Related
ViewSonic is putting together a developers' site for all our Android products, and would love your input as to key items to include. Obviously we may not be able to include everything, but want to create something you'll find useful and valuable.
Please post your wishes here!
Thanks,
-Adam
1. HDMI out.....not through a dock
2. IPS or better screen
3. 1GB + Ram
4. 16GB + internal sdcard
5. USB ports
6. Mini and micro sdcard support
7. Released source
8. 3G/4G option
9. Optional ssd
10. GPS option
11. Bluetooth
12. WIFI of course
13. Support updating operating system for at least 2 years instead of "release and forget.....*cough* sam *cough* sung"
14. Leave the bootloader unlocked for the crazies like me that want to hack no matter the consequences. If I brick I'll eat it.
15. Keep up the good customer service you currently have
16. Quit making promises about flash when you don't have control over Adobe lol
OH yeah......Can I have my Honeycreams please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EDIT: BTW....I am retired and would make a perfect person to test new products for you. Hint Hint
thebadfrog said:
1. HDMI out.....not through a dock
2. IPS or better screen
3. 1GB + Ram
4. 16GB + internal sdcard
5. USB ports
6. Mini and micro sdcard support
7. Released source
8. 3G/4G option
9. Optional ssd
10. GPS option
11. Bluetooth
12. WIFI of course
13. Support updating operating system for at least 2 years instead of "release and forget.....*cough* sam *cough* sung"
14. Leave the bootloader unlocked for the crazies like me that want to hack no matter the consequences. If I brick I'll eat it.
15. Keep up the good customer service you currently have
16. Quit making promises about flash when you don't have control over Adobe lol
OH yeah......Can I have my Honeycreams please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
I think that pretty much covers it, especially the part about honeycreams.
edit: it would be great if viewsonic devs put together a recovery package suited for the gtab since the only version of cwm that seems to work on this device is bekits modified version v.08
OfficialViewSonic said:
ViewSonic is putting together a developers' site for all our Android products, and would love your input as to key items to include.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It sounds like VS is asking for suggestions about what to include in the developer's site - that is, what information would be useful for developers creating apps to run on the GTablet and other VS Android tablets...as opposed to a wish list of features for the devices themselves.
Twitter feed answered by an engineer/development team member.
If you want to go hardcore.
Provide things like git hosting to selected xda developers.
Create some sort of cloud based compiling system and provide that to the developers as well.
Wait...you wanted suggestions for a web site. Look at this forum and add very strong mods to keep the clutter down. If your "official" site is not gonna allow the fun things we like to do to our tabs it probably won't gather much attention. However just keeping your online manuals and source files updated would be great. Allowing a private area for people to test UATs instead of them leaking into XDA would be kinda nice as well. I understand for legal reasons you couldn't have certain topics but it would be nice if just 1 provider of tabs would at least acknowledge the benefits of having the devs do their magic.
I was aware of what he wanted....just thought I would get my dream machine out there
It does seem like there could be a model out there for a vendor to create some sort of NDA protected developers program for early adoption.
Not releasing any files prior to official launch, but acknowledging that at launch those files will be stripped from another device. For example if company X has a legacy product Y1 and in the fall Y2 is coming out with a newer OS that could potentially be applied to Y1 then instead of waiting for Y2 to come out and people break their Y1's trying poor approaches to modification (and damaging your brand in thier eyes) you provide a group of developers lead time access without permission to release until say 3 months after Y2 comes out. This is double edged that it protects your competitive market strategy of Y2 while respecting the investment Y1 customers have made and recognizing the expectations of the users of the overall operating system you have choosen to utilize.
Had to read it twice but ^^^^^^^^^^^^what he said. There are several people here that would love this kind of opportunity. (This guy included)
Hi,
I'm not one of the devs here, but, from working w the Gtab, some of the things that would be useful would be:
- info on the BCT and partitions. There's some generic info around the web, but it seems like mostly reverse-engineered, read: guesses.
- source for bootloader and recovery (these may be proprietary, but maybe release under NDA?)
JMHO...
Jim
Adam
What would the company like to get out of starting such a project? That would dictate what should be included from a logical standpoint.
If only for research and testing then that would be something totally different especially for the folks here that know how to play with code? I would just guess if given the right information, tools and a place to share and explore the android system with support from your company , it would be taken to a level that the average user of mobile devices right now couldn't even imagine.
Android will in all likely become the system of choice surpassing the mighty Redmond and great apple.
I step back from my soapbox and blend back into lurking mode
Thanks,for responding to our calls and emails "for action and after purchase support." I bought from a retailer who was not allowing returns nor refunds, however, I did get a service plan. After working with it, I would not return it. Thanks to the incredible hardware and developer support from this site.
-Add direct movie streaming capability like from Netflix
-Easy beaming to other devices
-Easy tethering
-VPN
-Firewall or data encryption
-Public network privacy protection
-Standard auto attachment slot for GPS, music streaming, etc. making it interchangeable (I have an auto Navi/GPS (plus usb & bluetooth) about the size of this panel--thinking future forward--truly wishful thinking).
-Smart reader for scanning business cards, docs, etc. into it
-3G, 4G plus talk, fax modem capability
-Task Switcher or Manager
All I can think of now, will add more in case I forgot something.
Not a dev myself, but if this project was able to give us consumers some of my below suggestions, im sure many of us would be very happy and willing to continue to purchase VS products.
1) Real working market (I realise this is dependant on VS sorting things out with Google).
2) Required lib / drivers to use USB GPS and USB 3G.
3) For times when compatibility of software can be a task issue, the option to be able to dual boot to say WINCE. So basically WINCE support. This is for those like myself who cannot use our work related networks due to the limited proxy configurations support that Android currently has.
1: forum for known bugs list in current factory rom
2: forum for workarounds and non warranty breaking fixes for forrum #1
3: link to xda, with the caviot that using instructions from the sight could break warenty/brick/Bork the gtablet, for those who are fearless. (I have have purchased viewsonic monitors for my whole computing career, you could use an image boost. I love your brand so I think spending money reping android would bring a lot of life back to you. )
4:full software disclosure. At this point its all about power, ui, and price. You have the power and the price... recognize that 98% of your tab sails are to people who take your ui and toss it without a second thought. Not being mean, just honest.
