to distribute cooked "roms" without infringing on Google's licenses.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This would work. But, it seems to me you could also take a similar approach that works like this:
1) Strip the proprietary code out of the update before signing.
2) Sign and distribute the update.
3) People install the update and return to the recovery screen.
4) Drop into terminal mode and run a script that downloads and installs the missing proprietary code in the proper places.
5) Reboot and enjoy.
Any reason that wouldn't work equally well (but be somewhat simpler)?
stellarman said:
This would work. But, it seems to me you could also take a similar approach that works like this:
1) Strip the proprietary code out of the update before signing.
2) Sign and distribute the update.
3) People install the update and return to the recovery screen.
4) Drop into terminal mode and run a script that downloads and installs the missing proprietary code in the proper places.
5) Reboot and enjoy.
Any reason that wouldn't work equally well (but be somewhat simpler)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It doesn't seem like it would be a good idea to boot into the OS with major parts missing (esp stuff like framework.apk). However, if it can be worked around then yes, that would be a method too. Any variation on the theme of "partial update.zip plus files from a locally downloaded official update" would be good.
Is it more work to do this than just to distribute a fully complete (but not license compliant) update.zip? Yes. But it not only protects the cook from being C&D'd, it also helps to legitimize the "ROM" cooking scene.
You are still distributing the the unlicensed files, you are just providing a different way to distribute them. instead of including them directly in your ROM, you are supplying a script that adds them to your ROM.
Man all this is too much.... I might get rid of my G1. Google is always trying to ruin the good things for us. -__-"
jashsu said:
It doesn't seem like it would be a good idea to boot into the OS with major parts missing (esp stuff like framework.apk)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The framework.apk is APL and part of the Android source. To see what you get without the Googlebits, just run the emulator.
I think the easiest is to have the updater copy the proprietary bits from the phone to your SD card, perform update, then copy back. then reboot.
jashsu said:
It doesn't seem like it would be a good idea to boot into the OS with major parts missing (esp stuff like framework.apk). However, if it can be worked around then yes, that would be a method too. Any variation on the theme of "partial update.zip plus files from a locally downloaded official update" would be good.
Is it more work to do this than just to distribute a fully complete (but not license compliant) update.zip? Yes. But it not only protects the cook from being C&D'd, it also helps to legitimize the "ROM" cooking scene.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read my post again. I am not suggesting that you try to boot without the parts. I am saying to use the terminal WITHIN Recovery. Do the step of re-adding the proprietary bits BEFORE you leave Recovery and reboot.
Actually people, let's not forget that perhaps Cyanogen had to modify some closed-source apps like Market and Camera on several occasions, right? To avoid crashes due to resource-id changes?
So just downloading older binaries might not always work?
--Tim
I sent a twitter to Cyanogen about this last night. Downloading every time would be slow and a waste of bandwidth. I think you could do it one of two ways.
1) add a script to cm-recovery that is executed with ALT+G the extracts the apks, etc from an official google dist file on the sdcard and copy them to the proper locations.
2) add a script (which does the extraction, etc. from a zip on the sd) someplace into update.zip. cm-recovery looks for that script and if it exists then it will automatically execute after the normal update routine is complete
3) a combination where the script is in update.zip but the users has to hit ALT+G to execute it.
I think #2/#3 would be most flexible because you wouldn't have to change recovery image for different ROMs and all ROM developers could have a custom script in their update.zip to fit their needs.
rewrite those applications if they haven't already been rewritten in one way or another many dialers, a couple marketplaces, youtube, all the apps could be developed just like messenger and browser come on lets just get around google and create the missing apps
kanstin said:
I sent a twitter to Cyanogen about this last night. Downloading every time would be slow and a waste of bandwidth. I think you could do it one of two ways.
1) add a script to cm-recovery that is executed with ALT+G the extracts the apks, etc from an official google dist file on the sdcard and copy them to the proper locations.
2) add a script (which does the extraction, etc. from a zip on the sd) someplace into update.zip. cm-recovery looks for that script and if it exists then it will automatically execute after the normal update routine is complete
3) a combination where the script is in update.zip but the users has to hit ALT+G to execute it.
I think #2/#3 would be most flexible because you wouldn't have to change recovery image for different ROMs and all ROM developers could have a custom script in their update.zip to fit their needs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Anything that requires a user to press more keys is dumb. The problem Google has is that their apps are being redistributed by rom makers.
Lets take a look at how Google circumvents the same restrictions for HTC binaries: http://source.android.com/documentation/building-for-dream
Remember they are advocating circumventing HTC's proprietary licenses by running a script to copy these files. We need to do the same thing, and as long as we are coping the files, using the phone as the SOURCE, the process can be transparent to the user.
Edit:
Also has anyone thought about the fact that HTC proprietary files are being redistributed also? The phones are UNUSABLE without these files.
fauxhawk said:
Anything that requires a user to press more keys is dumb.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, it is dumb. Option #2 runs the script automatically and and Option #3 requires pressing ALT+G. Option #3 is in case the lawyers get really nasty; there is no way they can say that option is in violation because it requires user intervention (pressing ALT+G).
would this approach at distribution impact the optimization and tight fit of the ROM?
