Related
Hello I have a question about signing and stuff.
Recently I bought an app in the store.
It works fine on my tablet, but I can't seem to download it on my phone.
So I search for a cracked version to try on my phone, but it seems it is also not signed for this device.
I tried to sign it with zipsigner 2, but also no luck.
So my question is can I sign it myself without knowing the key sign from the developers of the app even if it's not allowed on this device?
Or is there maybe another method besides signing to use it
Because I want to know why the developers didn't allow this device to use it.
Thanks in advance.
You forgot to say what OS this is, but since you mentioned zip-signer, I guess this is Android.
Most App signatures refer to nothing but themselves and are not for any specific device at all, the one exception are special signatures by the device maker which give the app root-like access even though the device is not rooted, but very few apps in Play have such signatures.
But inside the APK file, there is an XML manifest and other files describing what devices and Android versions are needed by the app. Signing the APK doesn't change that info, but changing it does require signing the App again.
But even if you succeed, you have two other problems: 1. The App seller won't like you not paying for the copy on your phone and will be ticked off by the cracking-like tricks you are doing to get it to load in the first place, even if you somehow pay him another way. 2. The limits inside the APK are usually there for a reason, and just striking them out probably will just reveal how much the app needs those things.
Simply unzipping the APK file and looking through the XML file should tell you what the app says it needs, so you can compare it to your phone. For instance, it might require a higher Android ("SDK") version or a minimum screen size.
Once you know what the missing requirement is, you can upgrade your ROM (if it is just the Android version that is too old), or ask the developer why his app isn't available for devices that lack X, Y and Z. He will probably be receptive if you say you like the app and would like to purchase it for your phone (and don't mention your stupid cracking attempts).
I've made a small module that broadcasts an intent when the "OK, Google now" trigger phrase is recognised. The intention is to listen for the intent with an app such as Tasker and do your own voice interface from there. This module stops all native Touchless Control functions, so you have to handle any commands you want on your own. The screen does not turn on if it was off and internet connectivity is not required.
There are two beeps I haven't been able to track down yet, though one can be disabled via the Touchless Controls settings.
Xposed Repository
http://repo.xposed.info/module/com.hawkjm.okgooglenowtriggerintent
I'm not well versed in tasker, could you help me make a tasker action to here the ok Google now phrase then open the app utter and start listening
Sent from my XT1056 using xda app-developers app
charlie-n said:
I'm not well versed in tasker, could you help me make a tasker action to here the ok Google now phrase then open the app utter and start listening
Sent from my XT1056 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First, you need a profile. It'll need an event for Intent Received, with com.hawkjm.okgooglenowtriggerintent.AUDIO_TRIGGER in the Action field.
Next, you'll need a task to command utter. I'm using autovoice, so I'm not terribly up to date on utter. They've got instructions and examples in this thread:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=34339449&postcount=2155&nocache=1&z=7169357333332300
Hello, I've been using the "Google Now API" module for xposed framework with the tasker autovoice plugin. How is this module different exactly? The way I described, touchless controls is left intact and functions exactly how it would otherwise, but a command is given through autovoice to tasker, and Google now opens and does a search on whatever command you entered. What is different with your module?
Thanks in advance...
This module basically hijacks the touchless controls trigger so you can do your own voice interface. My use case is :
-say "Ok, Google now"
-Tasker launches AutoVoice recognition
-I say something like "Start my car"
-Tasker handles the request and starts the car
My goal was to allow this to happen completely in the background, and with the screen off. This doesn't disturb anything else I might be doing on the phone, nor does it activate the screen. Also, it uses onboard recognition is available, and so is a bit faster then having Google Now do the recognition.
I've tried something very simple and it won't work please correct this if I'm wrong.
1. Open tasker
2 create profile /system/intent received
3. Typed com.hawkjm.okgooglenowtriggerintent.AUDIO_TRIGGER into the action field.
4. Hit back
5. Enter task menu pops up, and I click new task.
6. I give the task a name, then I click + to add action. I select App/ load app/ calculator.
7. I go back to main menu and make sure profile is active.
8. I go to home screen and say "ok Google now" I hear a beep. No action happens.
Does any one see anything wrong
Sent from my XT1056 using xda app-developers app
Lately, I've been needing to add steps to get Tasker to act as expected. Once you've completed your profile and task, completely exit Tasker, making sure to hit "save first." Then, if needed, deactivate and reactivate Tasker's monitor by long-pressing the little gear in the left corner. I usually run a little task that pops a toast then to make sure it is active. In most cases, just the full exit and save is sufficient.