USB
I would like to see is better support for USB drives. I would like to be able to use all my hard drives and thumb drives. Thumb drives work now but some times I plug them in and they are not recognized, forcing me to reboot.
For that matter move drivers for USB devices in general.
notsob2002 said:
Adam
What would the company like to get out of starting such a project? That would dictate what should be included from a logical standpoint.
If only for research and testing then that would be something totally different especially for the folks here that know how to play with code? I would just guess if given the right information, tools and a place to share and explore the android system with support from your company , it would be taken to a level that the average user of mobile devices right now couldn't even imagine.
Android will in all likely become the system of choice surpassing the mighty Redmond and great apple.
I step back from my soapbox and blend back into lurking mode
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We are looking to provide a centralized source for all the code/content/specs/details/etc you need for our Android-based products. But rather than guess what to put there for y'all, we'd prefer to ask! ;-)
OfficialViewSonic said:
We are looking to provide a centralized source for all the code/content/specs/details/etc you need for our Android-based products. But rather than guess what to put there for y'all, we'd prefer to ask! ;-)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's kind of funny that here you are asking for dev input and not a single one of our wonderful devs (you know who you are) have posted a response. I assume they are doing their communicating behind the scenes with you but that is purely a hunch on my part.
Anyway, I LOVE my gTab running VEGAn beta 5.1.1 but fully support your interest in helping our cookers so they can make your product as well as their product better.
sjmoreno said:
It's kind of funny that here you are asking for dev input and not a single one of our wonderful devs (you know who you are) have posted a response. I assume they are doing their communicating behind the scenes with you but that is purely a hunch on my part.
Anyway, I LOVE my gTab running VEGAn beta 5.1.1 but fully support your interest in helping our cookers so they can make your product as well as their product better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree that the intent of the request was for what features would you like them to provide on their site, not in their products.
I think a forum, such as this, would be nice, especially if you can get the viewsonic developers to sign on to responding in a timely manner.
If you (viewsonic) are serious about reaching out to the developers, I think you have a great opportunity to make your system open and developer/modder friendly and become a leader in that category. could definitely be a great opportunity for you guys.
Oh, and perhaps a legal repository for .apks which are not available to us in the market for easy installation...
I assume VS goal is to sell tablets. You have developed a good hardware platform at a great price point. A few changes and you have a great platform. To sell more tablets you need slick firmware. The devs at XDA have accomplished that with minimal support. Full support would work wonders. Suggest ask the devs what they need, in what order and what detail. Might even give them access to your dev team. Website should have dev only section and a well updated what is going on section to elliminate the repetitive " are we there yet" questions.
If you are sincere in this offer, it should provide a great benefit to both VS and it' s users. Lookout ipad here we come.
All Android devices need work to play in the corporate environment. Security needs to beefed up, the ability to integrate with MS Exchange servers, work with proxy, vpn, and whatever other security stuff is comes out. IPV6 is a requirement too.
OfficialViewSonic said:
We are looking to provide a centralized source for all the code/content/specs/details/etc you need for our Android-based products. But rather than guess what to put there for y'all, we'd prefer to ask! ;-)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, go ahead and start the forum and post a link for us so we can start using with all the information that you have and can release and make adjustments as needed. You never know what will happen it may be more helpful to people than they may think and if nothing else it would be beneficial to people who just bought one of your products and don't understand the product and its capabilities.
Thanks for having the forethought to ask because most companies probably wouldn't even think of trying to get independent development for their product from outside of their sales or IT department! Thinking like that might actually make you the leader in a soon to be crowed market
I ran into this article today and I wanted to see what the people on XDA think about it. This company is working on a Android phone that it's primary purpose is to protect the users privacy.
Here's the link: http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/1/1...nn-silent-circle-geeksphone-blackphone-launch
Read the article, watch the video and let me know what you think.
Sent from GNote 3 rooted with kingo.
Saw news about this and came here to seek out does any1 have opinions about it.
i wonder, does the safety come from hardware or is it the OS what makes this so safe.. if it is the OS, i hope some1 smart enough makes custom rom for this.
I really don't see how this phone is gonna change anything. Apps and websites have keyloggers, You still need a carrier to get service from and they have control of all your traffic. What about radio frequencies that can be intercepted, IP addresses, GPS chips sending signals to satellites, baseband and firmware are connected thru the cell towers of the carrier. I'm starting to think this phone is a scam.
They said nothing about how they're dealing with all this. They are probably using the whole NSA scandal momentum to fool people into believing they are safe if they buy this phone.
Sent from GNote 3 rooted with kingo.
I saw an article about this venture also. This is a good thing. If he gets press about this phone, maybe other venders will take notice and start building in privacy features as well. :good:
I don't see the need for new hardware here. If they really want to secure something, they could create a mod for Android, that could be installed on a variety of devices for example.
Besides, if they encrypt telephony, messages and stuff, they will need to be decrypted again - but the question is where and how? I bet they won't have any hardware encryption module and even if they do, it will make communication with other phones impossible. Software encryption means other phones will need to install some additional software to communicate with the Blackphone and it might be a bit inconvenient.
orangek3nny said:
I don't see the need for new hardware here. If they really want to secure something, they could create a mod for Android, that could be installed on a variety of devices for example.
Besides, if they encrypt telephony, messages and stuff, they will need to be decrypted again - but the question is where and how? I bet they won't have any hardware encryption module and even if they do, it will make communication with other phones impossible. Software encryption means other phones will need to install some additional software to communicate with the Blackphone and it might be a bit inconvenient.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a good point. how a non blackphone device is gonna decipher the encryption? how is it going to get the key? How can a non blackphone device even a establish the same "secure" connection?
Sent from GNote 3 rooted with kingo.
Andronote3 said:
That's a good point. how a non blackphone device is gonna decipher the encryption? how is it going to get the key? How can a non blackphone device even a establish the same "secure" connection?