This is pretty much the same idea I had last night.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=564303
camalot said:
You are still distributing the the unlicensed files, you are just providing a different way to distribute them. instead of including them directly in your ROM, you are supplying a script that adds them to your ROM.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But you are not distributing these files. The update.zip you supply has absolutely no intellectual property which you are not entitled to distribute. Even the script, the IPR for it would be with the dev who write it. Now it might well be illegal - and personally I'd debate whether it is, but let's leave that for now - to *RUN* that script. But that's not the dev's concern and everything he supplied would be his own IPR.
Say you had a friend who worked for Google. It's the same as the difference between this friend emailing you a copyrighted MP3, versus you using Google to search for the same MP3 and then clicking on a link that appears. In the latter case Google hasn't distributed anything - they've merely provided the means for you to find the file on-line. YOU are then the one who breaks the law by downloading it. In the former case, it's your friend - and possibly Google as the people who provide the email system - who break the law.
Any dev who provided a script to download what is needed from a place on the internet and extract them from a zip would be very difficult to C&D.
Good day,
I am new to the forum so please forgive me if this is not the right place to ask.
I have been reading through some of the threads on the forum and is curious to know if there is a way to load custom kernel libraries or device drivers onto the phone.
If there is a way, is there a correct procedure? For example to load a custom device driver / kernel library, do I also have to have an entry in the registry? Does the dll file have to be in /Windows?
Thanks in advance.
Good questions. There's been only a little research on this so far. I can tell you waht I've found, though:
For a stock ROM, nobody has managed it yet, but it might be possible. You'll need to have your DLL signed, and the certificate added to the Code Integrity store on the phone (just mailing yourself the .cer is insufficient! That will put it in the wrong store). You'll probalby want the DLL to be in \Windows, although I'm not sure it's needed. You almost certainly will need to add registry entries; the current drivers seem to have them.
Good day,
thanks for your reply. And thanks for all the good research you have done.
So at the moment, the software approach is not working but for custom roms, is it possible to include custom device drivers / kernel libraries in them?
Thank you.
mousefish321 said:
Good day,
thanks for your reply. And thanks for all the good research you have done.
So at the moment, the software approach is not working but for custom roms, is it possible to include custom device drivers / kernel libraries in them?
Thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, it's possible. The HD2 Multitouch driver is an example that its somehow possible. Should be the same for the other devices (espacially HTC first gens)...
But don't know what you're getting at? Why would you need a custom driver?
Good day,
well, I just think that having a driver that acts like HTCUtility would make things convenient.
As for file operations, besides the application that Heathcliff has created (WP7RootTool), are there other applications that can do write operations to the /Windows folder?
What are the things that needs to be done before we can write to that folder?
Thank you.
Any app with Elevated or TCB privileges can write to \Windows, I think. Using HtcRoot project or WP7 Root Tools works (both elevate apps to TCB permissions, though using different methods). Also, using an OEM driver, such as HtcProvisionDrv or HtcFileUtility, works (although those two particular drivers were crippled in the 4.x firmware).
Good day,
thanks for the information. I tried the HtcRoot tool and it works. Thanks for the tool and the source that allows me to know how it works.
Can I assume that I would be able to have write access to the Certificate and Code Integrity store also?
I am also curious as to the workings of HTCFileUtility. A quick search on this turns up little information on its workings.
Furthermore, is there a guide to inserting custom certificates to the root Certificate and Code Integrity store? I have tried downloading the Certificates.zip file in http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1236027 and test rom files in http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1248799 hoping that they will shed some light but is unable to download them.
Any help is appreciated. Thank you.
Yes, installing your own cert into Code Integrity is possible (in several ways, actually, but I did it using HtcRoot just as an exercise). The certificates are actually stored in the registry, so any tool that can write to HKLM can add them. I believe that WP7 Root Tools will also let you choose the store for adding a certificate if you "open" the cert from the Root Tools filebrowser.
Although I don't know exactly how HtcFileUtility works, here's the basics. It's a software driver that exposes an interface - probably an IOCTL - which apps can use to perform filesystem operations. Since it runs with TCB permissions (it's probably kernel mode, though I haven't actually checked, but it's definitely in TCB) it can perform any operation that the filesystem supports. Of course, that doesn't mean that it exposes all those operations through the IOCTL... but it exposes enough of them for a pretty solid filebrowser implementation (that's how TouchXplorer and Advanced Explorer worked, although they used an OEM COM DLL that called into the driver rather than doing the IOCTL themselves).
The new version of it has very limited operations permitted; it will only list files in a few folders and so forth. It does still "work" within those limitations - Connection Setup, for example, uses it to check the folder that we use for interop-unlock on HTC - but it isn't useful for a general-purpose browser anymore.
It would be great to even figure out how to roll back the OEM drivers to earlier versions. For example, I've got WP7 Root Tools installed on my HD7, but I don't want to install HTC updates because they'll break my drivers such that if something ever goes wrong I won't be able to re-install Root Tools, or if a new hack is found (or developed; I'm working on some stuff with HtcRoot still) I won't be able to run it on my phone. Being able to use the advantages of the new firmware (Internet Sharing, compass in managed apps, hopefully an end to the damn music player freezing between songs...) while still having hackable OEM drivers would be reallllly nice...
Good day,
thanks for the information.
I noticed in the HTCRoot project thread where you mentioned that "It is not a true handle (no handle table, no handle data) but everything that checks for tokens also checks for this const value, and appears to pretty much skip all remaining permissions checks if it finds it".