If that doesn't work, check in Tasker's log to see if it is seeing the intent. If no, check your logcat for the intent being broadcast.
I fixed it, I had to install secure settings app to wake screen then launch the app I wanted, utter had so Manu more commands
Sent from my XT1056 using xda app-developers app
Is "Secure Settings" required for this to happen? Does Tasker need to be made an Administrator?
**Edit**
Looks like SS is required
This post should be way more populated, the possibilities of this plus tasker are endless
Sent from my XT1056 using xda app-developers app
Is this module designed for KK or is it compatible with JB. I can't seem to get any logs in the tasked app. Will check logcat.
You should also check out with caioketo is doing in his thread http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2623063, seems pretty similar to this and they are still trying to retain Google Now functionality if you want.
I'm going to try this out as soon as I get to my aunts phone. She got the x because moto advertised it for seeing impaired. I ended up having to use tasker and autovoice to make it speak back to her but it uses so much battery. Thanks for doing this! I will be back with my results.
Just installed this, brilliant!
Commands that needed autovoice are executed immediately, if I needed Google now I just have an autovoice tasker triggered command for running the voice search app (too bad it seems we can't easily transfer a command from autovoice to gnow, but I now have instant autovoice, and one more step for Google now voice search, » ok Google now, search, "speak command")
Tapatalk - Moto X XT1058
Cyphir said:
Is this module designed for KK or is it compatible with JB. I can't seem to get any logs in the tasked app. Will check logcat.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wrote for and tested on a kitkat device. Unfortunately, I don't have a moto JB on hand to check it on.
Check the Xposed logs for errors if you don't see anything in the logcat or Tasker logs. Let me know if you find anything.
cocchiararo said:
Just installed this, brilliant!
Commands that needed autovoice are executed immediately, if I needed Google now I just have an autovoice tasker triggered command for running the voice search app (too bad it seems we can't easily transfer a command from autovoice to gnow, but I now have instant autovoice, and one more step for Google now voice search, » ok Google now, search, "speak command")
Tapatalk - Moto X XT1058
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I looked in to dumping audio to Google Now as Touchless Controls does, but it needs stringent app permissions. It might be doable from inside TC, but I'm not sure if you can record audio at the same time you're doing voice recognition. If not, you'd just end up wasting time. (saying stuff twice) I'm likely to try and elaborate on this module over time.
hawkjm73 said:
I wrote for and tested on a kitkat device. Unfortunately, I don't have a moto JB on hand to check it on.
Check the Xposed logs for errors if you don't see anything in the logcat or Tasker logs. Let me know if you find anything.
I looked in to dumping audio to Google Now as Touchless Controls does, but it needs stringent app permissions. It might be doable from inside TC, but I'm not sure if you can record audio at the same time you're doing voice recognition. If not, you'd just end up wasting time. (saying stuff twice) I'm likely to try and elaborate on this module over time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I show a error in the xposed framework whenbI have this module active
Code:
java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: com.motorola.audiomonitor.bc#a(float,com.motorola.audiomonitor.t)#exact
at de.robv.android.xposed.XposedHelpers.findMethodExact(XposedHelpers.java:208)
at de.robv.android.xposed.XposedHelpers.findMethodExact(XposedHelpers.java:155)
at de.robv.android.xposed.XposedHelpers.findAndHookMethod(XposedHelpers.java:167)
at de.robv.android.xposed.XposedHelpers.findAndHookMethod(XposedHelpers.java:179)
at com.hawkjm.okgooglenowtriggerintent.AudioTrigger.handleLoadPackage(AudioTrigger.java:71)
at de.robv.android.xposed.IXposedHookLoadPackage$Wrapper.handleLoadPackage(IXposedHookLoadPackage.java:20)
at de.robv.android.xposed.callbacks.XC_LoadPackage.call(XC_LoadPackage.java:34)
at de.robv.android.xposed.callbacks.XCallback.callAll(XCallback.java:70)
at de.robv.android.xposed.XposedBridge$2.beforeHookedMethod(XposedBridge.java:202)
at de.robv.android.xposed.XposedBridge.handleHookedMethod(XposedBridge.java:527)
at android.app.ActivityThread.handleBindApplication(Native Method)
at android.app.ActivityThread.access$1300(ActivityThread.java:148)
at android.app.ActivityThread$H.handleMessage(ActivityThread.java:1311)
at android.os.Handler.dispatchMessage(Handler.java:99)
at android.os.Looper.loop(Looper.java:137)
at android.app.ActivityThread.main(ActivityThread.java:5167)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invokeNative(Native Method)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:511)
at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit$MethodAndArgsCaller.run(ZygoteInit.java:793)
at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit.main(ZygoteInit.java:560)
at de.robv.android.xposed.XposedBridge.main(XposedBridge.java:126)
at dalvik.system.NativeStart.main(Native Method)