Sent from GNote 3 rooted with kingo.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you are missing the point. As you or I may not NEED this kind of security, I'm sure you can think of someone who does.
Obviously, there would be two levels of privacy/security... Connections between 2 black phones and everything else. So who utilize a black phone? How about corporations and governments? Law offices, professional sports teams, or doctors and hospitals.
Now, even though I do not NEED this, if it was affordable, I would heavily consider it.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
JamieFL said:
I think you are missing the point. As you or I may not NEED this kind of security, I'm sure you can think of someone who does.
Obviously, there would be two levels of privacy/security... Connections between 2 black phones and everything else. So who utilize a black phone? How about corporations and governments? Law offices, professional sports teams, or doctors and hospitals.
Now, even though I do not NEED this, if it was affordable, I would heavily consider it.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand what you are saying and I completely agree with you. It looks like a device that corporations and the government would "benefit" more than regular users. Either way, It won't fix 90% of all the problems people face when it comes to staying safe against privacy/security breaches. I truly believe that they are using the whole NSA scandal momentum to make people believe that they are safe/secured if they buy this phone.
P.S: Nice quotes.
I saw this phone.
It isn't an answer to every privacy issue.
What its an answer to is, not having to agree to an android apps permissions to gain access to the app.
These apps don't make their money off the app sales, they make their money sending information to retailers.
Retailers own the world.
The question I still pose is... What's wrong with retailers knowing where you are?
There's nothing you can do about the government. They won't let us make things that are government proof, nor would they (The retailers ) want to.
But, what's wrong with these apps fine tuning my specific desires to my Location?
You can't stop people from stealing your identity. The hacker/firewall paradox is, for every walk you build, they will build a taller ladder.
The only thing really close to full privacy in data sending is, that light source that sends data. It's a light bulb, and the light has data in it, a sensor receives it. It can be held within the walls of a room. But that only effects a closed circuit type system. If that light source is connected to the Internet, then game over.
Why do you think record companies and movie companies keep their computer systems offline and deal in only physical media? A hacker will get into anything I'd you give him the tools and time.
This phone gives a sense of security that is non existant
You've Just Been Tapatold ♧♢dbombROMv3.4♤♡
My Theme ( Taking Requests )
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2658527
SaintCity86 said:
I saw this phone.
It isn't an answer to every privacy issue.
What its an answer to is, not having to agree to an android apps permissions to gain access to the app.
These apps don't make their money off the app sales, they make their money sending information to retailers.
Retailers own the world.
The question I still pose is... What's wrong with retailers knowing where you are?
There's nothing you can do about the government. They won't let us make things that are government proof, nor would they (The retailers ) want to.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2658527
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nailed it
The problem is Android itself. Thanks to Xprivacy, it's a lot easier to control what leaks out of your device. Personally I'd rather see more encryption mechanisms than this. FFOS seems to be on the right path
There Is nothing you can do to stop identity theft.
Nothing.
And there is nothing you can do to do the government from tapping your lines.
You want a safer form of communicating, send Voice recordings over text.
That's an entirety separate warrant, and harder to get. Other than that. It's hopeless
You've Just Been Tapatold ♧♢dbombROMv3.4♤♡
My Theme ( Taking Requests )
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2658527
d1rX said:
FFOS seems to be on the right path
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you mean FOSS[1] = Free and Open Source Software. Anyway, I fully agree, in fact, that is the ONLY way. Closed source encryption programs can't be 100% trusted by definition. There might be security flaws, intentional or not.
Anyway. the NSA has backdoors to every operating system[2], so if you're really a target, they get you. Also, there are more than enough security holes in the layers under the operating system[3].
I think what these phones are supposed to do is bring end-to-end encryption for e.g. industry users so they don't get spied on. The NSA and the US government can get their hands on encryption keys for servers like in Lavabits case[4]. But this is the transport encryption. The data is, if not otherwise secured, available in plain text on the servers of providers. This also means, the officials can decrypt ANY data that comes in, not just the one of actual targets.
Now, end-to-end encryption makes sure even the provider can't see your data in plain text because you encrypt and decrypt it on your device. What Blackphone does is, it uses the apps from Silent Circle, a closed source encryption programm for VoIP and messages. Although the owner of that company is the well trusted cryptographer Phil Zimmerman, one can never be sure.
That's a good point. how a non blackphone device is gonna decipher the encryption? how is it going to get the key? How can a non blackphone device even a establish the same "secure" connection?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can install and use Silent Circle on any(ok, a lot of) phone(s). Just make sure you don't have additional malicious software installed. Any yes, it costs $100/year or so. And you get a subscription for SpiderOak, sort of a Dropbox but they encrypt the data before uploading. Any you get a better overview over what app uses what permissions. A few extra tweaks basically.
Alternative: Android Phone with CyanogenMod/Replica. TextSecure for messages, RedPhone for VoiP and owncloud for files. Way cheaper too, and open source, also made by well respected cryptographers like Moxie Marlinspike[5]
[1] de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free/Libre_Open_Source_Software
[2] zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-08/nsa-has-full-back-door-access-iphone-blackberry-and-android-smartphones-documents-re"]backdoors to every operating system
[3] forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2530044
[4] techdirt.com/articles/20131002/17443624734/lavabit-tried-giving-feds-its-ssl-key-11-pages-4-point-type-feds-complained-that-it-was-illegible.shtml
[5] thoughtcrime.org
if they want to spy on us they can ... that's it...
More info?
Hi all - looking for more info on this phone - just joined XDADev to post this.
Specifically, what brands might this hardware be found under? Know it's a Tinno S8515 but have yet to find out anything about that; seems like Tinno generally makes phones for other companies?
Any help is appreciated!
Best,
-Cx
:cyclops::cyclops::cyclops:
The greatest challenge to securing a phone is not the OS or the apps running on it, it's the baseband. We have known for well over 30+ yeasr how to harden a *nix based system (like AOS), but we haven't even started to question WTF is going on in the closed source 10-100 MB baseband RTOS, which have fulll access to your entire FS and the most important phone operations, like SIM, RF, EMMC etc etc.