Would you mind sharing some of the function names so that I could take a look at the code where the checking occurs?
Thanks.
Hi guys!
Microsoft said this to The Verge recently:
The scenario outlined is not a security vulnerability and does not pose a threat to Windows RT users. The mechanism described is not something the average user could, or reasonably would, leverage, as it requires local access to a system, local administration rights and a debugger in order to work. In addition, the Windows Store is the only supported method for customers to install applications for Windows RT. There are mechanisms in place to scan for security threats and help ensure apps from the Store are legitimate and can be acquired and used with confidence.
We applaud the ingenuity of the folks who worked this out and the hard work they did to document it. We’ll not guarantee these approaches will be there in future releases.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So fire up regedit, go to
Code:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WindowsUpdate\Auto Update
and set the DWORD AUOptions to 0x00000000.
Only do this if you want to run unsigned apps!
Stay safe!
clrokr
For those who prefer do-it-for-me solutions, with the ability to roll back, have a pair of .REG files. The "Default" one I taken from my Surface before applying this tweak. The "Disabled" one sets the reg value as above.
@clrokr: We gotta get you a RD tag, pronto! You're doing great things.
GoodDayToDie said:
@clrokr: We gotta get you a RD tag, pronto! You're doing great things.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, I'm flattered. Also, thanks for the reg files!
GoodDayToDie said:
@clrokr: We gotta get you a RD tag, pronto! You're doing great things.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seconded.
As far as MS's quote goes, I'm not 100% sure they will be setting out to patch it, but it's still a good idea to disable Windows Update anyways. They may be able to store some sort of cert blacklist in the UEFI that will block the executables required for this, even after a reinstall.
whats the difference between uefi,efi and firmware?
I find bootmgfw.efi,winload.efi in bcdedit.and I find surfacertuefi.bin in c:\windows\firmware.and every time I reinstall windows,there is a firmware in windows update.so is there anything flash into the surface hardware from window update?I think the uefi is just a file in the filesystem and its recovered when I reinstall windows from usb.
windowsrtc said:
whats the difference between uefi,efi and firmware?
I find bootmgfw.efi,winload.efi in bcdedit.and I find surfacertuefi.bin in c:\windows\firmware.and every time I reinstall windows,there is a firmware in windows update.so is there anything flash into the surface hardware from window update?I think the uefi is just a file in the filesystem and its recovered when I reinstall windows from usb.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, the firmware (stored on-chip) is what you find in SurfaceRTUEFI.bin. The .EFI files are executables that can be loaded by this firmware if they are signed correctly.
Note: just because automatic updates are disabled doesn't mean you should ignore Windows Update. Quite the opposite, in fact, since this hack makes malicious exploits easier too. Just be very careful which patches you install.
clrokr said:
No, the firmware (stored on-chip) is what you find in SurfaceRTUEFI.bin. The .EFI files are executables that can be loaded by this firmware if they are signed correctly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so uefi is checking efi ,but whats checking uefi?what will happen if we flash a modified uefi?
windowsrtc said:
so uefi is checking efi ,but whats checking uefi?what will happen if we flash a modified uefi?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The UEFI is currently the only thing capable of flashing a new UEFI, and it checks the signatures on any new UEFIs it flashes.
The only real way you could do it without relying on a signature check would be to open the tablet and solder onto the NAND directly.
Oh, there might be a JTAG port you could use... but yeah. Short of opening up the device (which the Surface, at least, is definitely not designed to support) there's not supposed to be any way to flash an unsigned firmware.
Also, the signature keys are probably stored in a TPM, so mucking with them isn't a practical option either if the EFI doesn't have a way to do it (which it doesn't).
GoodDayToDie said:
Oh, there might be a JTAG port you could use... but yeah. Short of opening up the device (which the Surface, at least, is definitely not designed to support) there's not supposed to be any way to flash an unsigned firmware.
Also, the signature keys are probably stored in a TPM, so mucking with them isn't a practical option either if the EFI doesn't have a way to do it (which it doesn't).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can reset the TPM from Windows (change the owner password w/o knowing the previous one) and it doesn't break, I don't think they're stored in the TPM.
I have no idea what the TPM is used for.
GoodDayToDie said:
Also, the signature keys are probably stored in a TPM
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. There are lots of info on TPM, and it is not used to store CA keys.
A “Debug System” is will initially be identified by the presence of the Microsoft Test Signing CA in the UEFI signature database (“db”). The mechanism to identify debug machines may change, but the exclusion path logic should remain unchanged.
OEMs will need to work with their SOC supplier to provide the tools and process to implement “Debug Systems”.
To enable debug systems the db will need to contain the “Microsoft Testing Root Certificate Authority 2010”
....
Note: If there is a need to run unsigned tools, the system can be configured as a “Debug System” during manufacturing but there must be a step in the production process that removes the Microsoft Test CA. Production machines must not ship with the Microsoft Test CA in the db .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The last line explains the behavior I've seen on a just-bought VivoTab - I've seen lines about running unsigned files in CodeIntegrity eventlog. Seems that the device was provisioned with the unsigned tools, one of which deleted the certificate from uefi DB.