Cyphir said:
I show a error in the xposed framework whenbI have this module active
Code:
java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: com.motorola.audiomonitor.bc#a(float,com.motorola.audiomonitor.t)#exact
at de.robv.android.xposed.XposedHelpers.findMethodExact(XposedHelpers.java:208)
at de.robv.android.xposed.XposedHelpers.findMethodExact(XposedHelpers.java:155)
at de.robv.android.xposed.XposedHelpers.findAndHookMethod(XposedHelpers.java:167)
at de.robv.android.xposed.XposedHelpers.findAndHookMethod(XposedHelpers.java:179)
at com.hawkjm.okgooglenowtriggerintent.AudioTrigger.handleLoadPackage(AudioTrigger.java:71)
at de.robv.android.xposed.IXposedHookLoadPackage$Wrapper.handleLoadPackage(IXposedHookLoadPackage.java:20)
at de.robv.android.xposed.callbacks.XC_LoadPackage.call(XC_LoadPackage.java:34)
at de.robv.android.xposed.callbacks.XCallback.callAll(XCallback.java:70)
at de.robv.android.xposed.XposedBridge$2.beforeHookedMethod(XposedBridge.java:202)
at de.robv.android.xposed.XposedBridge.handleHookedMethod(XposedBridge.java:527)
at android.app.ActivityThread.handleBindApplication(Native Method)
at android.app.ActivityThread.access$1300(ActivityThread.java:148)
at android.app.ActivityThread$H.handleMessage(ActivityThread.java:1311)
at android.os.Handler.dispatchMessage(Handler.java:99)
at android.os.Looper.loop(Looper.java:137)
at android.app.ActivityThread.main(ActivityThread.java:5167)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invokeNative(Native Method)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:511)
at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit$MethodAndArgsCaller.run(ZygoteInit.java:793)
at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit.main(ZygoteInit.java:560)
at de.robv.android.xposed.XposedBridge.main(XposedBridge.java:126)
at dalvik.system.NativeStart.main(Native Method)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your apk is an old version, try updating it with the latest version, or, it could be 2 versions (one KK and other JB).
caioketo said:
Your apk is an old version, try updating it with the latest version, or, it could be 2 versions (one KK and other JB).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have the most up to date TC.apk for my phone. I am still running JB.
Cyphir said:
I have the most up to date TC.apk for my phone. I am still running JB.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From that error, I suspect there are two different versions of Touchless Controls, one for KK, and one for JB. Their classes have changed tether dramatically as they update. Can you send me your TC apk? I'll see if there are matching classes.
hawkjm73 said:
From that error, I suspect there are two different versions of Touchless Controls, one for KK, and one for JB. Their classes have changed tether dramatically as they update. Can you send me your TC apk? I'll see if there are matching classes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will upload it later today when I an home. In the mean time, the apk in TitaniumBackup is named Touchless Control 3.15.0.1
You may be able to find it online before I get a chance to upload it.
Most things that restrict actions in Android use the applications uuid to identity it.
UUID is an immutable representation of a 128-bit universally unique identifier (UUID).
However recently I installed firefox and firefox beta..
Both share the same uuid..
And when I installed firefox beta. It gained all the rights and permissions and internet access that firefox had..
Both applications are installed on my device both run separately
But I cannot secure one with out the other getting the same security access.
If you look at system files many of them have the same uuid
That is a huge security issue with Android..
Is there a way to assign a new uuid to a application
Even if you have to rebuild the apk?
(Almost everything I have is open-source so I can build it from scratch if required)
In android, apps can share the UUID by declaring it in the manifest:
android:sharedUserId
The name of a Linux user ID that will be shared with other applications. By default, Android assigns each application its own unique user ID. However, if this attribute is set to the same value for two or more applications, they will all share the same ID — provided that they are also signed by the same certificate. Application with the same user ID can access each other's data and, if desired, run in the same process.
So if you just resign the APK with a different certificate (you can quickly generate one) they won't share the same ID anymore (because you don't have the mozilla certificate)
And FYI, it is not a security issue. In fact, it is an added security measure. Because apps that need to communicate with each other can share the same memory space and filesystem. The security is based on the signature of the app. So it is as strong as your ability to not leak the certificate
h4oxer said:
And FYI, it is not a security issue. In fact, it is an added security measure. Because apps that need to communicate with each other can share the same memory space and filesystem. The security is based on the signature of the app. So it is as strong as your ability to not leak the certificate
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except that many apps can be installed under the same id number.