Only forcing the corrupt modem OEM's to release the sources of the Baseband firmware could improve the situation. This will never happen, unless there is another baseband Snowden out there somewhere...
We already know that the BP/CP FW is extremely insecure, and relies almost solely on obscurity as their main mechanism of protection. If this was not the case, the iPhone unlock developers would have been fekked long time ago, and the rest of us would sit around with SIM/network locked bricks filling up our bookshelves.
Unfortunately the greatest majority of the millions of XDA members are completely carefree about this issue and are only happy as long as they can "tweak some ROMs". So this will never be the place to find/see any serious baseband reversing, no matter how important it would be from a security standpoint.
So to summarize, your Qualcomm baseband will continue to send your exact GPS coordinates to the network provider at will, without you ever knowing, and without anyone (here) caring. So goes for the FM transmitter that is part of the baseband FW in both Intel and Qualcomm based phones. Do you have control over that? Never.
Only a serious long term spectrum analysis study could reveal whats going on there, where and when you're not (able) to watch.
This phone is the biggest scam lol.
hyshys said:
Saw news about this and came here to seek out does any1 have opinions about it.
i wonder, does the safety come from hardware or is it the OS what makes this so safe.. if it is the OS, i hope some1 smart enough makes custom rom for this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was wondering this too. If it is only the rom (just like the $1300 pwnphone). It should be port-able
iliass01 said:
I was wondering this too. If it is only the rom (just like the $1300 pwnphone). It should be port-able
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Blackphone. - no hardware security, just software, and most of it is NOT open source. Some here (@SaintCity86 , @repat) has their points, and they are mostly right! If you want some security (and I said some!!!), then get rid of most of your apps (permission check and some common sense), all Google apps (yes, all of them), install a paid (not free) and high quality VPN software, don't use the phone feature (only data sim-prepaid), get an internet phone number (with no personal details), use end to end encrypted apps to make calls and send and receive texts, install Xposed and Xprivacy (or any other variant) and limit even more the apps you have on your phone. Don't use it as your only phone, but as a secure device and share your number and other infos with trusted people! In this case, maybe, you will be able to add some layer of security and actually be able to use it. And most important, don't give your phone in the hands of anyone! It is a bit paranoid, but it's the only way! But, don't be fooled! You can have some security, only if you stay under the radar, and don't gain some attention. If yes, then you have no luck! Personally, I have seen the Blackphone, and tested it for some time, and I am not really convinced it can be trusted.
Good luck!
Andronote3 said:
I really don't see how this phone is gonna change anything. Apps and websites have keyloggers, You still need a carrier to get service from and they have control of all your traffic. What about radio frequencies that can be intercepted, IP addresses, GPS chips sending signals to satellites, baseband and firmware are connected thru the cell towers of the carrier. I'm starting to think this phone is a scam.
They said nothing about how they're dealing with all this. They are probably using the whole NSA scandal momentum to fool people into believing they are safe if they buy this phone.
Sent from GNote 3 rooted with kingo.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Would just like to correct this common misconception, GPS is one way.
GPS receivers as found in your phones, or navigation systems, receives GPS signals only. Nothing gets sent to satellites in this process, the algorithm is purely one way.
Perhaps upon reading that, you call to mind Thomas Jefferson pulling out his Android to thwart impeding forces. I actually like that idea, but I know that the time in which John Locke wrote the contributing phrase was much different than today. It was a time of change and also a time when people realized their full potential to make a difference. In the spirit of our Founding Fathers, and in an exercise of my own Personal Liberties, I have started a petition to require cell phone carriers to allow bootloader unlock on any Android device that is not under contract or subsidy. Many of you will know immediately what this means, and the exponential benefits of such a law. Many of you will flip to the next activity complacently believing this does not affect you. If you do not understand, I wish to enlighten you as to how this affects each and every Android user in the world. Signing the petition takes only a few moments of your time and adds to the greater good of our technology and innovation as a Nation.
So what exactly does this “Bootloader Unlock” thing mean?
Well, that is a great question. Most simply put, according to Motorla’s website, “bootloader is a little bit of code that tells your device's operating system how to boot up”. That does not mean much to the average user, I am sure. What it means in my own words is it is a piece of code that dictates what I can and cannot do, in terms of software modification, to my own personal Android device. On my wireless provider whom I will call Big Red, their requirement is that OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers, or simply phone makers) lock this bit of code to prevent modification by the end-user or customer. I am certain, to those that do not wish to modify their devices, this sounds like a good fail-safe to avoid breaking their devices. I am also certain that to those like myself, those who have the experience and knowledge to do things like flash custom firmware or software and modify our devices to suit our own personal taste and needs, this is a huge roadblock and an impediment on what we can do with our own personal property and how it can be improved. In order to modify system files as the user sees fit, a thing called Root is required. Root is, most simply privileged access to a phones file system. A locked bootloader means that in order to gain “Root” access, a security exploit must be found and exploited in order to modify system files. These exploits are literally holes that must be (and typically are) patched in software updates sent out by the service providers or manufacturers to protect the end-user. While the efforts of the security experts are always going to be required to keep us safe and updated, I personally do not want to rely on someone to hack the software so it can be modified. This should be an inherent ability of any user who does not have a subsidy or contract obligation. I also feel that any device that can be updated by the user allows the people who develop for Android to Innovate and push our technology farther forward. When manufacturers are required to lock down a device, ultimately, the user is the one who loses. My first Android device, the Droid 1 or A855 ran an under-volted overclocked kernel (simply another piece of code that tells a device how to boot and how to run its processor among other things) that ran 1.7ghz on it’s ~600mhz processor. I used that phone at least twice as long as I would have if it hadn’t been bootloader unlocked. Also, on the note of the OG Droid, I can say that this was the phone that helped Verizon to compete with the Iphone, bolstering the customer base and creating mass knowledge of the Andoid platform. This was done with a bootloader-unlocked device. It seems that once the market was realized, bootloader locking became the normative. The Droid line has been bootloader-locked ever since. There are several examples of the same hardware being sold, under different names, with the bootloader-unlockable right out of the box. The most recent example of this is the Motorola xt1250, or Moto Maxx (US CDMA). The international version of the same phone, the xt1225 is also bootloader-unlockable. All three are known as the Quark. They are identical in hardware aside from exteriors. Big Red required their version to have the bootloader locked. There is no way to have it unlocked for now.
