Related
http://www.artfulbits.com/Android/antipiracy.aspx
If your a Dev please support them, if you need assistance msg me i can send u code that will allow your app to automatically send a message to this company with a users information that has stolen your app or tried to steal it.
pentace said:
http://www.artfulbits.com/Android/antipiracy.aspx
If your a Dev please support them, if you need assistance msg me i can send u code that will allow your app to automatically send a message to this company with a users information that has stolen your app or tried to steal it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm all for cracking down hard on piracy, but there are three big flaws with this solution:
1) How would Artfulbits verify that an app reporting a device is a "dark" device is making that report in good faith? If a bunch of pirates wanted to render this service pointless, they could just create apps that flood the service with false positives.
2) It is possible (although difficult) to link IMEI to a user/owner. This makes a publicly accessible database of "dark" IMEIs somewhat shady in terms of being a breach of privacy.
3) Finally, if this service is to be useful, apps have to have some way of acting on the information in the database. That is just going to lead to folks "cracking" apks to remove the IMEI-checking routines, or simply using leakproof firewalls to prevent the app from accessin the IMEI database.
Thoughts?
There is not going to be a way to completely stop piracy. Google just needs to step up the way the market works to prevent some of the piracy.
I understand devs deserve money for their hard work (and the log of my google checkout shows I support them) but I personally dont want any app reporting any information about myself or my phone. If there is a list of which apps do I will find an alternative for better or worse and not use the app. Not to knock on those who support this method, I just personally dont like it.
rondey- said:
There is not going to be a way to completely stop piracy. Google just needs to step up the way the market works to prevent some of the piracy.
I understand devs deserve money for their hard work (and the log of my google checkout shows I support them) but I personally dont want any app reporting any information about myself or my phone. If there is a list of which apps do I will find an alternative for better or worse and not use the app. Not to knock on those who support this method, I just personally dont like it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well considering my app has been pirated 3x as much as it has been downloaded legally i would be willing to let go of the few that are not comfortable with their imei being registered on a website which only happens if u are stealing an app, most apps out there gather more information from you than that without you even knowing.
I don't get why people would install this program. If it detects pirated software on your phone then who the hell are you letting you use your phone? Lets say you know you have pirated software well then of course you wont install this program. If you know your running a clean rom and have no reason to suspect pirated software your giving up a lot of information for a false sense of security. So unless this is forcibly installed on everyone's phone I don't see what's the point.
psychoace said:
I don't get why people would install this program. If it detects pirated software on your phone then who the hell are you letting you use your phone? Lets say you know you have pirated software well then of course you wont install this program. If you know your running a clean rom and have no reason to suspect pirated software your giving up a lot of information for a false sense of security. So unless this is forcibly installed on everyone's phone I don't see what's the point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not a program you install. It is a database. App developers write routines into their programs which access the database. If an application suspects that it was illegally pirated, then it will send the user's IMEI to the database.
This is stupid idea. Go to the source of piracy if you want to fight it.
Give people access to paid apps on market and they won't download illegal copies form rapidshare...
su27 said:
Give people access to paid apps on market and they won't download illegal copies form rapidshare...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Riiiight... because if you give pirates the option to pay they'll definitely all pay right?
This database thing bothers me.
Not because I might be stealing programs..
but because I might find one and not know its "dark"
Suddenly I'm on some blacklist because I thought an app was cool?
I just did a search on one of the torrent sites, and found a file to DL.
It has 231 apk files and 2 .bak files. (I'm assuming the bak files are for a cracked version of the paid apk) but many of these files are a)old versions or b) free already.
Normally I would say SCORE! I don't have to DL to the g1, then back up, uninstall, transfer to the pc, and store.
Last time I tried a file like that, more than half were for cupcake, and would not work on my donut. Recycle bin.
With this Database I would get tagged as a cheater the first time I tried to install any of those files that were marked. But I have no idea they are "dark" before hand.
While I thank the Dev's for the work they do.
{Seriously, Thank you Developers!}
I'm a student, and I'm poor, which means I'm cheap.
I have several free apks stored away. Hell, I still used youtube downloader 1.2...until it quit working last week. Why, because I don't want to spend money just to have a cool phone.
If you really want to make it hard on the thieves... someone make a program that cripples another program, until the user requests the full version. Then it reads the Imei number from the phone and sends an upgrade request to a server. The server requests payment. Server verifies payment. The server issues a hashed password based on the Imei, which is then sent back to the phone as a password. Customer never sees the password.