If they where given a completely unique number for every app installed then I would agree
But that is not the case.
Multiple apps with the same id is just bad security
It's like giving two different people the same identification because they share an office.
I will look into resigning some apks and see what I can find.
Thank you for the info.
nutpants said:
Except that many apps can be installed under the same id number.
If they where given a completely unique number for every app installed then I would agree
But that is not the case.
Multiple apps with the same id is just bad security
It's like giving two different people the same identification because they share an office.
I will look into resigning some apks and see what I can find.
Thank you for the info.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Signatures have nothing to do with uid. If you have the same app with a different signature, you will simply not be able to install them together. Uid has to do with app's internal name like com.xxx. Apps with the same internal name will always have the same uid (like firefox stable and beta) and different apps will always have different uid, except for some system apps that come from os makers, which is true for many, if not all os. A third party app will never have any of the system app uid. So, there is no security issue at all.
ukanth talked about the android:sharedUserId attribute.
Android's documentation says that apps have to be signed by the same certificate.
Having the same package name (or a similar one) is not mandatory to share the same UID (example: dev tools & fused location).
Firefox and firefox beta..
Two similar apps
Same uid last time I installed both..
So a unscrupulous developer could create a separate app with separate functions with the same uid and if you installed it where would you be?
And god knows that no one ever has an issue with developers creating unscrupulous apps that try to get data from your device.
nutpants said:
So a unscrupulous developer could create a separate app with separate functions with the same uid and if you installed it where would you be?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He could only do that if both apps were his, and if both apps were his, he doesn't gain access to anything that he didn't already have access to.
nutpants said:
Firefox and firefox beta..
Two similar apps
Same uid last time I installed both..
So a unscrupulous developer could create a separate app with separate functions with the same uid and if you installed it where would you be?
And god knows that no one ever has an issue with developers creating unscrupulous apps that try to get data from your device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your scenario is impossible. Firefox can only obtain permission from another firefox and both must be made by the same developer. And Firefox cannot get permissions from apps made by others.
optimumpro said:
Your scenario is impossible. Firefox can only obtain permission from another firefox and both must be made by the same developer. And Firefox cannot get permissions from apps made by others.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Firefox is an example.
But a similar situation could come from any developer.
Develop one good popular app
And one data mining, soul stripping life stealing app with the same uid and maybe even a hidden icon..
Personally I give apps only the access the need. Not what they ask for.
With marshmallow everyone can restrict information
But you can not when two apps share the same uid.
For example Firefox stable had no serious privacy holes
Firefox beta could. It's beta.
Two apps one uid..
Bad idea..
nutpants said:
Firefox is an example.
But a similar situation could come from any developer.
Develop one good popular app
And one data mining, soul stripping life stealing app with the same uid and maybe even a hidden icon..
Personally I give apps only the access the need. Not what they ask for.
With marshmallow everyone can restrict information
But you can not when two apps share the same uid.
For example Firefox stable had no serious privacy holes
Firefox beta could. It's beta.
Two apps one uid..
Bad idea..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Develop one good popular app. And one data mining, soul stripping life stealing app with the same uid and maybe even a hidden icon."
But that doesn't make any sense. If there is another (bad) app by the same developer with the same com.name, it will install only on top of the good one and it will be a totally different app. By the way, beta firefox shouldn't have the same uid as stable (unless they, as a big developer, have a special arrangements with Google, so that their certificate is preinstalled, but you don't really think that firefox would need another app to steal your data, they can do it anyway). Also, what's the point of having both firefox beta and stable? It is bad for system. Firefox is known to stay in the background after you exit it, unless you literally kill it with a specially configured back button. So, now, you have 2 web browsers in the background.
optimumpro said:
"Develop one good popular app. And one data mining, soul stripping life stealing app with the same uid and maybe even a hidden icon."
But that doesn't make any sense. If there is another (bad) app by the same developer with the same com.name, it will install only on top of the good one and it will be a totally different app. By the way, beta firefox shouldn't have the same uid as stable (unless they, as a big developer, have a special arrangements with Google, so that their certificate is preinstalled, but you don't really think that firefox would need another app to steal your data, they can do it anyway). Also, what's the point of having both firefox beta and stable? It is bad for system. Firefox is known to stay in the background after you exit it, unless you literally kill it with a specially configured back button. So, now, you have 2 web browsers in the background.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Check out Firefox and firefox beta..