So Why Would I Want to Sign This Petition?
Honestly, you may not care about Android at all. You could conceivably have never been interested, and care less. However, the technology available to you today is available because of innovations and advancements that have been made across a wide technological array of development. Android is no different. Love that Halo or Heads Up inspired feature ____ manufacturer just put on your new phone? People who develop are to be thanked. The possibilities are endless for what can be done and applied across many platforms. The future of mobile technology can be greatly advanced by creating open access for all who are inclined.
Catharsis
Okay, I admit it. It is really, really unlikely our politicians actually act upon this petition, even if 100,000 signatures are reached. As much as I like to think our law should “fix” things that are wrong, I can agree with one of my favorite developers from back in the day, @adrenalyne, when he said [government typically does not, and should not interfere with private business.] I can agree with that on the same grounds by which I feel we should be granted bootloader unlock on…if and only, if, no one’s rights are infringed upon. I feel it is all of our right to do what we please with our own personal property. There was a great analogy given on XDA Developers forum in the bounty thread where this all started by @Wynnded In essence, it said the carrier provides the highway, the OEM provides the device, but it is the carrier’s highway, so if the carrier requires the OEM to lock it down so be it. Personally, I feel that if the carrier has a highway, it is a toll-road, as I pay for my service. I purchase my vehicle outright, so if I want to modify it, and I pay for my vehicle, making no obligation to said toll operator, it is not within their range of rights to tell me I cannot modify my vehicle in the way I see fit. Thank you for your time. –kitcostantino @ medicbeard on twitter #unlockthedroids
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...e-not-subsized-or-attatched-contract/QfTmsspy
Original thread:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/dro...unlock-bootloader-root-turbo-t2927958/page115
Sources:
https://motorola-global-portal.custhelp.com/app/standalone/bootloader/unlock-your-device-a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooting_(Android_OS)
I ask for no donations, nor anything else. Simply share this if you feel so compelled. Really, it hurts nothing even if you don’t.
#unlockthedroids
Reading around I've found some passing mention of Block C, how bootloaders should be unlocked on it and such because of Open Use terms set by google. I created a petition here: https://www.change.org/p/federal-co...-circumventing-security-ver?just_created=true that although it may not relate completely to XDA in every sense, needs support I feel. An XDA article on the topic may be found here for more information on the subject: http://www.xda-developers.com/it-is-illegal-for-verizon-to-lock-some-bootloaders/
Thanks in advance for any support, hopefully we can work around having to hack into the thing(s) and just get what we should've gotten all along.
Cheers :fingers-crossed:
Would be nice if we could get it unlocked. Not like they are loosing money off these phones now since they are so old by today's ever so speedy tech market.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Question: would a bootloader be considered a "user application" in the sense that an application would be software? Or as firmware does it not extend to that?
BTW, here is a copy of my FCC complaint and text within. If anyone who is reading this has experience in the field and any pointers or arguments I could make that would be great:
For a great majority of phones currently sold by Verizon, many of which utilize Block C of the 700Mhz spectrum, the bootloader is locked. The original terms of Open Access allows for two exceptions only, the second being that the device must comply with other regulations, and the first that limitations may be made for "management or protection of the licensee's network." Locked bootloaders are in violation of Open Access, and thus the response from Verizon is that the allowance of such modification could cause breach in security, and thus such restrictions are necessary for that management. The counterargument to this is in part that phones from outside the network, sold by other manufacturers, as well as some sold through Verizon itself by certain manufacturers do not have any such restrictions. This lack in continuity wholly breaches any argument that security of the network could by improved by locking those devices in such a way that the original terms outweigh those exceptions.
Next comment by me:
Upon receiving reply from the subject of complaint, I have not thusfar been given what I would deem any substantial evidence that it is 1) a method of securing the licensee's network that is reasonable or consistently applied in any effective manner 2) not placing substantial burden on the customer relative to that originally applied by the OEM and 3) that it does not restrict the ability of any consumer to install applications (software, by nature including the operating system and related components) excluding for reasonable network management. This final point is troubling as of yet for the very reason that no specific examples or evidence was given to prove that it is necessary or that any plausible abuse or breach in security of the network may be exclusively performed by an end user with only a device with an unrestricted base firmware
And my last comment as of yet:
Thusfar, I have not yet received any written transcription, summary, or identifiable confirmation of receipt by the fcc from Verizon of the contact over phone that I have had with Verizon over this matter. I still find no reasonable objection to, or exception from, the contents of paragraph 222 and footnote 500 of FCC-07-132A1 that would allow for the restriction placed on these devices. Reasonable network management, as quoted as an exception by Verizon, has not been backed up or supported by any example or feasible hypothetical that a locked bootloader provides, in a direct manner, any noticeable or even quantifiably existent protection to the integrity of the carriers system over that of a phone without the restriction.
dreamwave said:
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon isn't going to do anything because you're in the minority. Locked bootloaders appeal to corporate/military for the security of Exchange. Bootloaders are not end user software, it is firmware, and firmware that isn't touched often at best. If you need proof of how locked bootloaders make a device more secure... all of XDA is your example. Anything that allows custom code to be flashed is a security risk.
If you took the time to look at other threads ranging from the S3, Note 4, etc, you'll learn that the S5 isn't the only one. Also, the reason the Devs don't work on it is because a failed bootloader exploit bricks the phone so that not even a JTAG will revive it.
The thing with root is its just injecting things inton a firmware to see if it will take. Any failure just means a stock rom needs to be flashed. While I can't stand the locked bootloader issue either, it's been beaten like a dead horse just as badly as people asking for root for OE1 and OG5 in basically every thread.