By the way, it should be theoretically possible to recover those tools on a just-bought device, if you would not go through the initial setup process but immediately press shift+f10 to run CMD and run a deleted-file recovery tool from there, or make a sector-by clone of disk C: to an SD card for later analysis. But, sadly, currently there are no such tools, and even if they are - they need to be signed by ms
Im using genuine Windows 8 Pro, and I dont see any benefits of this. But hey, I installed the "free" one on my friends computer. So this would be pretty handy for them, in case microsoft release an unfriendly patch
clrokr said:
So fire up regedit, go to
Code:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WindowsUpdate\Auto Update
and set the DWORD AUOptions to 0x00000000.
Only do this if you want to run unsigned apps!
[/QUOTE]
I navigated to this position in regedit and the key was already setted to 0x00000000
Might that be caused by the jailbreak tool published by netham45?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GoodDayToDie said:
Oh, there might be a JTAG port you could use
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even if you could find the JTAG it would be useless, Tegra processors lock out JTAG access when set to ODMPRODUCTION.
save_jeff said:
I navigated to this position in regedit and the key was already setted to 0x00000000
Might that be caused by the jailbreak tool published by netham45?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My tool does not set any settings of the sort.
netham45 said:
My tool does not set any settings of the sort.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thx ;]
I would like to have this in the jailkreak tool as an optional funktion.
Maybe you could consider that :]
Just wondering why the registry hack is needed when you can simply disable the service? Seems like a more straightforward approach to me
bfosterjr said:
Just wondering why the registry hack is needed when you can simply disable the service? Seems like a more straightforward approach to me
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does not the service start again after restart of the system?
save_jeff said:
Does not the service start again after restart of the system?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can permanently disable it.
APKSPY - RESURRECTED
First:
I want to thank @ido for the original application -- It was his idea (and his code I've hacked :cyclops and modified.
Second:
Since Ido seems not to be active anymore I'll re-publish the application here.
Unless for some reason Ido will specifically ask me to remove it.
The original post
ido said:
ApkSpy is a simple tool I hacked up tonight which allows you to easily view the manifest of an APK (screenshots attached - not up to date though) just by double clicking it. (It can even associate with the .apk filetype, yay!)
ApkSpy relies on the aapt.exe tool from the android SDK, so you must have that installed (or just copy aapt.exe from somewhere, that's the only file needed to run ApkSpy).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Third:
Requires Microsoft©® .Net Framework v4
(Kind of since I've done it some time ago and waited for Ido [the orignal developer] to respond and allow or disallow me to re-publish... So, I don't remember all the changes I've already done...)
v1.8.19 CHANGELOG:
Fixed some Date parsing function (zipped file with no time stamp) in ZipStorer (by @Jaime Olivares) maybe causing some of the error reported here...
v1.8 CHANGELOG:
Changed Icon - CONTRIBUTED BY @Jarmezrocks
Removed unneeded tabs (System, Batch Rename, Log)
Minimize / Maximized restored back
v1.7 CHANGELOG:
(Actually 4.1.7.870, but the first and the last parts are internally used :fingers-crossed:)
Try to automatically find adb.exe and aapt.exe in ApkSPY directory or in PATH variable: If failed finding any of the executables, the user is asked to manually locate them
(★ Currently the location is not saved... ★).
Check if the ADB server is running and Start or ask if to Restart ADB server
Tidy up the code
Refining the original libraries written by Ido related to ADB and AAPT
Some more minor code updates
Revised most of the "General" tab (other tabs ware not touched) of the UI:
Grouped and ordered controls on form
Added DropDown of devices attached (★ Not automatically updating upon plugging... ★)
Added some control over ADB actions
Added status bar that some other details are shown, e.g. device type (Nexus, I9100...), OS version (4.1.2, 4.4.2...) and OS build (KOT49H, KVT49L...)
Added (nice looking) information panel with clickable links (for actions on the form) and coloring
Other changes (I can't recall right now, since I've done it some time ago and waited for a response from Ido for permission to republish)
(★ Maybe I'll add an option for this later, depending on my -- not to much -- free time and requested by users .... ★)
Known bugs:
Sometimes ADB fails to return build.prop property for the status bar (however it has not caused any critical problem, so (I think) it can be safely ignored) -- haven't been able (yet) to find the exact state it is happening
Please take the time to look at the application ABOUT tab
Any Other ideas are welcome!
If you like it, Don't forget to Thank me
If you enjoy using this application as much as I have enjoyed re-writing it
please donate to show your appreciation
RESERVED
Nice
Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
Good news
Bug report, every time I open this program, this dialog pops up, after click OK, this program works well.
PS, aapt.exe is in the same dir with ApkSpy
I got this errors:
1:
2:
Error in property: [email protected]@usrdata
cmlx said:
Good news
Bug report, every time I open this program, this dialog pops up, after click OK, this program works well.
PS, aapt.exe is in the same dir with ApkSpy
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey dude,
I am not sure what you are doing wrong on your PC but it's certainly not the app as it works perfectly fine on my computer? Out of interest and for the sake or helping the new dev I thought I would raise a few points just to eliminate any finger pointing. There's a wishy-washy area when it comes to building/hacking things that were originally someone elses work...so yeah one can easily make great improvements yet open the door to bugs at the same time too. Anyway...thought I'd ask this:
Does aapt sit on your path? I know you said it is in the same directory, however just like a batch script in Windows it needs to "CD" or change directories to the %~dp0 if it is to understand what an executable is that happens to be sitting in the same directory as it's self. So this is is kinda directed at the new dev now. What I think is happening is that aapt is assumed to be in the system path when quite often it is not (i.e. those on XDA who have not yet played with the Android SDK properly). Put simply unless the application knows it is in the same directory as your executable it won't at all understand what aapt is. Does that make sense?