Different names, different app.Same developer, Same uuid
Both together on your device at the same time.
Unless there is something wrong with my nexus
You can get both from Google play and see for yourself.
Which means that any developer could do it.
The next question would be how secure is the app signing method. Can it be duplicated? Coerced ? Or just commandeered by the fbi on the off chance some one committed a crime that could support terrorism.
Uuid sharing bad idea.
How does Android assign the uuid to each app?
And yes I test beta apps to see if they have fixed bugs that are present in stable
I support open source every chance I can.
nutpants said:
Check out Firefox and firefox beta..
Different names, different app.Same developer, Same uuid
Both together on your device at the same time.
Unless there is something wrong with my nexus
You can get both from Google play and see for yourself.
Which means that any developer could do it.
The next question would be how secure is the app signing method. Can it be duplicated? Coerced ? Or just commandeered by the fbi on the off chance some one committed a crime that could support terrorism.
Uuid sharing bad idea.
How does Android assign the uuid to each app?
And yes I test beta apps to see if they have fixed bugs that are present in stable
I support open source every chance I can.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Signing process cannot be replicated. However, if you use Google services (including Googleplay), then it is possible to have Google sign a modified application to take over your phone, but this could be defeated completely by removing google services and google services framework and using roms and apps that you have compiled by yourself. Moreover, before compiling, you will have to re-generate all build keys (test key, platform key and media key). In this case, the only way to take control over your phone would be over the air through the operator's sim card and if that fails, then through the king of all - baseband/modem...
nutpants said:
Check out Firefox and firefox beta..
Different names, different app.Same developer, Same uuid
Both together on your device at the same time.
Unless there is something wrong with my nexus
You can get both from Google play and see for yourself.
Which means that any developer could do it.
The next question would be how secure is the app signing method. Can it be duplicated? Coerced ? Or just commandeered by the fbi on the off chance some one committed a crime that could support terrorism.
Uuid sharing bad idea.
How does Android assign the uuid to each app?
And yes I test beta apps to see if they have fixed bugs that are present in stable
I support open source every chance I can.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to clear the record: previously I said that signatures make no difference to uid. This was not entirely correct.
Signatures identify a unique developer. Package name/internal app name identify a unique application. The only way an app can get a shared uid is if it has the same signature, i.e., made by the same developer. In other words, an app cannot have a shared uid with an app by another developer.
Now, security: apps using a shared uid share data/database with each other; they also share the same permissions. This creates no additional security threat.
Your example of a dev creating a good app and then adding a bad/data stealing app that would have the same permissions as the good one. This absolutely makes no sense, as data stealing features could be easily implemented in the good app. In addition, the bad app cannot have higher level permissions than the good one.
If you, however, don't want to have shared uid for 3rd party apps, there is an easy way do that: all you need is to sign any third party app with your own signature, which will prompt android to assign a different uid.
optimumpro said:
If you, however, don't want to have shared uid for 3rd party apps, there is an easy way do that: all you need is to sign any third party app with your own signature, which will prompt android to assign a different uid.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So if I sign firefox beta, it will automatically have a different uuid,
What happens is I also sign the original Firefox also?
Will that cause the uuids to again be the same or will they both be different?
Can a apk be signed from an Android device?
Is there any other way to change how Android assigns uuids to apps?
(Ie force Android to assign new uuids to every app, extract the rom and change the uuids on the apks so every apk have a truly unique id (which I would expect form something called universal unique id)
Why would anyone ever want a uuid to be shared with another app (Even system apps)?
Thanks for the info btw..
nutpants said:
So if I sign firefox beta, it will automatically have a different uuid,
What happens is I also sign the original Firefox also?
Will that cause the uuids to again be the same or will they both be different?
Can a apk be signed from an Android device?
Is there any other way to change how Android assigns uuids to apps?
(Ie force Android to assign new uuids to every app, extract the rom and change the uuids on the apks so every apk have a truly unique id (which I would expect form something called universal unique id)
Why would anyone ever want a uuid to be shared with another app (Even system apps)?
Thanks for the info btw..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In order to have a shared uid, both apps must have that permission in their manifests. Having this benefits performance and minimizes space on the device. Since android apps run in a sandbox/virtual machine, you can imagine the slowdown if you have system apps with unique uids.
You shouldn't sign the other firefox with the same key , as you will defeat your purpose.
I am not aware of a procedure to sign the app on the device, however, you can search xda. You can certainly sign the app on linux or windows. You can also generate multiple keys for signing.