Spartan117H3 said:
Verizon isn't going to do anything because you're in the minority. Locked bootloaders appeal to corporate/military for the security of Exchange. Bootloaders are not end user software, it is firmware, and firmware that isn't touched often at best. If you need proof of how locked bootloaders make a device more secure... all of XDA is your example. Anything that allows custom code to be flashed is a security risk.
If you took the time to look at other threads ranging from the S3, Note 4, etc, you'll learn that the S5 isn't the only one. Also, the reason the Devs don't work on it is because a failed bootloader exploit bricks the phone so that not even a JTAG will revive it.
The thing with root is its just injecting things inton a firmware to see if it will take. Any failure just means a stock rom needs to be flashed. While I can't stand the locked bootloader issue either, it's been beaten like a dead horse just as badly as people asking for root for OE1 and OG5 in basically every thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The burden of proof is on them (as per the regulations), that they must prove that any restriction they make specifically allows for their network (not the phone) to be more secure. They need to prove (even if I am a minority complainee) that it falls under reasonable network management. I know that many parts have been harped on to no end, but what I'm arguing here seems not to have been argued in this way before. Many of the original complainees have not offered much beyond simply touting "open access", no real legal backing. Also, about the minority thing: the FCC has internal courts that are there to deal with complaints that don't necessarily affect a majority. They work like most other courts in that they decide what is right, not who has more money. I'm glad I'm dealing with the FCC now as in times past they were a bit more unresponsive to complaints by many people but now seem to be taking a more proactive approach to most everything.
Also, a major distinction in footnote 502 vs 500:
502: We also note that wireless service providers may continue to use their choice of operating systems, and are not
required to modify their network infrastructure or device-level operating systems to accommodate particular devices
or applications. Device manufacturers and applications developers are free to design their equipment and
applications to work with providers’ network infrastructure and operating systems, and must be given the applicable
parameters as part of the standards provided to third parties.
500: We note that the Copyright Office has granted a three-year exemption to the anti-circumvention provisions of
Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, for “computer programs in the form of firmware that enable
wireless telephone handsets to connect to wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is
accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.” It found
that software locks on mobile handsets adversely affect the ability of consumers to make non-infringing use of the
software in those handsets. 17 Fed. Reg. 68472 (Nov. 27, 2006). We also note that a court appeal of the exemption
ruling is ongoing.
1st point: a distinction between the operating system, and "firmware" as a "program", and by extension an "application"...but not necessary to argue as it, within 500, notes that "software locks on mobile handsets adversely affect the ability of consumers...handsets," and although this exception may have expired the original text acts as a type of precedent that establishes 1. that firmware is independent from the operating system and 2. that its restriction does not conform to "open access" or constitute "reasonable network management"
veedubsky said:
Would be nice if we could get it unlocked. Not like they are loosing money off these phones now since they are so old by today's ever so speedy tech market.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the main reason they do it is because some people who brick their phones doing stuff they can't apply the warrantee to and still call tech support trying to get help
dreamwave said:
the main reason they do it is because some people who brick their phones doing stuff they can't apply the warrantee to and still call tech support trying to get help
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea well they could always have a sign here clause that will relinquish them from any liability then unlock your phone.
veedubsky said:
Yea well they could always have a sign here clause that will relinquish them from any liability then unlock your phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's my point but they wouldn't listen in the original chat with them on the phone so...oh well
dreamwave said:
That's my point but they wouldn't listen in the original chat with them on the phone so...oh well
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also with all the help here and rescue resources (also knowing that there is that SLIGHT chance to completely brick your phone) you can almost reverse anything... Except some people freak out and first thing they do is call VZW
dreamwave said:
The burden of proof is on them (as per the regulations), that they must prove that any restriction they make specifically allows for their network (not the phone) to be more secure. They need to prove (even if I am a minority complainee) that it falls under reasonable network management. I know that many parts have been harped on to no end, but what I'm arguing here seems not to have been argued in this way before. Many of the original complainees have not offered much beyond simply touting "open access", no real legal backing. Also, about the minority thing: the FCC has internal courts that are there to deal with complaints that don't necessarily affect a majority. They work like most other courts in that they decide what is right, not who has more money. I'm glad I'm dealing with the FCC now as in times past they were a bit more unresponsive to complaints by many people but now seem to be taking a more proactive approach to most everything.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So, you're on XDA. You know what an unlocked bootloader brings. And there is proof on here what an unlocked bootloader can do. Your argument is that they have yet to show you proof... but they could simply point to this forum if they were so inclined to respond to you. An unlocked bootloader allows for unsigned code. Unsigned code is a security risk because it's not verified by them. So how is this not reasonable proof?
I brought up the minority issue because you are REQUESTING an unlock, and as a minority, you are not their main customer base/source of profit, so they have little desire to appeal to you. I am NOT talking about being a minority in terms of not being heard in the case of a LEGAL issue, because there are class action lawsuits for that.
They could always simply start saying that their software is closed source, and you're not allowed to modify it/you agree to these terms when buying the phone. It seems that they're locking down the phones without making this disclaimer, because once again... it is only the minority who cares. That is why many of the developers jumped ship to T-Mobile or the Nexus phone.
I don't like the locked bootloader situation myself, but that just means I too will jump ship to the Nexus 6 when it comes out.
Spartan117H3 said:
So, you're on XDA. You know what an unlocked bootloader brings. And there is proof on here what an unlocked bootloader can do. Your argument is that they have yet to show you proof... but they could simply point to this forum if they were so inclined to respond to you. An unlocked bootloader allows for unsigned code. Unsigned code is a security risk because it's not verified by them. So how is this not reasonable proof?
I brought up the minority issue because you are REQUESTING an unlock, and as a minority, you are not their main customer base/source of profit, so they have little desire to appeal to you. I am NOT talking about being a minority in terms of not being heard in the case of a LEGAL issue, because there are class action lawsuits for that.
They could always simply start saying that their software is closed source, and you're not allowed to modify it/you agree to these terms when buying the phone. It seems that they're locking down the phones without making this disclaimer, because once again... it is only the minority who cares. That is why many of the developers jumped ship to T-Mobile or the Nexus phone.