@dmagician , I would make sure that the apkspy app can do a check (even if it is a string search for the first few lines returned from aapt.exe), a simple if statement before throwing that error ....actually it would likely be an 'if not' statement. I don't have any of the code in front of me atm but I can help you out if you like? I was hacking this app myself sometime ago when ido first released it just using reshacker.
Note: If you are stuck and don't have source code you technically could write a full AutoIT wrapper for this app that could do all the checks and more and then bundle everything up into the one exe still. Check out the newer WinAPI stuff for AutoIT and in particular "Run binary" (yes that's correct you can just about run anything repackaged now and not need to deploy the original exe's or even libraries....they can all be stream fed to AutoIT @Compile time and need not be typically "installed" like you used to have to do. Anyway...I am waffling on shoot me a PM man.
@cmlx, to overcome your ApkSpy woes, and until dmagician can put his finger on what the cause is or what ido did when building it ages ago.....then you will firstly need to be patient (props to dmagician to figuring sh!t out so far) but till then where ever you have dumped the ApkSpy and aapt.exe on your system; just copy the address and put it on your system path. To do this 1) right click on My Computer or Computer if you are on Win 7 or 8. 2) Choose properties. 3) Advanced System settings and then at the bottom of tab you will see 'Environment Variables', click it and you will see some "User" and "System" options. Depending on your User access rights on the system you are running on (hopefully you are running as Admin surely?) then you can choose to edit your main system path or create a new variable in your user settings called 'path' Note User variables are always postfix to system variables but should always work anyhow.
Disclaimer: cmlx, if however you have already got an aapt.exe already existing on your system path but it is dodgy then you have to ensure that the good aapt.exe in your app directory is placed on path BEFORE the dodgy one....just sayin. Cause your system searches till it finds what it wants and then doesn't search anymore. Simple but can stuff people up quite often....and likely your case. Nowdays we tend to work from the known application location and not from a "Global environment path" when we know that there are going to be conflicts...and I can assure you that aapt is possibly the worst and most modified binary out there LOL. Hence this is also a note to the dev to ensure that ApkSpy reads from the current directory.....or like I am suggesting, wrap aapt up in the main application as well and that way there is no confusion EVER.
And I am done.....
Oh wait no I am not....sorry bug reports LOL :good: you thought I was all praise eh? Got another thing coming man
OK....so um the red boxes should explain everything. A picture says a thousand words (and yeah I needed at least 1 picture for this god damned long arsed post - sry). Um why in gods name would you remove the minimise and expand buttons? WTF? Anyway...it works but errrm yeah it doesn't wrap the text anymore? and it cuts the words off lol.
Other than that....I only really have one suggestion and it isn't even really a suggestion as I have kind of already made it so I can just give it to you if you want it? And that is that most people (well I can't say most as I am not speaking for everyone) tend not to like how apps take over their system. This isn't your fault at all in anyway as the first dev thought it was a good idea back then.....and back then hardly anything in Windows knew what a freakin apk was so it was a GOOD thing.....However now, every man and his dog wants to steel .apk extension for himself. I myself tend to be all over the shop with apks so I tend not to want to have any particular Windows app take it away from my control. I use WinZip as the main app for simple double click open as I want to see the contents of apks without needing to decompile them (great for theming) however I have apk shell extensions displaying the apks main icon to explorer, so if I set WinZip as default I get a nice lumping hunk of gold turd/box running rampet all over my Windoze bro ......so if you like I can show you my code that allows me to have default apps for specific tasks without interfering with anyones existing sh!t It looks neat too as you can right click any apk and just choose from a dropdown list what particular app you want at the time. If one has the need to use more apps then they need only put those apps in a list. There is nothing worse than double clicking an apk to find that Bluestacks or some other rubbish Windoze crApp has taken offf with your apk.
Lastly I thought I'd ask, Why no config file? Why store everything in memory? I know it's only small....but seeking for things everytime it is executed is a pain in the arse and not good practice. At the very least if you have no idea how to make an exe totally portable then you could reference a config file in the same directory....Or do as most do and write entries to the registry all neat and tucked away. If we get paranoid about "portable-ness" then we write to temporary space in the registry and make sure we clean up upon closing and/or inspect at runtime. simple!
I have plenty of AutoIT scripts that do exactly that too, so if you are stuck for ideas let me know. Anyway I have rambled enough, good luck and I will keep reporting bugs haha
Edit: That's waaaay too many emoticons. Oooops someone is a little high aren't they?
PS: I have attached my PNG of the icon I used for this bugger waaaaaay back....it's less generic and feel free to take it and abuse it and do as you please.
cmlx said:
Good news
Bug report, every time I open this program, this dialog pops up, after click OK, this program works well.
PS, aapt.exe is in the same dir with ApkSpy
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, I know of this one (and I've specifically wrote about it in the OP), it is NOT related to AAPT executable but to the way ADB is acting (sorry, out of my hands... :angel:
Explanation
The error comes from the application when trying to query the "ro.build.id" property via adb ('ADB shell getprop "ro.build.id" ') command.