Any app that has some kind of Widget to register, crashes with NullPointerExeption, and has a reference to:
AppWidgetHost | Android Developers
developer.android.com
This includes ANY launcher, even the system default, so I can only run apps from ADB.
I made a logcat of every NullPointerException at the time.
I have no idea how to even begin trying to fix this, short of a firmware flash and starting over.
But that's such a hassle to restore secure apps, and apps that don't sync data anywhere, so you just lose it.
Anybody have a clue why this is happening?
NPE is triggered when in program code an object what doesn't exist is referenced.
What Android are you using?
jwoegerbauer said:
NPE is triggered when in program code an object what doesn't exist is referenced.
What Android are you using?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
8.0
Galaxy S7 Edge
for the time being if i just have package disabler running i can use it to launch other apps
gearvr stopped working though unfortunately
Hey everyone. I found this APK dump for the pixel watch one reddit. I got the pixel UI APK and it installs fine. When I set it as the default home app though it just crashes. I'm hoping if I provide the apk one of you more experienced users can perhaps mod this APK to work with our watches.
Link?
File?
APK Name?
Memo to me...
Google Pixel Subforum seems here:
Google Pixel Watch
forum.xda-developers.com
Link to APks I saw first time in this Thread...
Official List of Sideloaded Apps and Workarounds For Wear OS (Tested on Galaxy Watch)
SIDELOAD LIBRARY COMPATIBLE WITH WEAR OS 3 TESTED ON GALAXY WATCHES All Smart Watches Can Probably Benefit From This Guide Special thanks to everyone who has contributed to testing and providing feedback on various apps and versions. Thanks to...
forum.xda-developers.com
Best Regards
adfree said:
Link?
File?
APK Name?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Reddit Link for Pixel Watch APK
com.google.android.wearable.sysui.apk
Is file name for apk
After some Google Search...
No idea if different Version(s)...
Wear OS System UI - Apps on Google Play
Access to the next generation of Wear OS smartwatch user experiences.
play.google.com
Edit 1.
Attempt from dump... "backup"...
Code:
D:\Android\ADB>adb install com.google.android.wearable.sysui.apk
Performing Streamed Install
Success
Edit 2.
I see only 2 ugly Icons... both nothing open...
Is this what you mean with crashes?
Short tested on GVI3...
Best Regards
adfree said:
After some Google Search...
No idea if different Version(s)...
Wear OS System UI - Apps on Google Play
Access to the next generation of Wear OS smartwatch user experiences.
play.google.com
Edit 1.
Attempt from dump... "backup"...
Code:
D:\Android\ADB>adb install com.google.android.wearable.sysui.apk
Performing Streamed Install
Success
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I found a link on APKPure it's the same version number as the dump from the pixel watch. Will probably have to be modded since it's crashing when trying to make default home app.
...when trying to make default home app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How?
Btw... If I search for text string:
Code:
com.google.android.wearable.sysui
Inside old EVA8...
Then 2 GW4 files found:
Code:
d:\GW4_****\superTest_EVA8\result1_imj\extracted\system\system\framework\framework-res.apk
d:\GW4_****\superTest_EVA8\result1_imj\extracted\system\system\priv-app\ClockworkWcs\ClockworkWcs.apk
Best Regards
adfree said:
How?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In watch setting click app then default
adfree said:
Btw... If I search for text string:
Code:
com.google.android.wearable.sysui
Inside old EVA8...
Then 2 GW4 files found:
Code:
d:\GW4_****\superTest_EVA8\result1_imj\extracted\system\system\framework\framework-res.apk
d:\GW4_****\superTest_EVA8\result1_imj\extracted\system\system\priv-app\ClockworkWcs\ClockworkWcs.apk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay there's also APK from the dump that matches clockwork maybe that is needed
Sorry, I will check this ... then sleep or other stupid tests:
Phone by Google - Apps on Google Play
Reliable phone calls with spam protection, caller ID and more helpful features
play.google.com
Code:
D:\Android\ADB>adb install com.google.android.dialer.apk
Performing Streamed Install
Success
adfree said:
Sorry, I will check this ... then sleep or other stupid tests:
Phone by Google - Apps on Google Play
Reliable phone calls with spam protection, caller ID and more helpful features
play.google.com
Code:
D:\Android\ADB>adb install com.google.android.dialer.apk
Performing Streamed Install
Success
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Google dialer is already available in the watch play store
This is first time I found working Dialer for GW4...
Only Phone go or something similar... I was able before...
How to fire Secret Codes?
I can not * #
?
adfree said:
This is first time I found working Dialer for GW4...
Only Phone go or something similar... I was able before...
How to fire Secret Codes?
I can not * #
?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It could be your region does not have it available for gw4 in play store. However I'm in US an I was able to install it from there.
Also you can scroll down when you are in the dialer to see *#
I hope someone can port it too.
Yo, I'm the dude who dumped the Pixel Watch APKs on reddit. I've also tried tinkering around with getting the Home APP running on my GW4, but I'm not having any luck so far. I believe both com.google.android.wearable.sysui.apk and com.google.android.wearable.app.apk from the dump are responsible for the Home-Screen Experience. However as you said, if selected as the Home app on the GW4, the Sysui app just keeps crashing over and over.
Here's some notable things I found in the logcat during those crashes:
Code:
WindowManager: Permission Denial: addWindowTokenWithOptions from pid=2394, uid=10145 requires android.permission.STATUS_BAR_SERVICE
WindowManager: Permission Denial: addWindowToken() from pid=2394, uid=10145 requires android.permission.MANAGE_APP_TOKENS
ActivityManager: Permission Denial: Accessing service com.google.android.wearable.app/com.google.android.clockwork.wcs.service.notification.NotificationService from pid=2394, uid=10145 requires com.google.android.wearable.permission.BIND_WEAR_CORE_PRIVILEGED_SERVICE
ServiceConnection: Failed to bind connection 'NotificationClient#com.google.android.wearable.app#com.google.android.wearable.app.BIND_NOTIFICATION_SERVICE', no permission or service not found.
ServiceConnection: java.lang.SecurityException: Not allowed to bind to service Intent { act=com.google.android.wearable.app.BIND_NOTIFICATION_SERVICE pkg=com.google.android.wearable.app }
AndroidRuntime: FATAL EXCEPTION: WcsSdkWorkerThread
AndroidRuntime: Process: com.google.android.wearable.sysui, PID: 2394
AndroidRuntime: java.lang.SecurityException: Not allowed to bind to service Intent { act=com.google.android.wearable.app.BIND_NOTIFICATION_SERVICE pkg=com.google.android.wearable.app }
I've tried my best to grant the missing permissions using pm grant but that didn't change anything so far... Kind of at my wits end here.
By manually granting all the grantable permissions that the apks request, I was able to get it so far as to say 'Getting started...' before crashing over and over, but no luck in getting to the actual Pixel Watch home screen on my GW4
Quad_Plex said:
Yo, I'm the dude who dumped the Pixel Watch APKs on reddit. I've also tried tinkering around with getting the Home APP running on my GW4, but I'm not having any luck so far. I believe both com.google.android.wearable.sysui.apk and com.google.android.wearable.app.apk from the dump are responsible for the Home-Screen Experience. However as you said, if selected as the Home app on the GW4, the Sysui app just keeps crashing over and over.
Here's some notable things I found in the logcat during those crashes:
Code:
WindowManager: Permission Denial: addWindowTokenWithOptions from pid=2394, uid=10145 requires android.permission.STATUS_BAR_SERVICE
WindowManager: Permission Denial: addWindowToken() from pid=2394, uid=10145 requires android.permission.MANAGE_APP_TOKENS
ActivityManager: Permission Denial: Accessing service com.google.android.wearable.app/com.google.android.clockwork.wcs.service.notification.NotificationService from pid=2394, uid=10145 requires com.google.android.wearable.permission.BIND_WEAR_CORE_PRIVILEGED_SERVICE
ServiceConnection: Failed to bind connection 'NotificationClient#com.google.android.wearable.app#com.google.android.wearable.app.BIND_NOTIFICATION_SERVICE', no permission or service not found.
ServiceConnection: java.lang.SecurityException: Not allowed to bind to service Intent { act=com.google.android.wearable.app.BIND_NOTIFICATION_SERVICE pkg=com.google.android.wearable.app }
AndroidRuntime: FATAL EXCEPTION: WcsSdkWorkerThread
AndroidRuntime: Process: com.google.android.wearable.sysui, PID: 2394
AndroidRuntime: java.lang.SecurityException: Not allowed to bind to service Intent { act=com.google.android.wearable.app.BIND_NOTIFICATION_SERVICE pkg=com.google.android.wearable.app }
I've tried my best to grant the missing permissions using pm grant but that didn't change anything so far... Kind of at my wits end here.
By manually granting all the permissions that the apks request, I was able to get it so far as to say 'Getting started...' before crashing over and over, but no luck in getting to the actual Pixel Watch home screen on my GW4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Theory here is we most likely can't provide these permissions through ADB because they're system permissions provided by default on the Pixel Watch but don't exist on the GW4 (For all we know), which is why we're getting this error when we try to give them.
Code:
C:\Users\Test\Desktop\platform-tools>adb shell "pm grant com.google.android.wearable.app com.google.android.wearable.permission.BIND_WEAR_CORE_PRIVILEGED_SERVICE"
Exception occurred while executing 'grant':
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Unknown permission: BIND_WEAR_CORE_PRIVILEGED_SERVICE
at com.android.server.pm.permission.PermissionManagerService.grantRuntimePermissionInternal(PermissionManagerService.java:1470)
at com.android.server.pm.permission.PermissionManagerService.grantRuntimePermission(PermissionManagerService.java:1429)
at com.android.server.pm.PackageManagerShellCommand.runGrantRevokePermission(PackageManagerShellCommand.java:2287)
at com.android.server.pm.PackageManagerShellCommand.onCommand(PackageManagerShellCommand.java:249)
at android.os.BasicShellCommandHandler.exec(BasicShellCommandHandler.java:98)
at android.os.ShellCommand.exec(ShellCommand.java:44)
at com.android.server.pm.PackageManagerService.onShellCommand(PackageManagerService.java:22522)
at android.os.Binder.shellCommand(Binder.java:929)
at android.os.Binder.onTransact(Binder.java:813)
at android.content.pm.IPackageManager$Stub.onTransact(IPackageManager.java:4730)
at com.android.server.pm.PackageManagerService.onTransact(PackageManagerService.java:4523)
at android.os.Binder.execTransactInternal(Binder.java:1159)
at android.os.Binder.execTransact(Binder.java:1123)
The only possibility would be someone tries to give these permissions with a rooted watch.
Maybe, you can try
Cartesian8445 said:
Theory here is we most likely can't provide these permissions through ADB because they're system permissions provided by default on the Pixel Watch but don't exist on the GW4 (For all we know), which is why we're getting this error when we try to give them.
Code:
C:\Users\Test\Desktop\platform-tools>adb shell "pm grant com.google.android.wearable.app com.google.android.wearable.permission.BIND_WEAR_CORE_PRIVILEGED_SERVICE"
Exception occurred while executing 'grant':
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Unknown permission: BIND_WEAR_CORE_PRIVILEGED_SERVICE
at com.android.server.pm.permission.PermissionManagerService.grantRuntimePermissionInternal(PermissionManagerService.java:1470)
at com.android.server.pm.permission.PermissionManagerService.grantRuntimePermission(PermissionManagerService.java:1429)
at com.android.server.pm.PackageManagerShellCommand.runGrantRevokePermission(PackageManagerShellCommand.java:2287)
at com.android.server.pm.PackageManagerShellCommand.onCommand(PackageManagerShellCommand.java:249)
at android.os.BasicShellCommandHandler.exec(BasicShellCommandHandler.java:98)
at android.os.ShellCommand.exec(ShellCommand.java:44)
at com.android.server.pm.PackageManagerService.onShellCommand(PackageManagerService.java:22522)
at android.os.Binder.shellCommand(Binder.java:929)
at android.os.Binder.onTransact(Binder.java:813)
at android.content.pm.IPackageManager$Stub.onTransact(IPackageManager.java:4730)
at com.android.server.pm.PackageManagerService.onTransact(PackageManagerService.java:4523)
at android.os.Binder.execTransactInternal(Binder.java:1159)
at android.os.Binder.execTransact(Binder.java:1123)
The only possibility would be someone tries to give these permissions with a rooted watch.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe it can be done by editing the app itself, I don't know...
Apparently the WearOS System UI is available on Google Play now?... Not sure if this is the same version as found on the Pixel Watch, however it's marked as 'incompatible' with the GW4
Wear OS System UI - Apps on Google Play
Access to the next generation of Wear OS smartwatch user experiences.
play.google.com
Quad_Plex said:
Apparently the WearOS System UI is available on Google Play now?... Not sure if this is the same version as found on the Pixel Watch, however it's marked as 'incompatible' with the GW4
Wear OS System UI - Apps on Google Play
Access to the next generation of Wear OS smartwatch user experiences.
play.google.com
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same .apk name, "com.google.android.wearable.sysui", probably posted on the play store so they can update it easier
Cartesian8445 said:
Same .apk name, "com.google.android.wearable.sysui", probably posted on the play store so they can update it easier
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's the same package, yea, but I'm not sure if it's the exact same version as the one I dumped before.
Quad_Plex said:
It's the same package, yea, but I'm not sure if it's the exact same version as the one I dumped before.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, I was able to past the link for the play store version in APK pure and found that it is the same version on the dump.