I don't like the locked bootloader situation myself, but that just means I too will jump ship to the Nexus 6 when it comes out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unsigned code is already possible to run in just installing an application not from the play store. To their network, an unlocked bootloader doesn't allow any code to be run on their network that can't already be run to the same extent on a phone with a locked one. Also, the petition was only really there to raise awareness about the issue to the public. The FCC is the only place I'm really able to do much against verizon.
Spartan117H3 said:
So, you're on XDA. You know what an unlocked bootloader brings. And there is proof on here what an unlocked bootloader can do. Your argument is that they have yet to show you proof... but they could simply point to this forum if they were so inclined to respond to you. An unlocked bootloader allows for unsigned code. Unsigned code is a security risk because it's not verified by them. So how is this not reasonable proof?
I brought up the minority issue because you are REQUESTING an unlock, and as a minority, you are not their main customer base/source of profit, so they have little desire to appeal to you. I am NOT talking about being a minority in terms of not being heard in the case of a LEGAL issue, because there are class action lawsuits for that.
They could always simply start saying that their software is closed source, and you're not allowed to modify it/you agree to these terms when buying the phone. It seems that they're locking down the phones without making this disclaimer, because once again... it is only the minority who cares. That is why many of the developers jumped ship to T-Mobile or the Nexus phone.
I don't like the locked bootloader situation myself, but that just means I too will jump ship to the Nexus 6 when it comes out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And even if they make it closed source, forbidding the modification of the phone would be the subject of the exact terms of complaint that I've outlined
dreamwave said:
Unsigned code is already possible to run in just installing an application not from the play store. To their network, an unlocked bootloader doesn't allow any code to be run on their network that can't already be run to the same extent on a phone with a locked one. Also, the petition was only really there to raise awareness about the issue to the public. The FCC is the only place I'm really able to do much against verizon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That app is sandboxed within the android os, meaning the app is limited by whatever the OS allows it to do. To be able to replace the firmware on the phone is a huge difference. I'm sure the 18k bounty made more headlines than this thread did, considering it was for both AT&T and Verizon, and that many different news outlets reposted it. It doesn't matter if many people know about it, because most people don't care if it doesn't involve them. This type of stuff has been done by other companies as well. Notable examples:
UEFI - Has to be signed before it can boot before windows 8/8.1 (but you can request to have things reviewed and signed, Ubuntu did this).
Intel - they locked down their processors and now sell/mark up K versions to enthusiasts who want to overclock.
dreamwave said:
And even if they make it closed source, forbidding the modification of the phone would be the subject of the exact terms of complaint that I've outlined
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But then there's this:
dreamwave said:
To their network, an unlocked bootloader doesn't allow any code to be run on their network that can't already be run to the same extent on a phone with a locked one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you have an unlocked bootloader, couldn't you run whatever you wanted on their network which would be the reason of making it closed source/addressing the quote above this quote? I'm not quite understanding this.
Spartan117H3 said:
That app is sandboxed within the android os, meaning the app is limited by whatever the OS allows it to do. To be able to replace the firmware on the phone is a huge difference. I'm sure the 18k bounty made more headlines than this thread did, considering it was for both AT&T and Verizon, and that many different news outlets reposted it. It doesn't matter if many people know about it, because most people don't care if it doesn't involve them. This type of stuff has been done by other companies as well. Notable examples:
UEFI - Has to be signed before it can boot before windows 8/8.1 (but you can request to have things reviewed and signed, Ubuntu did this).
Intel - they locked down their processors and now sell/mark up K versions to enthusiasts who want to overclock.
But then there's this:
If you have an unlocked bootloader, couldn't you run whatever you wanted on their network which would be the reason of making it closed source/addressing the quote above this quote? I'm not quite understanding this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what I'm disputing is the direct security impact to their network an unlocked bootloader poses compared to a locked one. If it is possible to run the same code on a locked bootloader that would post a direct threat to the integrity of their network then it doesn't constitute reasonable network management.
dreamwave said:
what I'm disputing is the direct security impact to their network an unlocked bootloader poses compared to a locked one. If it is possible to run the same code on a locked bootloader that would post a direct threat to the integrity of their network then it doesn't constitute reasonable network management.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But it's not. Unlocked bootloader allows much more freedom/allows you to run code that you can't on a locked one.
Spartan117H3 said:
But it's not. Unlocked bootloader allows much more freedom/allows you to run code that you can't on a locked one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Code that can directly impact the security of their network infrastructure, not just your phone?
dreamwave said:
Code that can directly impact the security of their network infrastructure, not just your phone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the case of Samsung phones, it would undermine the security of at minimum the device that connects to the Exchange service. To the extent, I have no idea, I'm just here speculating/learning, but I thought that was one of the reasons they gave for locking it down.
Spartan117H3 said:
In the case of Samsung phones, it would undermine the security of at minimum the device that connects to the Exchange service. To the extent, I have no idea, I'm just here speculating/learning, but I thought that was one of the reasons they gave for locking it down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The thing is that they can only restrict devices like that if it has any impact on their network infrastructure, if they can't prove it does they can't really do anything about it
dreamwave said:
The thing is that they can only restrict devices like that if it has any impact on their network infrastructure, if they can't prove it does they can't really do anything about it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Couldn't they claim something as simple as, a keylogger on a phone from a corporate/military person which would impact Exchange? Dunno. But that could be done with root. Bootloader makes it possible to root phones that aren't usually rootable though.
I want to buy ONE+7 for flashing roms n rooting.But i recently faced some-fissy matters about Oneplus backdoor,According to this person Elliot Alderson, Oneplus r giving permissions to hackers by creating a backdoor on the chipset(probably).
>https://www.wired.com/story/oneplus-phones-have-an-unfortunate-backdoor-built-in/
>https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/59y4vz/oneplus-backdoor-engineer-mode
guys i m very worried about this thing.Need help to investigate.is it possible to hack ?!?!?