I've came across this one but cannot determine the exact situation it is happening (as it can occur when first launching of the app, but after the app is loaded, clicking on refresh does not show this error)...
[ I've tried it on with the (only) two devices I own (1st dev. is stock (only the kernel is changed) 4.4.2 Nexus 4, 2nd dev. is S2-i9100 with customized RR ROM)and it seems to happen ONLY on the S2...]
It looks that in times, the getprop is being executed before the whole "build.prop" is being processed by ADB (This one I cannot control since it is happening on the ADB shell side [running on the device] -- unless MAYBE doing some [UGLY] delay after first initialization of ADB, which is, by far NOT best practice of process handling according to the literature)...
CyberianIce said:
I got this errors:
1:
2:
Error in property: [email protected]@usrdata
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which came first, the "SpkSpy spy stopped working" or the "Error in property" (if anyways related)?
Was it on the same run or two different runs?
As of the 1st one:
I do not have enough information from your post to check it up...
I'll post a new version which shows the exception details
As of the 2nd one:
Can you send me a copy of your /system/build.prop (so i'll be able to dig trough it and check it)?
It looks like my name-value splitter character exist as part of a given value in your build.prop .
Wooow, Long one! But it is nice to know people are using (trying) it!
Jarmezrocks said:
Hey dude,
I am not sure what you are doing wrong on your PC but it's certainly not the app as it works perfectly fine on my computer? Out of interest and for the sake or helping the new dev I thought I would raise a few points just to eliminate any finger pointing. There's a wishy-washy area when it comes to building/hacking things that were originally someone elses work...so yeah one can easily make great improvements yet open the door to bugs at the same time too. Anyway...thought I'd ask this:
Does aapt sit on your path? I know you said it is in the same directory, however just like a batch script in Windows it needs to "CD" or change directories to the %~dp0 if it is to understand what an executable is that happens to be sitting in the same directory as it's self. So this is is kinda directed at the new dev now. What I think is happening is that aapt is assumed to be in the system path when quite often it is not (i.e. those on XDA who have not yet played with the Android SDK properly). Put simply unless the application knows it is in the same directory as your executable it won't at all understand what aapt is. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi
As I've replied to @clmx, This error is not related to AAPT (either executable [location or whatever] or results), but to the ADB command being used...
Jarmezrocks said:
@dmagician , I would make sure that the apkspy app can do a check (even if it is a string search for the first few lines returned from aapt.exe), a simple if statement before throwing that error ....actually it would likely be an 'if not' statement. I don't have any of the code in front of me atm but I can help you out if you like? I was hacking this app myself sometime ago when ido first released it just using reshacker.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry I did not understand... Check for what?
Jarmezrocks said:
Note: If you are stuck and don't have source code you technically could write a full AutoIT wrapper for this app that could do all the checks and more and then bundle everything up into the one exe still. Check out the newer WinAPI stuff for AutoIT and in particular "Run binary" (yes that's correct you can just about run anything repackaged now and not need to deploy the original exe's or even libraries....they can all be stream fed to AutoIT @Compile time and need not be typically "installed" like you used to have to do. Anyway...I am waffling on shoot me a PM man.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do not need the Auto-IT to wrap these files (although I am using it for other automation in windows), as I can do it right in the C# code (on one of my early versions these files was embedded...)
BTW, I know there are some antiviruses out in the wild that do not like the embedded executables -- but it can be done -- and probably will save some time to anyone using this app...
If it will be required / asked, I'll embed the 4 binaries (AAPT.EXE, ADB.EXE, and two DLL's AdbWinApi.dll and AdbWinUsbApi.dll [I'm not sure both are required]) needed by the application.
Jarmezrocks said:
@cmlx, to overcome your ApkSpy woes, and until dmagician can put his finger on what the cause is or what ido did when building it ages ago.....then you will firstly need to be patient (props to dmagician to figuring sh!t out so far) but till then where ever you have dumped the ApkSpy and aapt.exe on your system; just copy the address and put it on your system path. To do this 1) right click on My Computer or Computer if you are on Win 7 or 8. 2) Choose properties. 3) Advanced System settings and then at the bottom of tab you will see 'Environment Variables', click it and you will see some "User" and "System" options. Depending on your User access rights on the system you are running on (hopefully you are running as Admin surely?) then you can choose to edit your main system path or create a new variable in your user settings called 'path' Note User variables are always postfix to system variables but should always work anyhow.
Disclaimer: cmlx, if however you have already got an aapt.exe already existing on your system path but it is dodgy then you have to ensure that the good aapt.exe in your app directory is placed on path BEFORE the dodgy one....just sayin. Cause your system searches till it finds what it wants and then doesn't search anymore. Simple but can stuff people up quite often....and likely your case. Nowdays we tend to work from the known application location and not from a "Global environment path" when we know that there are going to be conflicts...and I can assure you that aapt is possibly the worst and most modified binary out there LOL. Hence this is also a note to the dev to ensure that ApkSpy reads from the current directory.....or like I am suggesting, wrap aapt up in the main application as well and that way there is no confusion EVER.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The application IS searching for AAPT and ADB executables; The order is
Application directory (where ApkSpy.exe resides)
PATH environment variable
Jarmezrocks said:
OK....so um the red boxes should explain everything. A picture says a thousand words (and yeah I needed at least 1 picture for this god damned long arsed post - sry). Um why in gods name would you remove the minimise and expand buttons? WTF?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mostly I like it this way, otherwise - No specific reason...
It will be back in the next version...
Jarmezrocks said:
Anyway... it works but errrm yeah it doesn't wrap the text anymore? and it cuts the words off lol.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This Tab was NOT changed by me in any way... To be honest, I've thought of removing it completely -- But -- out of respect to Ido's work -- I've left it in.
I assume it is not wrapping due to Font size changed by me globally...
I'm seriously giving it second thoughts -- if it should stay at all (It was originally meant for batch rename of multiple APK's... I haven't used it even once...)...
I'm Really, REALLY, think of removing it completely (unless someone is / will be using it -- then I'll fix it all)...
Jarmezrocks said:
Other than that....I only really have one suggestion and it isn't even really a suggestion as I have kind of already made it so I can just give it to you if you want it? And that is that most people (well I can't say most as I am not speaking for everyone) tend not to like how apps take over their system. This isn't your fault at all in anyway as the first dev thought it was a good idea back then.....and back then hardly anything in Windows knew what a freakin apk was so it was a GOOD thing.....However now, every man and his dog wants to steel .apk extension for himself. I myself tend to be all over the shop with apks so I tend not to want to have any particular Windows app take it away from my control. I use WinZip as the main app for simple double click open as I want to see the contents of apks without needing to decompile them (great for theming) however I have apk shell extensions displaying the apks main icon to explorer, so if I set WinZip as default I get a nice lumping hunk of gold turd/box running rampet all over my Windoze bro ......so if you like I can show you my code that allows me to have default apps for specific tasks without interfering with anyones existing sh!t It looks neat too as you can right click any apk and just choose from a dropdown list what particular app you want at the time. If one has the need to use more apps then they need only put those apps in a list. There is nothing worse than double clicking an apk to find that Bluestacks or some other rubbish Windoze crApp has taken offf with your apk.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The application is NOT taking over anything, Unless you've clicked the asterisk ("*") button on the System Tab...
Was it registered for you without clicking this button?
If so, I'll recheck the code (may be it's some residue from the original code).
BTW
As the previous part of the answer I've wrote -- this one was left in as of respect to @ido's work...
2nd BTW
I'd like to see that explorer extension (and [preferable] the code of it - if you are willing to share it) you ware writing about...
Jarmezrocks said:
Lastly I thought I'd ask, Why no config file? Why store everything in memory? I know it's only small....but seeking for things everytime it is executed is a pain in the arse and not good practice. At the very least if you have no idea how to make an exe totally portable then you could reference a config file in the same directory....Or do as most do and write entries to the registry all neat and tucked away. If we get paranoid about "portable-ness" then we write to temporary space in the registry and make sure we clean up upon closing and/or inspect at runtime. simple!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep, I've thought of it... But... I was thinking, that (at least) everyone is as geeky as me dauuh , and the most are setting the path correctly...
It'll be added in next version (I hope... TIME, TIME!!!! :cyclops...
Jarmezrocks said:
I have plenty of AutoIT scripts that do exactly that too, so if you are stuck for ideas let me know. Anyway I have rambled enough, good luck and I will keep reporting bugs haha
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I prefer writing my own code (sorry, I'm a developer in heart and soul...) then using automation like Auto-IT...
Jarmezrocks said:
Edit: That's waaaay too many emoticons. Oooops someone is a little high aren't they?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Jarmezrocks said:
PS: I have attached my PNG of the icon I used for this bugger waaaaaay back....it's less generic and feel free to take it and abuse it and do as you please.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
(@Jarmezrocks please see my PM to you.)
PHEW...
Long Answer, BUT HEY, I'm not the only one writing longies... :angel: (and i like referencing each and every part separately)...
dmagician said:
PHEW...
Long Answer, BUT HEY, I'm not the only one writing longies... :angel: (and i like referencing each and every part separately)...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ahh yes. I write long messages sometimes when my medication has kicked in and I am high....not my fault I kinda need to get all the info out of my head in one go while I am awake.....or else there would just be zeds on the response zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz lol :laugh: (ref narcolepsy).
I commend you on your efforts at responding to such gibberish and making good sense of it! :highfive:
I have responded to your PM accordingly, and hopefully covered all you need? I have attached all info and sources etc.....well most of it...actually a fair bit of it you will have to workout your self but that is part the fun. Shoot me any questions if you need to...although I have a feeling that you will have mostly all of it covered as you are streets ahead of my knowledge already. I may have misjudged a little in my previous post (although hopefully not to make you feel any less than you actually are? please excuse me if I had said anything that may offended - being naive or what ever....you ARE definitely on the right track). As for the middle menu....I think you could easily remove it and not offend the original dev. It wasn't being used as you mention...and I think it could make way for more/better functionality don't you think? (discuss). However I would ensure all the things I mentioned in my PM first before going too deep and releasing on here.
Good move on bringing the buttons back. They were functional. But I DO like the single button close GUI myself on just about everything else....It looks clean. We have similar taste in that regard. It just isn't functional for me to pressing the task notification desktop link everytime I want to minimise the app LOL.
The rest I we can discuss via PM, this is pretty much only posted here as an open area for other forum members to provide input and opinion (or complaint....like how often it usually is, eh?).
CyberianIce said:
I got this errors:
1:
2:
Error in property: [email protected]@usrdata
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd got the same error!
For me it helped to copy two files to the install dir
"adb.exe" and "AdbWinApi.dll"
Both are installed with the well known MyPhoneExplorer into "Program Files\MyPhoneExplorer\DLL"
Hope it helps!
Feature Request
I use this tool for testing new APK builds on a project I am working on it. It allows me to quickly verify the version number and push to the device. However, since I am usually installing another version of an existing installed APK, I must manually uninstall before using APKSPY. Would it be possible to add a check box that would uninstall any previous versions? It would be really helpful.
Nevermind - I didn't fully read the message presented when it fail. It say uninstall/update and it allows the installation. HOWEVER, that brings up a question... Does it uninstall or does it update? There is a difference as you know.
Thanks,
Jonathan
Hi, I try to run this on Mac via Wineskin Winery, but no luck. Do I need something like .Net, or something else to run ApkSpy?
Thank you.
Ja_som said:
Hi, I try to run this on Mac via Wineskin Winery, but no luck. Do I need something like .Net, or something else to run ApkSpy?
Thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only requirement is the Microsoft .Net 4.
(I'll add this to OP)
jmo said:
I use this tool for testing new APK builds on a project I am working on it. It allows me to quickly verify the version number and push to the device. However, since I am usually installing another version of an existing installed APK, I must manually uninstall before using APKSPY. Would it be possible to add a check box that would uninstall any previous versions? It would be really helpful.
Nevermind - I didn't fully read the message presented when it fail. It say uninstall/update and it allows the installation. HOWEVER, that brings up a question... Does it uninstall or does it update? There is a difference as you know.
Thanks,
Jonathan
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes I know there is difference between the two (update vs uninstall and install again).
It is updating the application (like using "adb install -r apk_file_name.apk"), not doing remove and install
Removed unneeded tabs (System, Batch Rename, Log)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The unneeded Batch Rename tab was the only tab I needed really. :laugh: Luckily I found Ido's original version. It's ideal for renaming all those apk's I downloaded and still have the package name when I back them up to my PC.
I have an Asus Memo Pad 10 and an Asus Memo Pad 7 and neither are recognised by APKSpy. Not that it's a problem as I have no problem copying to and from them with Windows Exploder or Total Commander.
Other than that, it's been a handy little app for this tablet/smartphone virgin newbie.
Martin.
wolrik said:
The unneeded Batch Rename tab was the only tab I needed really. :laugh: Luckily I found Ido's original version. It's ideal for renaming all those apk's I downloaded and still have the package name when I back them up to my PC.
I have an Asus Memo Pad 10 and an Asus Memo Pad 7 and neither are recognised by APKSpy. Not that it's a problem as I have no problem copying to and from them with Windows Exploder or Total Commander.
Other than that, it's been a handy little app for this tablet/smartphone virgin newbie.
Martin.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hello.
1st:
I can -- if requested - re-add the Batch rename.
2nd:
I don't know why these two devices are not being recognized -- unless not being recognized by ADB itself -- since I'm spawning devices by parsing the resulting text of "ADB devices" command, So unless being unrecognized by ADB, there should be NO PROBLEM detecting ANY android device with ADB on...
if you have any exception messages thrown by the application, please post them here.
dmagician said:
Hello.
1st:
I can -- if requested - re-add the Batch rename.
2nd:
I don't know why these two devices are not being recognized -- unless not being recognized by ADB itself -- since I'm spawning devices by parsing the resulting text of "ADB devices" command, So unless being unrecognized by ADB, there should be NO PROBLEM detecting ANY android device with ADB on...
if you have any exception messages thrown by the application, please post them here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No need to re-add the tab just for me, but thanks for the offer. As I get to know my way around Android I'll probably need such things less and less.
Sorry, but I know nothing about ADB other than APKSpy needing it. As you can see from the attached pic, the Asus is recognised by Total Commander
Martin.
Hi dmagician,
Nice work, and a shout-out to Ido who originally created it.
I have a feature request:
Could you add the option to remove certain permission(s) and save the modified APK file?
There are many apps which I feel allow themselves way too much permissions, and this option could be very useful to tame them apps.
One more thing:
I noticed that APKSpy v1.8.2 doesn't work with the latest version of AAPT.exe (1432KB), from the Android SDK r24.
So I had to use a previous version of AAPT.exe (833KB), which worked.
Thanks,
Eric
Hey does anybody know where the name of the apk is in the XML files inside the apk?
Hi to all.
Does anybody know how many and what kind of antidebug protection tricks this apk has inside?
In main dalvik code methods are used to verify if we attach an elf file with android_debug e.g. and so sigill error is created?
Thanks to all.
Palm
I think this app is very similar to skygo so many protections should be same. For example drm protection is based on vgdrm files. Other protection is about apk signature, so if we decompile, modify manifest for debugging and recompile, new app goes in error when launched. It would be interesting to know how the system compares the 2 signatures. Most likely server side by sending the hash string to the server. Has anyone understood more? Thanks
Is possible to break into vgdrm help service when started by apk? Did anybody try it with debugger? Thanks