1800 devices were sold this week, and I would expect that a good portion of those users will be headed here.
Again, this is just an early report from one user who just got their device, so it could be a one-off. But I would go on the assumption that they are all getting 4349, to play it safe.
To the moderators:
I would highly recommend that the development area be altered ASAP to break up the 1.1 and 1.2 ROMs. I would also recommend that a disclaimer be added to all 1.1 ROMs, including anything CM7 based, that specific steps need to be taken if a 4349 user attempts to use these ROMs. I have been asking for this since April, and I am respectively asking again.
Again, this could just be a one-off user with 4349. But given that one Woot! user has it, and new TigerDirect users have 4349 as well gives me the impression that this could be the norm for all new devices. And I think it's in XDA's best interests to prepare the development site accordingly, given what we know about 1.1 down-leveling.
To the 1.1 devs / modders:
Same request. From someone who had the opposite occur with TNT Lite 5, this is a potentially devastating situation if these users flash your 1.1 based ROM.
To new Woot! users:
You should read this first, please: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1035983 Don't jump into modding until you have confirmed what stock version you have, please.
I agree, If we can prevent a user from flashing the wrong ROM due to their bootloader, we will save many users from needless grief and reduce the number of posts for help to those who really need it.
Roebeet, sure glad to see you back posting and helping...
brookfield said:
I agree, If we can prevent a user from flashing the wrong ROM due to their bootloader, we will save many users from needless grief and reduce the number of posts for help to those who really need it.
Roebeet, sure glad to see you back posting and helping...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think I picked the right week to do so.
This will be the role of the posters of the ROMs/MODs to delineate which bootloader is used, as well as to provide the appropriate disclaimers, etc.
At the end of the day, XDA is a developer site - and all action taken is at your own risk and decision. If users are not willing to fully research their choices the responsibility falls on them for whatever happens. There will be people who help out of the goodness of their heart - but not their responsibility if something fails like the user was warned it would.
Agreed. The SD development sections are much easier to navigate after being segregated into 1.1 and 1.2
jerdog said:
At the end of the day, XDA is a developer site - and all action taken is at your own risk and decision. If users are not willing to fully research their choices the responsibility falls on them for whatever happens. There will be people who help out of the goodness of their heart - but not their responsibility if something fails like the user was warned it would.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Isn't this a pretty basic usability issue? This would help new users, but more fundamentally it's just good organization, no?
jerdog said:
This will be the role of the posters of the ROMs/MODs to delineate which bootloader is used, as well as to provide the appropriate disclaimers, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I kinda disagree with this statement. In other sub-forums on XDA, they require all posts in the dev section to follow guidelines on the title at the very least. Simply requiring that all posts in that section be classified the same way is all that is needed (with all the disclaimers and everything).
Example:
[Rom][1.2BL] Uber Fake Rom!!1?! (Now with extra frosted flakes) - [1.0 - 6/10/11)
Tostino said:
I kinda disagree with this statement. In other sub-forums on XDA, they require all posts in the dev section to follow guidelines on the title at the very least. Simply requiring that all posts in that section be classified the same way is all that is needed (with all the disclaimers and everything).
Example:
[Rom][1.2BL] Uber Fake Rom!!1?! (Now with extra frosted flakes) - [1.0 - 6/10/11)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And that's a good statement - if you notice those posting actual development ROMs/MODs already follow this as a rule of thumb. But it is not an XDA requirement. It has been suggested to Devs that they follow this anyways.
Clean up on "Isle 9" please. I think being structured by bootloader is a great idea. Especially since there are projects now other then Android being worked on. And in the future when Windows 8 is released.
jerdog said:
This will be the role of the posters of the ROMs/MODs to delineate which bootloader is used, as well as to provide the appropriate disclaimers, etc.
At the end of the day, XDA is a developer site - and all action taken is at your own risk and decision. If users are not willing to fully research their choices the responsibility falls on them for whatever happens. There will be people who help out of the goodness of their heart - but not their responsibility if something fails like the user was warned it would.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why not simply break out the ROM section, rather than put more of the onus on the developers? The developers already have enough to do with developing and will in all likelihood already advise which bootloader to use. Make it a little easier for them.
We all know that what we do is at our own risk; all that is being asked is to break the ROM section into a 1.1 and 1.2 subforum.
jerdog said:
This will be the role of the posters of the ROMs/MODs to delineate which bootloader is used, as well as to provide the appropriate disclaimers, etc.