My 1+7P does not have the Engineering Mode app. Those articles are 2 years old, so my guess is they don't ship with that app any more.
jdhedden said:
My 1+7P does not have the Engineering Mode app. Those articles are 2 years old, so my guess is they don't ship with that app any more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its not an app, its behind the scenes, its located in system/app folder, which can be debloated with root. But I have had been using OnePlus devices since OnePlus One with no issues, Identity theft or hacking. Always had bootloader unlocked and rooted.
markmywordz said:
I want to buy ONE+7 for flashing roms n rooting.But i recently faced some-fissy matters about Oneplus backdoor,According to this person Elliot Alderson, Oneplus r giving permissions to hackers by creating a backdoor on the chipset(probably).
>https://www.wired.com/story/oneplus-phones-have-an-unfortunate-backdoor-built-in/
>https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/59y4vz/oneplus-backdoor-engineer-mode
guys i m very worried about this thing.Need help to investigate.is it possible to hack ?!?!?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes it's possible to hack. This is a serious Memory Leak vulnerability in the chipset, where a hacker can chain multiple hardware level exploits to leak sensitive information in your CPUs TLB cache.
Chill man, we're using android OS, with all sorts of components from different manufacturers, in a digital age where privacy is a myth. You can't do anything if Snapdragon has a backdoor in their chipset, or your NFC/Bluetooth chip might have. Google knows everything about you and what you do on the phone.
You can't do anything to save yourself from the components you use (Google's OS, Different vendors chipsets, OnePlus's Phone), they all collect certain amount of data from you, and that's expected, everybody everywhere does it. And there's always a flaw everywhere that hackers are constantly using to hack your device (recent WhatsApp's bug which was actually a flaw in the SRTP protocol itself), they're called 0-days when they're discovered. Unless they aren't, you won't even know how many hackers have access to your data and your device.
So either don't use smartphone or any sort of connected digital equipment, or use it and stop worrying about hackers.
rootSU said:
Yes it's possible to hack. This is a serious Memory Leak vulnerability in the chipset, where a hacker can chain multiple hardware level exploits to leak sensitive information in your CPUs TLB cache.
Chill man, we're using android OS, with all sorts of components from different manufacturers, in a digital age where privacy is a myth. You can't do anything if Snapdragon has a backdoor in their chipset, or your NFC/Bluetooth chip might have. Google knows everything about you and what you do on the phone.
You can't do anything to save yourself from the components you use (Google's OS, Different vendors chipsets, OnePlus's Phone), they all collect certain amount of data from you, and that's expected, everybody everywhere does it. And there's always a flaw everywhere that hackers are constantly using to hack your device (recent WhatsApp's bug which was actually a flaw in the SRTP protocol itself), they're called 0-days when they're discovered. Unless they aren't, you won't even know how many hackers have access to your data and your device.
So either don't use smartphone or any sort of connected digital equipment, or use it and stop worrying about hackers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Privacy is not a myth.
Only for privacy reason many users falsh a custom rom, use microg instead of google.
But Snapdragons already have a backdoor, Just like intel management engine it has build in engine(2nd OS) inside chipset(intregrate with ARM architecture)
>https://thehackernews.com/2016/03/android-root-hack.html?m=1
>https://www.osnews.com/story/27416/the-second-operating-system-hiding-in-every-mobile-phone/
>https://www.androidauthority.com/qualcomm-critical-flaw-chipsets-979708/
https://wccftech.com/security-exploits-put-snapdragon-powered-devices-at-risk-of-hacking/
markmywordz said:
Privacy is not a myth.
Only for privacy reason many users falsh a custom rom, use microg instead of google.
But Snapdragons already have a backdoor, Just like intel management engine it has build in engine(2nd OS) inside chipset(intregrate with ARM architecture)
>https://thehackernews.com/2016/03/android-root-hack.html?m=1
>https://www.osnews.com/story/27416/the-second-operating-system-hiding-in-every-mobile-phone/
>https://www.androidauthority.com/qualcomm-critical-flaw-chipsets-979708/
https://wccftech.com/security-exploits-put-snapdragon-powered-devices-at-risk-of-hacking/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The debate on this is endless, but I'd just say that you contradicted yourself by first saying that Privacy is not a myth, and then saying SD has a backdoor inbuilt.
Nobody buys a $700 phone with the latest chipset and 4G/5G connectivity to debloat and not install anything on it. As soon as you're on the internet, no matter custom rom, no matter what apps you have installed on it, you're giving up your privacy one way or the other.
If you truly want privacy, live a life like Richard Stallman, look him up, and see how he accesses the internet to maintain his privacy: https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html
Richard Stallman said:
I am careful in how I use the Internet.
I generally do not connect to web sites from my own machine, aside from a few sites I have some special relationship with. I usually fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program (see https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/womb/hacks.git) that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me. Then I look at them using a web browser, unless it is easy to see the text in the HTML page directly. I usually try lynx first, then a graphical browser if the page needs it (using konqueror, which won't fetch from other sites in such a situation).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
markmywordz said:
I want to buy ONE+7 for flashing roms n rooting.But i recently faced some-fissy matters about Oneplus backdoor,According to this person Elliot Alderson, Oneplus r giving permissions to hackers by creating a backdoor on the chipset(probably).
>https://www.wired.com/story/oneplus-phones-have-an-unfortunate-backdoor-built-in/
>https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/59y4vz/oneplus-backdoor-engineer-mode
guys i m very worried about this thing.Need help to investigate.is it possible to hack ?!?!?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Old articles that have nothing to do with the 7 Pro or any recently released OnePlus device.
If you are that worried, unlock the boot loader and root.
Then run an app that sniffs all traffic leaving the phone.
Moderator Announcement: Thread cleaned and closed as it developed into (nicely called) a political discussion and consparicy discourse.
XDA Forum Rules (excerpt):
...
2. Member conduct.
(...)
2.4 Personal attacks, racial, political and / or religious discussions: XDA is a discussion forum about certain mobile phones. Mobile phones are not racial, political, religious or personally offensive and therefore, none of these types of discussions are permitted on XDA.
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse