I realize the laughs, smirks, and shuns that the title of this thread may cause.
However, as the founder and community manager for bnxtreme.com, please hear me out.
I am posting this to clear up/clarify some misunderstanding regarding Android on the Blackberry Playbook.
NOTE: This thread is NOT about rooting the Playbook or completely replacing the QNX OS with Android or dual-booting. I will be creating separate threads for those, and hopefully, with enough traction, it could develop into its own section.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
After DevCon 2011 in October, RIM released their BETA OS2.0 for the playbook.
Included in this release were several new tools for the SDK/NDK, support for additional programming languages, and of course, the reason I'm posting here, a native Android 2.3.3 run-time. Now developers have both on and offline conversion tools to recompile almost any Android APK for use in the BlackBerry PlayBook in BAR format using only a few clicks as shown on the following page:
http s://bdsc.webapps.blackberry.com/android/tool/
Shortly thereafter, the various Blackberry forums throughout the web were abuzz about what could be done with this new BETA, how to get Android apps install, etc...
Within less than a day, the post appeared with very quick and simple directions for users to easily convert Android APK files to Playbook BAR files. Suddenly, the flood gates were now open and the list of applications being converted started to flood in, as did requests for those who 'got it' to do it for them. Less than 12 hours later, the list became too much for one person to manage alone, so a Google Doc was created based on a Google Form where visitors could submit their requests and updates. The list had taken on a life of it's own:
h ttp://bnxtreme.com/drupal/content/apk2bar-list
As you can see from this list, individual PlayBook users have been actively collaborating and converting various applications to demonstrate just how easy the process is. It is hoped that this list of converted applications will help encourage developers to re-release their respective application on the BlackBerry Playbook.
IMPORTANT NOTE: If your application has been added to this list, it was done so because it was believed to be a free application on the Android Market, available as a free trial online, or offered for free through the Amazon Marketplace. If this is not the case, or for any reason you wish to have your application removed from the apk2bar list, please e-mail us at [email protected] and we will have your application permanently removed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now, within the last few weeks, ported Android applications have already started to appear in the Blackberry AppWorld, being made available to anyone running the OS2.0 BETA
ht tp://crackberry.com/handster-android-app-market-begin-submitting-android-apps-blackberry-app-world-behalf-developers
ht tp://forums.crackberry.com/blackberry-playbook-f222/high-quality-free-android-apps-available-app-world-os2-users-679669/
The purpose for this post is to call upon Android developers to start porting their applications and submitting them to the Blackberry AppWorld. Again, the process is extremely simple and will open your applications up to a whole new audience.
Additionally, I am also posting to offer our services. Our team is both willing to help test any early BETA builds or to continue any abandoned development projects on their port to the BlackBerry PlayBook operating system; all you have to do is ask.
For more information on how easy it is to develop your existing application for the Blackberry PlayBook, please visit:
ht tp://us.blackberry.com/developers/tablet/
Thank you for your time to read this posting and we look forward to hopefully developing an active and healthy relationship with xda-developers.
Marc K.
Founder, Project Manager, and Community Manager for the BNXtreme Team.
@technomensch
ht tp://stayinginsync.info
ht tp://bnxtreme.com
I have just purchased a 32Gb Playbook and would love to support your objectives.
I am keen to use the PB on Android...I have little knowledge...but am keen
ANDREW
Why can't it be the other way? Blackberry Apps to Android? That seems to be better
Mozilla would like to announce the availability of*x86 builds of Firefox forAndroid. If you've got an x86 device and haven't tried Firefox - it screams. Even if you've been testing x86 builds on Nightly over the past couple of months, we'd really appreciate you taking the time out to test our latest beta build with your normal flow. One pro is that our Beta builds are automatically updated in the background through Google Play.
Our plan is to iron out any remaining x86-specific bugs over the next couple of weeks and release support as part of FF22.0.
Thanks for your help and ongoing support!
- Aaron, QA Engineer at Mozilla
Details:
Firefox Beta on the Play Store
Direct Download
Devices on this list should theoretically be compatible - our testing has been with the Motorola Razr I (XT890)
Ways to provide feedback:
Submit crash reports when they come up
File a Bug- please use this link
Check*Bugs already Filed*- check if your issue has been filed and chime in
Email us - because you're lazy
Post here
Blackberry release working version of BBM Android
Though the software teams at BlackBerry suggested they’d be beginning the roll-out of BBM (BlackBerry Messenger) as an app for Android and iOS starting this week, it would now appear that they’ve hit the proverbial pause button for both platforms. While it’s unclear at the moment if this cut in downloads and service to the chat app ecosystem for both Google and Apple’s mobile OS had anything to do with BlackBerry’s announcement of history-making losses for the quarter, it is clear that the results are thus: some people can use BBM today, others cannot.
Straight from Inside BlackBerry’s Luke Reimer comes word that some issues have arisen for both the Android and iOS versions of BBM. First, it would seem that the BBM app for Android was never officially released, but the BBM team saw a whopping 1.1 million active users in the first 8 hours of app release.
Be the first to find out when BBM™ is available on Android™ and iPhone® :silly:
I've Found it here: MOD EDIT: Links removed
may be useful for all
Thanks!
*Please report back if that link does not work
yeah right. bbm for android asks for twitter authentication lol.
possible scam.
Report for phishing
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 4
BBM for Android AND iOS for sure features an Andy figure in it's logo. Also, why twitter?
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4
(Frank) said:
BBM for Android AND iOS for sure features an Andy figure in it's logo. Also, why twitter?
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
By now everyone should be realizing that most/all of the available BBM apks are unofficial/fake and you use them only at your own risk. Even the play store has had fake BBM apks available for download. If you must announce, yet another version of BBM please use this thread.
Thanks!
Is there a cm rom version that will work on Archos 45 plat?? Or any other good rom??
ZuEma said:
Is there a cm rom version that will work on Archos 45 plat?? Or any other good rom??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In case you might want to give it a try, you could start with rooting according to this thread:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2573743
NOTE:- Archos 45 Platinum too has similar device specifications. The same CWM version worked for @best98 who is using an Archos 45 Platinum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess there is a need now to step up to KitKat or newer, if the Webos security hole is not hashed out by other ways on devices running JB 4.3 or lower
Tod Beardsley
Google No Longer Provides Patches for WebView Jelly Bean and Prior
Gepostet von Tod Beardsley in Metasploit auf 12.01.2015 00:19:38
Over the past year, independent researcher Rafay Baloch (of "Rafay's Hacking Articles") and Rapid7's Joe Vennix have been knocking out Android WebView exploits somewhat routinely, based both on published research and original findings. Today, Metasploit ships with 11 such exploits, thanks to Rafay, Joe, and the rest of the open source security community. Generally speaking, these exploits affect "only" Android 4.3 and prior -- either native Android 4.3, or apps built with 4.3 WebView compatibility. sadjellybeans_t.png
WebView is the core component used to render web pages on an Android device. It was replaced in Android KitKat (4.4) with a more recent Chromium-based version of WebView, used by the popular Chrome browser.
Despite this change, though, it’s likely there will be no slow-down of these Android security bugs, and they will probably last a long time due to a new and under-reported policy from Google's Android security team: Google will no longer be providing security patches for vulnerabilities reported to affect only versions of Android's native WebView prior to 4.4. In other words, Google is now only supporting the current named version of Android (Lollipop, or 5.0) and the prior named version (KitKat, or 4.4). Jelly Bean (versions 4.0 through 4.3) and earlier will no longer see security patches for WebView from Google, according to incident handlers at [email protected].
Up until recently, when there's a newly discovered vulnerability with Android 4.3, the folks at Google were pretty quick with a fix. After all, most people were on the "Jelly Bean" version of Android until December of 2013. Jelly Bean's final release was just over a year ago in October of 2013. This is why this universal cross-site scripting bug was fixed, as seen in the Android changelog and Rafay's blog, Rafay Hacking Articles.
Google on Patching pre-KitKat
However, after receiving a report of a new vulnerability in pre-4.4 WebView, the incident handlers at [email protected] responded with this:
If the affected version [of WebView] is before 4.4, we generally do not develop the patches ourselves, but welcome patches with the report for consideration. Other than notifying OEMs, we will not be able to take action on any report that is affecting versions before 4.4 that are not accompanied with a patch.
So, Google is no longer going to be providing patches for 4.3. This is some eyebrow-raising news.
I've never seen a vulnerability response program that was gated on the reporter providing his own patch, yet that seems to be Google's position. This change in security policy seemed so bizarre, in fact, that I couldn't believe that it was actually official Google policy. So, I followed up and asked for confirmation on what was told to the vulnerability reporter. In response, I got a nearly identical statement from [email protected]:
If the affected version [of WebView] is before 4.4, we generally do not develop the patches ourselves but do notify partners of the issue[...] If patches are provided with the report or put into AOSP we are happy to provide them to partners as well.
When asked for further clarification, the Android security team did confirm that other pre-KitKat components, such as the multi-media players, will continue to receive back-ported patches.
Sorry, Jelly Bean, You're Too Old
Google's reasoning for this policy shift is that they "no longer certify 3rd party devices that include the Android Browser," and "the best way to ensure that Android devices are secure is to update them to the latest version of Android." To put it another way, Google's position is that Jelly Bean devices are too old to support -- after all, they are two versions back from the current release, Lollipop.
On its face, this seems like a reasonable decision. Maintaining support for a software product that is two versions behind would be fairly unusual in both the proprietary and open source software worlds; heck, many vendors drop support once the next version is released, and many others don't have a clear End-Of-Life (EOL) policy at all. (An interesting side note: neither Google nor Apple have a published EOL policy for Android or iOS, but Microsoft and BlackBerry provide clear end of life and end of sales dates for their products).
Most Android Devices Are Vulnerable
While this may be a normal industry standard, what's the situation on the ground? Turns out, the idea that "pre-KitKat" represents a legacy minority of devices is easily shown false by looking at Google's own monthly statistics of version distribution:
As of January 5, 2015, the current release, Lollipop, is less than 0.1% of the installed market, according to Google's Android Developer Dashboard. It's not even on the board yet.
The next most recent release, KitKat, represents about two fifths of the Android ecosystem. This leaves the remaining 60% or so as "legacy" and out of support for security patches from Google. In terms of solid numbers, it would appear that over 930 million Android phones are now out of official Google security patch support, given the published Gartner and WSJ numbers on smartphone distribution).
The Economics of Upgrading
Beside the installed bases, I posit that the people who are currently exposed to pre-KitKat, pre-Chromium WebView vulnerabilities are exactly those users who are most likely to not be able to "update to the latest version of Android" to get security patches. The latest Google Nexus retails for about USD$660, while the first hit for an "Android Phone" on Amazon retails for under $70. This is a nearly ten-fold price difference, which implies two very different user bases; one market that doesn't mind dropping a few hundred dollars on a phone, and one which will not or cannot spend much more than $100.
Taken together -- the two-thirds majority install base of now-unsupported devices and the practical inability of that base to upgrade by replacing hardware -- means that any new bug discovered in "legacy" Android is going to last as a mass-market exploit vector for a long, long time.
Here Come the Mass-Market Exploits
This is great news for penetration testers, of course; picking company data off of Android phones is going to be drop-dead easy in many, many cases, and I fully expect that handsets will be increasingly in-scope for penetration testing engagements. Unfortunately, this is great news for criminals for the simple reason that, for real bad guys, pretty much everything is in scope.
Open source security researchers routinely publish vulnerability details and working exploits with the expectation that this kind of public discussion and disclosure can get both vendors and users to take notice of techniques employed by bad guys. By "burning" these vulnerabilities, users come to expect that vendors will step up and provide reasonable defenses. Unfortunately, when the upstream vendor is unwilling to patch, even in the face of public disclosure, regular users remain permanently vulnerable.
Roll Your Own Patches?
It's important to stress that Android is, in fact, open source. Therefore, it's not impossible for downstream handset manufacturers, service providers, retailers, or even enthusiastic users to come up with their own patches. This does seem to happen today; a 4.3 vulnerability may affect, say, a Kyocera handset, but not a Samsung device with the "same" operating system.
While this is one of the core promises of open source in general, and Android in particular, it's impossible to say how often this downstream patching actually happens, how often it will happen, and how effective these non-Google-sourced patches will be against future "old" vulnerabilities.
The update chain for Android already requires the handset manufacturers and service carriers to sign off on updates that are originated from Google, and I cannot imagine this process will be improved once Google itself has opted out of the patching business. After all, is AT&T or Motorola really more likely to incorporate a patch that comes from some guy on the Internet?
No Patches == No Acknowledgement
To complicate matters, Google generally does not publish or provide public comment on Android vulnerabilities, even when reported under reasonable disclosure procedures. Instead, Android developers and consumers rely on third party notifications to explain vulnerabilities and their impact, and are expected to watch the open source repositories to learn of a fix.
For example, Google's only public acknowledgement of CVE-2014-8609, a recent SYSTEM-level information disclosure vulnerability was a patch commit message on the Lollipop source code repository. Presumably, now that Google has decided not to provide patches for "legacy" Android WebView, they will also not be providing any public acknowledgement of vulnerabilities for pre-KitKat devices at all.
Please Reconsider, Google
Google's engineering teams are often the best around at many things, including Android OS development, so to see them walk away from the security game in this area is greatly concerning.
As a software developer, I know that supporting old versions of my software is a huge hassle. I empathize with their decision to cut legacy software loose. However, a billion people don't rely on old versions of my software to manage and safeguard the most personal details of their lives. In that light, I'm hoping Google reconsiders if (when) the next privacy-busting vulnerability becomes public knowledge.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey Developers, I am interested in your opinions.
I have an app published on Google Play. Its minSDK currently is set to API 16, which is Android 4.1. To ensure compatibility, I left off some of newer design features that are not included in the androidx packages. In the past few days, I read about some apps that are dropping their support for Android Kitkat with API 19. I personally have been looking forward to this for a few months now, knowing that I can get rid of ensuring compatibility with these old devices, as there several times were unexpected problems, and my testing capacities are quite limited.
I checked out my Developer Console to see how the Android versions of my app users are distributed, and the installations on devices with Android from API 16 to API 19 in the past 180 days made 8% of the total installations number. As I am rather new to app development, I'm highly interested about your opinions, how long I should keep supporting pre Lollipop Android?
Regarding monetarization, I use in app purchases. So only a small amount of the users pays for the app.
Thanks in advance!