At the end of the day, XDA is a developer site - and all action taken is at your own risk and decision. If users are not willing to fully research their choices the responsibility falls on them for whatever happens. There will be people who help out of the goodness of their heart - but not their responsibility if something fails like the user was warned it would.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I disagree. The breaking into a 1.1 and a 1.2 sub-forum of the development section seems pretty much critical to avoid any unnecessary headache for XDA gTab users. Saying what you said above is like throwing a 10 year old behind the wheel of a car and saying: "You accept the risks of your own actions, so go ahead and start driving and we'll see where this leads us."
You wouldn't do that under any circumstance, so you provide "buffers" (training, mentorship, test driving, books, etc) which in our case would be the sub-forums separating boot loader types to attempt to put forth a friendly effort to help users avoid a headache.
The sub-forums would look something like this:
Android Development:
General Development (CWM, radios, tools, app dev, etc)
1.1 Bootloader Development (all 1.1 based kernels, ROMs, and misc.)
1.2 Bootloader Development (all 1.1 based kernels, ROMs, and misc.)
Not putting forth the effort to at least provide a somewhat protected atmosphere for the XDA gTab users is negligence. I have been a member of the XDA community in an observer/user fashion for much longer than my membership reflects. From my experience with XDA, I have noticed a trend on the gTab community in more recent times that is not reflected on the other device forums I have utilized (HD2, Tilt, Tilt2, G2, G1, MyTouch, and a few more that I cannot remember). The vast majority of those kept higher and more enforced standards than the gTab forums have lately, but still looked out for the users by putting certain "buffers" and preventative measures into place to try to keep users from messing up their pricey hardware due to negligence.
Yes, negligence on the user's part is their fault by not following some instructions laid out for them, but it doesn't mean that the leadership can't at a minimum provide some buffers out of a good faith gesture. I hope you don't take this in a disrespectful way or anything, just voicing my observation on things I've seen over the past few months and figured as the gTab moderator (even though you're selling yours), you'd probably want to know what the community members of your device forum are observing.
Thanks for your hard work, but this is something that's inevitable and should not be avoided or curtailed for a later date.
jerdog said:
This will be the role of the posters of the ROMs/MODs to delineate which bootloader is used, as well as to provide the appropriate disclaimers, etc.
At the end of the day, XDA is a developer site - and all action taken is at your own risk and decision. If users are not willing to fully research their choices the responsibility falls on them for whatever happens. There will be people who help out of the goodness of their heart - but not their responsibility if something fails like the user was warned it would.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No offense, but speaking as a non-1337 who's been dealing with 1337s for years, this post sounds like the typical 1337 attitude.
Dividing up the development section into 1.1 and 1.2 will save many headaches. Noone is here to stroke anyone's ego as a 1337. We're just trying to make the process go as smoothly as possible here.
flipovich said:
I disagree. The breaking into a 1.1 and a 1.2 sub-forum of the development section seems pretty much critical to avoid any unnecessary headache for XDA gTab users. Saying what you said above is like throwing a 10 year old behind the wheel of a car and saying: "You accept the risks of your own actions, so go ahead and start driving and we'll see where this leads us."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We're not talking about putting people behind a car. We're talking about people accessing a forum that is for development. Any usage of the forum and the developed solutions presented is at your own risk.
flipovich said:
You wouldn't do that under any circumstance, so you provide "buffers" (training, mentorship, test driving, books, etc) which in our case would be the sub-forums separating boot loader types to attempt to put forth a friendly effort to help users avoid a headache.
The sub-forums would look something like this:
Android Development:
General Development (CWM, radios, tools, app dev, etc)
1.1 Bootloader Development (all 1.1 based kernels, ROMs, and misc.)
1.2 Bootloader Development (all 1.1 based kernels, ROMs, and misc.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is not a precedent at XDA nor would it be approved. There is some segmentation under a device but that is by OS - not by a bootloader in an OS.
flipovich said:
Not putting forth the effort to at least provide a somewhat protected atmosphere for the XDA gTab users is negligence. I have been a member of the XDA community in an observer/user fashion for much longer than my membership reflects. From my experience with XDA, I have noticed a trend on the gTab community in more recent times that is not reflected on the other device forums I have utilized (HD2, Tilt, Tilt2, G2, G1, MyTouch, and a few more that I cannot remember). The vast majority of those kept higher and more enforced standards than the gTab forums have lately, but still looked out for the users by putting certain "buffers" and preventative measures into place to try to keep users from messing up their pricey hardware due to negligence.
Yes, negligence on the user's part is their fault by not following some instructions laid out for them, but it doesn't mean that the leadership can't at a minimum provide some buffers out of a good faith gesture. I hope you don't take this in a disrespectful way or anything, just voicing my observation on things I've seen over the past few months and figured as the gTab moderator (even though you're selling yours), you'd probably want to know what the community members of your device forum are observing.
Thanks for your hard work, but this is something that's inevitable and should not be avoided or curtailed for a later date.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not taken as disrespectful at all. And whether or not I own the device has nothing to do with the level of effort put into the forum. It is not the role of a moderator to police the information and provide checks and balances for the users. It is the role of the developer or poster to do that. Moderators are here to keep threads on topic, keep users from trolling, cleanup spam, etc.
Developers should mark their projects as to the relevance for the user - i.e. [BL1.2] or whatever. It's important for users to be held responsible for their actions and we are a development community - not a hand-holding community.
It is also the role of users to report posts that they see as problematic to the OP and if the OP doesn't make changes then you can bring the moderators in to assist as appropriate. It's also the role of users to help keep things sorted by reporting posts that need moved elsewhere, etc. and to report those who are abusive so that they can be actioned.
My goal was not to ruffle feathers. I'm just stating my concerns and suggestions, whether they are feasible or not.
The newer 1.2 ROMs here on XDA seem to add these differences to their titles and first posts (as mentioned), but my concern is the older 1.1 ROMs, especially ones that were created before this new branch was released. For example, some of the CM7 based ROMs, and even CM7 itself, are not safe to use if you are flashing directly from 4349 stock. And I've also made suggestions in the Cyanagenmod forums, for the same reasons.
And I appreciate the suggestions and involvement. Thanks!
Thanks
I never heard of the g tablet before this week, but the TD Ebay deal was too good to pass up. I got one with 1.2-4349 on it. First thing I did was downgrade it thanks to the heads up info from this forum. With some reading was also able to put Veganginger on it. First attempt, it locked it up when rebooting after a successful install. But again, this forum was right on top of it. I followed the info for using nvflash and got back to a stock rom, ran clockwork again and installed Vegan no problem.
Not much to comment on the tablet itself yet, it just arrived yesterday, but so far its been fun just making the updates.
Just wanted to say thanks for all the info.
I've read through this thread and I do not believe a separate sub-forum is necessary. As such, I am closing this thread before the discussion becomes out of hand.
The differences between the Gtab versions lie in software alone. There is currently a method available to revert to 1.1 using nvflash in order to regain ROM compatibility with 1.1 ROMs. This, coupled with a simple warning as to which bootloader is compatible will ensure that everyone is satisfied.
In the past, we have only given separate development sub-forums for devices where a revision change is tied to a physical hardware change. As this is simply a (reversible) software difference, Jerdog has taken the correct approach by suggesting that the developers and moderators delineate which ROMs are compatible with which bootloaders.
Will Verduzco
XDA Senior Moderation Team
Hi!
It has recently come to my attention that all och my devices somehow has been hacked. Also people in my surrounding, ex. family and friends devices seems to have been compromised! The devices affected includes, but is not limited to, Samsung galaxy s4, s5, s6, s6 edge plus, nexus 6P, Sony Xperia Z1 compact, Apple iphone 6 etc. Some of the devices was rooted, other were completely stock.
The attacker have somehow gained full control of the phones and used them to listen to coversations, download files, track via GPS etc etc..
My question now is How could this happen?
I am fairly concerned about my privacy in normal cases so I am absolutely sure that they haven't had physical access to my phone. And it seems far fetched that they would have gotten access to all of the phones that have been compromised without getting caught even once!
Now all of my devices are newly flashed and formatted, do you think that the malware they use could have survive that?
I managed to get a logcat from one of the devices before I re-flashed it. Do you think there could be any traces of the malware or the attacker in there? If you think so I will gladly post the logcat for you to see!
If you miss some information or need to know anything else, feel free to ask and I will answer as soon as I can!
Thank you!
Hello,
Welcome to XDA.
There is no forum for your device. Try posting your question in the forum linked below.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/android/help
The experts there may be able to help. Good luck.
I'll add that if you are certain no one has physically had your phone then it may be someone that knows all of you, this can be done by simply sending a picture/attachment via MMS or email, all that is required is for you to open the pic/attachment and the can access your device. It stands to reason that someone in the circle of all the members with effected devices. Is there anyone that they all know in common? Are they all using certain apps? Find the common thread between everyone and you may narrow down the source.
Reflashing them all with stock firmware should fix them if you want easy solutions. If you have any that don't have stock firmware available you'll have to root those devices to find and remove any malicious software.
I have recently purchased a second hand Samsung Galaxy Tab E (SM-T377W) from kijiji in Canada, but, to my dismay the FRP has been tripped. I have tried to follow ashyx and rootJunkie but even with an otg cable I am not able to access the settings/browser.
I have searched everywhere (I can think of) but am unable to find a stock firmware. any assistance would be appreciated.
Device:
Name: Samsung Galaxy Tab E
Model: SM-T377W
F/W: MMB29K.T377WVLU2API2 (gtesltebmc)
Country: Canada
I'm not sure what other info is useful, so I will reply as prompted.
Thanks in advance
IridianDesigns said:
I have recently purchased a second hand Samsung Galaxy Tab E (SM-T377W) from kijiji in Canada, but, to my dismay the FRP has been tripped. I have tried to follow ashyx and rootJunkie but even with an otg cable I am not able to access the settings/browser.
I have searched everywhere (I can think of) but am unable to find a stock firmware. any assistance would be appreciated.
Device:
Name: Samsung Galaxy Tab E
Model: SM-T377W
F/W: MMB29K.T377WVLU2API2 (gtesltebmc)
Country: Canada
I'm not sure what other info is useful, so I will reply as prompted.
Thanks in advance
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hello and welcome to xda-assist,
FRP is a justified security measure to protect a stolen device, you surely know that..
XDA doesn't provide any help with bypassing security measures, best advice we can provide is to find a way to contact the original owner. Sorry but nothing we can do here to help.
Edit: even stock firmware won't reset the FRP, that's no option
Sam Nakamura said:
FRP is a justified security measure to protect a stolen device, you surely know that..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sam,
Thank you for your reply. I do understand the reasoning behind FRP and its role in the security measures related to the theft of devices. I have checked the IMEI with the blacklist maintained by the network providers here. The device has not been reported lost or stolen, I can provide the IMEI in a pm, if independent verification would allay your concerns.
As I'm sure you're no doubt aware, any security measure implementation invariably imposes restriction on legitimate use cases. Whilst I'm sure the boffins at Samsung and related manufacturers went to great lengths to minimise the impact, it would appear that the scenario I find myself in was not one of them.
I essentially purchased the phone from an online classified ad system. Your advice to contact the original owner was, funnily enough, one of the first I explored. Unfortunately, the ad has since been removed along with the contact information. Since I, myself, was unaware of FRP until this, I can believe that the seller was unaware also, so I don't suspect nefarious intent.
I was not familiar with FRP when I purchased the phone, and believed that checking the IMEI would ensure it hadn't been stolen. I have since researched the topic and now have a passing understanding of its strengths and shortcomings. I have not in my research found an official method to disable it. If you are aware of one I would appreciate a link.
Sam Nakamura said:
XDA doesn't provide any help with bypassing security measures, best advice we can provide is to find a way to contact the original owner. Sorry but nothing we can do here to help.
Edit: even stock firmware won't reset the FRP, that's no option
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I find your claim that XDA doesn't provide any help with bypassing security measures a tad hypocritical, as a simple search of XDA's own forums for 'FRP bypass' will yield at least 10 pages of results and anything more than a cursory glance at the threads will demonstrate that hypocrisy.
Thank you for letting me know that the firmware avenue I was pursuing would be fruitless, at least I can stop chasing that particular white rabbit.
I shall continue to research and at worst, I will become the victim of an actual theft.
P.S. On a side note, XDA IS a valuable resource. Thanks for all your efforts Dev's, keep up the great works
IridianDesigns said:
Sam,
Thank you for your reply. I do understand the reasoning behind FRP and its role in the security measures related to the theft of devices. I have checked the IMEI with the blacklist maintained by the network providers here. The device has not been reported lost or stolen, I can provide the IMEI in a pm, if independent verification would allay your concerns.
As I'm sure you're no doubt aware, any security measure implementation invariably imposes restriction on legitimate use cases. Whilst I'm sure the boffins at Samsung and related manufacturers went to great lengths to minimise the impact, it would appear that the scenario I find myself in was not one of them.
I essentially purchased the phone from an online classified ad system. Your advice to contact the original owner was, funnily enough, one of the first I explored. Unfortunately, the ad has since been removed along with the contact information. Since I, myself, was unaware of FRP until this, I can believe that the seller was unaware also, so I don't suspect nefarious intent.
I was not familiar with FRP when I purchased the phone, and believed that checking the IMEI would ensure it hadn't been stolen. I have since researched the topic and now have a passing understanding of its strengths and shortcomings. I have not in my research found an official method to disable it. If you are aware of one I would appreciate a link.
I find your claim that XDA doesn't provide any help with bypassing security measures a tad hypocritical, as a simple search of XDA's own forums for 'FRP bypass' will yield at least 10 pages of results and anything more than a cursory glance at the threads will demonstrate that hypocrisy.
Thank you for letting me know that the firmware avenue I was pursuing would be fruitless, at least I can stop chasing that particular white rabbit.
I shall continue to research and at worst, I will become the victim of an actual theft.
P.S. On a side note, XDA IS a valuable resource. Thanks for all your efforts Dev's, keep up the great works
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As much as understand your frustration, I only have your words and can't verify if true
About hypocrisy, remember that xda is huge and there might be the threads you mentioned but xda is more than one person, some do have no issues with this or some threads might be just unreported to the mods..
I'm a private person, I'm not employed by xda-assist or xda-developers so I have to draw my personal line which basically is "can't verify - can't help" that's all, nothing personal..
I mean you just can't expect official xda support from xda for breaking FRP when even the manufacturer denies it.. and deep insight you know that
Anyways, good luck
Sent from my Lenovo A3500-FL using XDA Labs
Sam Nakamura said:
As much as understand your frustration, I only have your words and can't verify if true
About hypocrisy remember that xda is huge and there might be the threads you mentioned but xda is more than one person, some do have no issues with this or some threads might be just unreported to the mods..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again I thank you for your response Sam,
Please don't misinterpret, I am frustrated with the situation, a much deeper conversation than necessary in this venue, not with XDA.
I mentioned in my reply that Canada has a Cellular Blacklist, for precisely the purpose of providing an independent means to verify the legitimacy of a device, thus facilitating private trade with accountability. To address your concerns I offered the IMEI in order for you to conduct your own verification. Cellular Blacklists are not a concept unique to Canada.
Sam Nakamura said:
For myself I'm a private person, I'm not employed by xda-assist or xda-developers so I have to draw my personal line which basically is "can't verify - can't help" that's all, nothing personal..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand your personal stance and can respect a person who holds to their principles, especially when mine differ. I prefer to begin with trust until proven otherwise. I have been burned by that before though, hence checking the blacklist. I don't take it personally and I mean no disrespect to you.
Sam Nakamura said:
I mean you just can't expect official xda support from xda for breaking FRP when even the manufacturer denies it.. and deep insight you know that
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I mentioned in my reply, XDA is an excellent resource, with a great deal of knowledge and guidance from veterans for newbies like myself. I understand that XDA encompasses a much larger community than the official core XDA teams. It was to this community I was directing my question. Perhaps I erred by posting to the wrong forum, if so I apologise. I am aware of how lawsuit-happy many large companies tend to get.
In terms of the posts I mentioned, it was not a critique. As I had intended to address the community, I took your reply to encompass that. I was merely pointing out that whilst 'XDA Official' may disavow assistance, 'XDA Community' appears to embrace it. I in no way am trying to imply XDA endorses it.
IridianDesigns said:
Again I thank you for your response Sam,
Please don't misinterpret, I am frustrated with the situation, a much deeper conversation than necessary in this venue, not with XDA.
I mentioned in my reply that Canada has a Cellular Blacklist, for precisely the purpose of providing an independent means to verify the legitimacy of a device, thus facilitating private trade with accountability. To address your concerns I offered the IMEI in order for you to conduct your own verification. Cellular Blacklists are not a concept unique to Canada.
I understand your personal stance and can respect a person who holds to their principles, especially when mine differ. I prefer to begin with trust until proven otherwise. I have been burned by that before though, hence checking the blacklist. I don't take it personally and I mean no disrespect to you.
As I mentioned in my reply, XDA is an excellent resource, with a great deal of knowledge and guidance from veterans for newbies like myself. I understand that XDA encompasses a much larger community than the official core XDA teams. It was to this community I was directing my question. Perhaps I erred by posting to the wrong forum, if so I apologise. I am aware of how lawsuit-happy many large companies tend to get.
In terms of the posts I mentioned, it was not a critique. As I had intended to address the community, I took your reply to encompass that. I was merely pointing out that whilst 'XDA Official' may disavow assistance, 'XDA Community' appears to embrace it. I in no way am trying to imply XDA endorses it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As xda-assist team we do no technical support, we just help the folks out there to find there way thru the different boards here on xda, we help them to help themselves, to find information and learn how to do things by their own..
As you mentioned you already found different threads referring to FRP it's best to study them and ask questions there..
Maybe you're lucky and find a solution..
Anyways, I appreciated your understanding
Good luck
Sent from my OnePlus 2 using XDA Labs