This is what Doc to go appears to do. I could be wrong.
Now make it so that program can be imbedded in any other program.
Now thieves need a whole crap load of hacking to find enough hashed passwords to find the hash.
If the hash is added to at random intervals, or a different hash is used based on the Imei number, they might never find the hash.
Besides that, how the heck does a program know if it has been stolen?
How can it tell between a stolen program and a wiped phone that is getting reinstalled with backed up apk's?
jashsu said:
I'm all for cracking down hard on piracy, but there are three big flaws with this solution:
1) How would Artfulbits verify that an app reporting a device is a "dark" device is making that report in good faith? If a bunch of pirates wanted to render this service pointless, they could just create apps that flood the service with false positives.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exists several strategies, for example the most popular is "honey pot" strategy. When vendor especially making leak of software or prepare specially application to track piracy.
jashsu said:
2) It is possible (although difficult) to link IMEI to a user/owner. This makes a publicly accessible database of "dark" IMEIs somewhat shady in terms of being a breach of privacy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For example in our country sufficient IMEI of the phone to find it owner and it location, of course if you have police under your shelders. That is why I am thinking that IMEI is a good identifier.
jashsu said:
3) Finally, if this service is to be useful, apps have to have some way of acting on the information in the database. That is just going to lead to folks "cracking" apks to remove the IMEI-checking routines, or simply using leakproof firewalls to prevent the app from accessin the IMEI database.
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Solution is not perfect, but can be easily enhanced. HTTPS protocol with certificate checks will make firewalls and redirections useless.
What functionality exactly you have in mind?
[email protected] said:
While I thank the Dev's for the work they do.
{Seriously, Thank you Developers!}
I'm a student, and I'm poor, which means I'm cheap.
I have several free apks stored away. Hell, I still used youtube downloader 1.2...until it quit working last week. Why, because I don't want to spend money just to have a cool phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Leave according to your money. what can I say... spend less, work more.
[email protected] said:
Besides that, how the heck does a program know if it has been stolen?
How can it tell between a stolen program and a wiped phone that is getting reinstalled with backed up apk's?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Several simple steps:
- install software only from well known web sites, Android Market, Handagoo, SlideMe, etc.
- try to use trials and if it does not exists but you want to try, contact with developers. In most cases developer will provide you version for testing.
- if your phone is placed into black list, then you can contact "blacklist" vendor for explanation and fixing.
jashsu said:
Riiiight... because if you give pirates the option to pay they'll definitely all pay right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You see - that's your problem - you want to fight the enemy instead of prevent war.
In my country there are many people who would pay for android programs because they are quite cheap. But we have no access to paid market. That is why we download apps illegaly.
Now, what do you think will faster stop us from stealing apps:
A. Calling us pirates and thieves
B. Giving us access to paid apps
su27 said:
Now, what do you think will faster stop us from stealing apps:
A. Calling us pirates and thieves
B. Giving us access to paid apps
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are making the incredibly flawed assumption that piracy only happens because people have no access to the paid market. Are some people put in this situation? Yes, probably. But the majority of pirates likely DO have access to the paid market and simply don't want to pay.
I am a bit confused, what does this ban people from? The market in it's entirety?
If that is the case, I would think you'd see an outburst of pirating once people couldn't access the market anymore. And that would also prevent people who may not feel like dishing out $100 for a navigation solution from purchasing numerous $1-10 programs that they would actually use on a daily basis. I think this methodology is flawed.
Piracy will never be completely stopped. However, making it harder for people to pirate your software is the best prevention. Instead of saying "Oh, you might have installed a pirated copy of XXX on your device, so now you can't purchase any more programs legitimately, so keep on stealing!". Due diligence falls on the hands of the software creators. If piracy is something you want to prevent (or at least inhibit) for your software, create an IMEI checking device key required to be granted after receipt (and clearance) of payment. Similar to CoPilot, granted it still gets cracked - it is much harder and much less widespread, and a simple update renders it useless to those who used the cracked version (check all over these forums for people complaining about it).
Also, implement trials that don't require the user to pay for them, giving them only 24 hours to try something out before they decide they need their money back. Even Microsoft lets users go 30 days without activation (last I checked) to try out Windows. They do not (to the best of my knowledge) make great attempts to prevent their software from being copied, but instead make it harder on those who do pirate it. Blocking system updates (of course everything has a workaround or crack, but making it harder on someone is oftentimes a great deterrent), preventing new feature installation, etc.
I am not condoning piracy, nor am I condemning software publishers. Just trying to make a point, which is this:
If you take someone who has stolen a program (for whatever reason/justification they may think of) and punish them by revoking their access to purchase said program (or any other program), you have thus reinforced their reason/justification to not purchase any programs.
Now, i may be wrong here, but looking at their source code to integrate into applications, there seem to be 2 things: 1) the device has to have a data connection, otherwise the code doesnt know whether the device is blacklisted or not, at which point it defaults to assuming it isnt, which overall is a good thing for users who have paid but for whatever reason dont have network at that time, however it is easy enough to stop an application from accessing the network, or even a specific site (ie the site for your imei number on their page).
secondly, is this meant to run on the first run of an app, or every run? if it is every run then i can see people getting annoyed by the unnecessary data usage, whereas if it is only on the first run then someone still has access to all their pirated apps from before they were on the database.
please note the only coding i have done is some fairly simple C, so i could be wrong, but anyone can check this if they want: http://www.artfulbits.com/Articles/Samples/Piracy/Integration.aspx
I think that by now most people know that I don't honeycoat things, so I'll just say it... this idea is RETARDED.
1) The application needs to use the API to get the IMEI. If you start using the IMEI to blacklist phones, a minor modification to the API causes the application to always read a string of 0's. Defeated.
2) The application needs PERMISSION to read the IMEI (android.permission.READ_PHONE_STATE). If you start requiring programs to have this permission, people will simply DENY it this permission (yes, it IS possible to block a permission)... this is ESPECIALLY the case when the application has *no good reason* to read the phone state.
3) As has been mentioned before in this thread, HOW DO YOU KNOW that an application you are downloading is pirated? Many applications are FREE to download, and virtually NONE of the pirated apps are labeled as "THIS IS PIRATED".
4) Connection to the internet can be EASILY blocked. Lots of ways... firewall, hosts, permissions, etc. Again, defeated.
Oh, and to those saying crap like access to paid market won't stop piracy, NOBODY SAID IT WOULD!!! It *WILL* reduce it though, since there ARE people out there who WOULD buy apps *IF THEY COULD*.
daveid said:
I am a bit confused, what does this ban people from? The market in it's entirety?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read the description again more carefully. This does not impact a user's ability to access the Market, as it is not a Google product. In case your comprehension is lacking, i'll explain it very simply:
1. A developer decides to use the Artfulbits Anti Piracy Database (shortened AAPD) with its app.
2. A user downloads this AAPD-enabled app from the market.
3. When said app is run, it sends the IMEI of the device to the Artfulbits server. The server returns a color code corresponding to the number of times that IMEI has been reported by other AAPD-enabled apps for piracy. The app can then do whatever it wants with that information. This can be anything from deleting itself to crippling its own functionality.
4. App can also detect if has been pirated (by checking to see if the app has an entry in the user's personal Market account or some other method). If the app detects it is pirated, it will send a report to AAPD.
Another point Artfulbits failed to consider is that not all Android devices will have IMEIs to report.
Is piracy really that much of a problem? I mean most apps cost <3€ and I don't think I am the only one who values his time higher than saving 3€. I rather pay once and get updates via Market than check warez-sites for updates, and I think that most think that way?
There are just two apps that I ever considered to pirate. One was a dictionary for 20$ but I ended up buying it. The other is CoPilot which I would never buy since I don't own a car, but since it is not cracked anyway, I was not forced to really think about it.
I don't see anything good coming from that database. I.e. if my phone would be entered by mistake, you can imagine what problems that would cause for devs whose apps I bought, which I assume would suddenly stop working then.
You really need to think about whether the negative side-effects of such measures like this database are worth the (presumably very small) benefit.
Is there any workaround...?
Whats the problem ?
All the apps i have ever bought / downloaded, via the market work fine.
I believe this is what he's talking about
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Android+Market/thread?tid=107185eea74e4005&hl=en
http://androinica.com/2009/02/23/some-paid-apps-unavailable-on-unlocked-phones/
It appears that as of February, Google made it so whenever a developer selects the "Copy Protected" option when listing their application on the marketplace, that application will not appear for any rooted phone or developer phone. Basically it seems they did this because a rooted or developer phone can extract the APK file after purchasing an app, and then return it while still keeping the application.
I recently became aware of this today as I was working with a developer to determine why his application would not appear in the market. It's a shame - the majority of the root community is not out there to STEAL apps, we support our developers, I was trying to find his application on the market so I could BUY it. I really wanted to purchase the application and now I have no way to do it, simply because I wanted to use my phone to it's full extent instead of being stuck on the stock firmware.
rabeatz said:
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Android+Market/thread?tid=107185eea74e4005&hl=en
http://androinica.com/2009/02/23/some-paid-apps-unavailable-on-unlocked-phones/
It appears that as of February, Google made it so whenever a developer selects the "Copy Protected" option when listing their application on the marketplace, that application will not appear for any rooted phone or developer phone. Basically it seems they did this because a rooted or developer phone can extract the APK file after purchasing an app, and then return it while still keeping the application.
I recently became aware of this today as I was working with a developer to determine why his application would not appear in the market. It's a shame - the majority of the root community is not out there to STEAL apps, we support our developers, I was trying to find his application on the market so I could BUY it. I really wanted to purchase the application and now I have no way to do it, simply because I wanted to use my phone to it's full extent instead of being stuck on the stock firmware.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any example of apps not showing up on the market for us?
Gilliland12 said:
Any example of apps not showing up on the market for us?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Search for the application Accudial on the market. It's copy protected. I get 0 results. Thats the one Example I am aware of but it also could be related to the fact that I'm on a 2.0.1 ROM instead of the older ones, switching back to test again. It's kind of hard to determine whether or not there are apps being hidden from us, if we don't know the app exists how are we gonna know it's hidden from our results?
It's because your on a Eclair rom..just searched on the WG 10 (Donut) and got AccuDial and AccuDial Free
Yeah I'm switching back to the latest CM ROM right now. But when I was running 2.0.1/Eclair, I was trying to download an application designed for 2.0 and it did not appear in the market - the developer said the only requirement he placed on it was that the phone be 2.0 or higher, so we came to the conclusion that it was the copy protection blocking the app.
But regardless of that - what about those links in my first post? Google Employees reply in those articles openly admitting that access to copy protected apps have been blocked from rooted and dev phones. Did Google quietly "undo" this between now and then? I can't find anything that says they did.
rabeatz said:
Yeah I'm switching back to the latest CM ROM right now. But when I was running 2.0.1/Eclair, I was trying to download an application designed for 2.0 and it did not appear in the market - the developer said the only requirement he placed on it was that the phone be 2.0 or higher, so we came to the conclusion that it was the copy protection blocking the app.
But regardless of that - what about those links in my first post? Google Employees reply in those articles openly admitting that access to copy protected apps have been blocked from rooted and dev phones. Did Google quietly "undo" this between now and then? I can't find anything that says they did.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can find all of those apps they mention.
Dunno.
rabeatz said:
Yeah I'm switching back to the latest CM ROM right now. But when I was running 2.0.1/Eclair, I was trying to download an application designed for 2.0 and it did not appear in the market - the developer said the only requirement he placed on it was that the phone be 2.0 or higher, so we came to the conclusion that it was the copy protection blocking the app.
But regardless of that - what about those links in my first post? Google Employees reply in those articles openly admitting that access to copy protected apps have been blocked from rooted and dev phones. Did Google quietly "undo" this between now and then? I can't find anything that says they did.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They did lift the "block", I know of at least 2 protected apps that I can use, Nesoid and Mobile Defense (not protected anymore but it ised to be)
Right now, I can only find Accudial Free but not Accudial. I'm on Cyan 4.2.9.1.
Maybe that's because I'm not in the US??? Or that I don't have a Google Checkout account???
Thanks!
rabeatz said:
Yeah I'm switching back to the latest CM ROM right now. But when I was running 2.0.1/Eclair, I was trying to download an application designed for 2.0 and it did not appear in the market - the developer said the only requirement he placed on it was that the phone be 2.0 or higher, so we came to the conclusion that it was the copy protection blocking the app.
But regardless of that - what about those links in my first post? Google Employees reply in those articles openly admitting that access to copy protected apps have been blocked from rooted and dev phones. Did Google quietly "undo" this between now and then? I can't find anything that says they did.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That was a long time ago.
supremeteam256 said:
That was a long time ago.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The fair labor standards act was passed in 1938. Still in effect today. Just because Google made the change 10 months ago doesn't mean it suddenly was removed.. Whenever I search on the topic all I can find is info that says that access to copy protected apps been disallowed, can't find any article that mentions them removing the block.
I'm not saying it hasn't been removed, but it's kind of hard for me to know whether or not i'm being blocked from applications, I don't know what ones are copy protected and what ones aren't, or if theyre being blocked from me, because they simply wouldn't show up and I wouldn't even know they exist.
If the block has in fact been removed, it'd be nice to see if anyone could find an article that mentions it. Everything online talks about the block being placed
rabeatz said:
The fair labor standards act was passed in 1938. Still in effect today. Just because Google made the change 10 months ago doesn't mean it suddenly was removed.. Whenever I search on the topic all I can find is info that says that access to copy protected apps been disallowed, can't find any article that mentions them removing the block.
I'm not saying it hasn't been removed, but it's kind of hard for me to know whether or not i'm being blocked from applications, I don't know what ones are copy protected and what ones aren't, or if theyre being blocked from me, because they simply wouldn't show up and I wouldn't even know they exist.
If the block has in fact been removed, it'd be nice to see if anyone could find an article that mentions it. Everything online talks about the block being placed
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Search Nesoid, that is a protected app. If you see the paid version then they lifted the block
Have you ran market enabler?
supremeteam256 said:
Have you ran market enabler?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What's that...?
Edit: Got it... http://code.google.com/p/market-enabler/ And it works... Thanks for the tip...!
Edit 2: Market Enabler works by mimicking certain APNs, be sure to backup your current APN first and restore it after getting the apps (it can be done within Market Enabler).
Cheers.
MOD EDIT: Thread closed by OP's request.
If you have used reker's proxy, you will notice the "by @reker" entry on top of the list with search results. If we could do the same with the SamWP8 tool (and link his app to a similar app page), maybe we could bypass the interop unlock requirement (the error you receive if you try to sideload a app with interop capabilities on a non-interop unlocked phone) because apps installed in the store don't get this check (as compu829 demonstrated by saying the original Microsoft youtube app contained the ID_CAP_MEDIALIB_PHOTO_FULL entry in the WMAppManifest.xml, and how could you install this app on phones without having an interop-unlock, exactly : the app was installed through the store).
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm still learning how the WP OS is build and how it functions.
To admins, I can't post this in the Windows Phone 8 Development and Hacking thread because I don't have the required 10 posts yet.
Seems like a feasible idea, I'll take a look on how the store works but I think the XAP's still need to be signed by a trusted root to this works.
I'll post any updates here as I can't post on dev section x.x
This idea is older than WP8, and it doesn't work. First of all, the apps themselves (as opposed to the data about them) are delivered over an encrypted channel that uses certificate pinning; we can't intercept or modify it. Second, the Store will only install Microsoft-signed (and probably only DRMed) apps. Unsigned apps failed to install through this channel back on WP7. Third, even if we could install the apps this way, hey would still be unsigned. The OS would thus treat them as developer apps. Developer apps on phones where the MaxUnsignedApp registry value is less than 300 are limited to the standard third-party app capabilities, meaning no INTEROPSERVICES or similar.
By all means, go ahead and poke at it - WP8 has surprised me before with weaknesses it has relative to WP7 - but don't expect this to work even if you get past the first issue (which *does* exist on WP8).
Did someone contact reker? We need to figure out how he did this. I can't tell if he succeeded into linking an app to the custom app page because when I click install, I get an error message : "This app is not available for your region", maybe I need to change my region to China and try again.
@GoodDayToDie : Won't the phone be tricked by the store installation, thinking it's an encrypted app? Does it matter whether the app is encrypted or not if someone manages to link an app to a custom app page, because Windows Phone app weren't always encrypted to my recollection (this may predate the WP8 era, if so we're screwed ). And if it matters, can we encrypt the app ourselves by using a encryption method like AES, SHA, MD5, ... ? Unlikely hypothesis, but if someone would succeed in doing all this, could the SamWP8 tool be used to increase the HKEY_Local_Machine\Software\Microsoft\DeviceReg\Install MaxUnsignedApp value beyond 300 to unlock interop capabilities? Are the EnableAllSideloading.xap and Bootstapper.xap also usable on other WP than Samsung or do they need to be recoded to work on WP of other manufacturers?
EnableAllSideloading.xap and Bootstapper.xap depends on Samsung diagnosis tool and it's RPC server that runs on LocalSystem account that has "unlimited" registry access, it's not available on other manufacturers.
Tonight I will start my experiments on it.
greenboxal said:
EnableAllSideloading.xap and Bootstapper.xap depends on Samsung diagnosis tool and it's RPC server that runs on LocalSystem account that has "unlimited" registry access, it's not available on other manufacturers.
Tonight I will start my experiments on it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was wondering how you could flash the bootloader of Android on the Ativ S as the Secure Boot made by Qualcomm is locked by a blown fuse (it's a hardware issue, not only a software issue you must deal with).
bruce142 said:
I was wondering how you could flash the bootloader of Android on the Ativ S as the Secure Boot made by Qualcomm is locked by a blown fuse (it's a hardware issue, not only a software issue you must deal with).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
SecureBoot checks signature of the bootloader by a known public key, the case is that Samsumg uses the *same* key for android and wp8 bootloaders.
greenboxal said:
SecureBoot checks signature of the bootloader by a known public key, the case is that Samsumg uses the *same* key for android and wp8 bootloaders.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If this checks out, what does it mean, could we flash android on the Ativ S? Or could you even make a dual-boot scenario possible? Great find by the way, :good:.
bruce142 said:
If this checks out, what does it mean, could we flash android on the Ativ S? Or could you even make a dual-boot scenario possible? Great find by the way, :good:.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, it's the same hardware as SGS3 Snapdragon 4 version. But let go back to the topic, if you have some question about it send me a PM or post on my R&D thread
greenboxal said:
Yes, it's the same hardware as SGS3 Snapdragon 4 version. But let go back to the topic, if you have some question about it send me a PM or post on my R&D thread
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't post yet in your R&D thread because I don't have the met the 10 post requirement yet.
Edit : I can install reker's "by @ reker" app when changing the region to China, and this is interesting (pasted directly from his WMAppManifest.xml) :
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
-<Deployment AppPlatformVersion="8.0" xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/windowsphone/2012/deployment">
<DefaultLanguage xmlns="" code="zh-CN"/>
-<Languages xmlns="">
<Language code="zh-Hans"/>
</Languages>
-<App xmlns="" PublisherId="{9b1d1b5b-f206-4b27-a139-89659591061b}" IsBeta="false" PublisherID="{b259af64-2f7d-4a89-983f-836325480629}" Publisher="智机网_WPXAP" Description="智机市场官方版" Author="智机网_WPXAP" Genre="apps.normal" Version="2.0.0.0" RuntimeType="Silverlight" Title="智机市场" ProductID="{59bd999b-496e-4e05-afce-94b67ba6e862}">
<IconPath IsResource="false" IsRelative="true">Assets\ApplicationIcon.png</IconPath>
-<Capabilities>
<Capability Name="ID_CAP_IDENTITY_DEVICE"/>
<Capability Name="ID_CAP_IDENTITY_USER"/>
<Capability Name="ID_CAP_NETWORKING"/>
<Capability Name="ID_CAP_PUSH_NOTIFICATION"/>
<Capability Name="ID_CAP_SENSORS"/>
<Capability Name="ID_CAP_WEBBROWSERCOMPONENT"/>
<Capability Name="ID_CAP_APPOINTMENTS"/>
</Capabilities>
-<Tasks>
<DefaultTask Name="_default" ActivationPolicy="Resume" NavigationPage="MainPage.xaml"/>
</Tasks>
-<Tokens>
-<PrimaryToken TaskName="_default" TokenID="WpXapToken">
-<TemplateFlip>
<SmallImageURI IsResource="false" IsRelative="true">Assets\Tiles\FlipCycleTileSmall.png</SmallImageURI>
<Count>0</Count>
<BackgroundImageURI IsResource="false" IsRelative="true">Assets\Tiles\FlipCycleTileMedium.png</BackgroundImageURI>
<Title/>
<BackContent/>
<BackBackgroundImageURI/>
<BackTitle/>
<DeviceLockImageURI/>
<HasLarge/>
</TemplateFlip>
</PrimaryToken>
</Tokens>
-<Extensions>
<Protocol Name="wpxap" TaskID="_default" NavUriFragment="encodedLaunchUri=%s"/>
</Extensions>
-<ScreenResolutions>
<ScreenResolution Name="ID_RESOLUTION_WVGA"/>
<ScreenResolution Name="ID_RESOLUTION_WXGA"/>
<ScreenResolution Name="ID_RESOLUTION_HD720P"/>
</ScreenResolutions>
</App>
</Deployment>
@bruce142: The store may or may not care about the DRM - that was in place by the time WP8 came out, but WP7 didn't have it for a long time - but it absolutely cares about the signatures. More accurately, actually, the XAP install code (which the store invokes) cares about the signatures. There's no "tricking" it; the signature is quite plainly there, or it's not. You don't exactly have to look hard to find it. The app launch code *also* cares about signatures. Non-sideloaded apps won't have ID_CAP_DEVELOPERUNLOCK, which is a special capability automatically added to sideloaded apps to allow them to launch even though they don't have signatures. Without that capability (or rather, without the SID which the token of an app with that capability gets at chamber creation), the kernel will refuse to load the unsigned executable binaries.
GoodDayToDie said:
@bruce142: The store may or may not care about the DRM - that was in place by the time WP8 came out, but WP7 didn't have it for a long time - but it absolutely cares about the signatures. More accurately, actually, the XAP install code (which the store invokes) cares about the signatures. There's no "tricking" it; the signature is quite plainly there, or it's not. You don't exactly have to look hard to find it. The app launch code *also* cares about signatures. Non-sideloaded apps won't have ID_CAP_DEVELOPERUNLOCK, which is a special capability automatically added to sideloaded apps to allow them to launch even though they don't have signatures. Without that capability (or rather, without the SID which the token of an app with that capability gets at chamber creation), the kernel will refuse to load the unsigned executable binaries.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand, the app has to be signed before it can be uploaded to the store, but does the developer of an app not sign its app when he assembles it or does the store sign the app itself? I see no threshold here, as signing an app is not a problem, or is it? I still admire that reker managed to make an app page by using a proxy which isn't normally there and successfully linked an app to it, which I was able to download and it contained elevated capabilities, I thought the ID_CAP capabilities were all interop capabilities (correct me if I'm wrong). Could someone make the old version of the Samsung Diagnostic tool available this way which users with other WP than the Ativ S/Ativ S Neo might able to use to modify the MaxAppUnsigned value and unlock more capabilities, or is this impossible? If only we knew how reker did this, ...
bruce142 said:
I understand, the app has to be signed before it can be uploaded to the store, but does the developer of an app not sign its app when he assembles it or does the store sign the app itself? I see no threshold here, as signing an app is not a problem, or is it? I still admire that reker managed to make an app page by using a proxy which isn't normally there and successfully linked an app to it, which I was able to download and it contained elevated capabilities, I thought the ID_CAP capabilities were all interop capabilities (correct me if I'm wrong). Could someone make the old version of the Samsung Diagnostic tool available this way which users with other WP than the Ativ S/Ativ S Neo might able to use to modify the MaxAppUnsigned value and unlock more capabilities, or is this impossible? If only we knew how reker did this, ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ID_CAP's aren't all Interop capabilities, most of them are available for every app, and the ones you posted are, afaik, normal ones that don't need and Interop Unlock.
GoodDayToDie is right. His answer is very detail.
You may replace a xap with homebrew one in theory, but phone will never launch a store app without MS signature. Every single dll is signed by MS, and phone will check it.
Few questions and opinions:
The signature is used only for allowing the app to be installed on the device right?
Is the signature after added to the app a constant for the whole time or is it changing from time to time?
If the signature is used only for allowing an app to be installed, can we somehow make an virtual MS Server (Using FIddler for example), who can clone the real one and give us an offline signing of the app`s when installing them?
Can a signature be pulled off from an original installed app and the be put in to an another one?
cevi said:
Few questions and opinions:
The signature is used only for allowing the app to be installed on the device right?
Is the signature after added to the app a constant for the whole time or is it changing from time to time?
If the signature is used only for allowing an app to be installed, can we somehow make an virtual MS Server (Using FIddler for example), who can clone the real one and give us an offline signing of the app`s when installing them?
Can a signature be pulled off from an original installed app and the be put in to an another one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The signature is checked when running the application, every PE image on the device should have a valid digital signature.
You don't seem to understand how it works, the signature is any kind of hash, let's say, SHA256, of the entire file. This signature is encrypted with the signee private key. If you change one single bit of the file, the hash will change, and so the signature will be invalid.
There are few ways to exploit this kind of security, like generating a hash collision or breaking the private key, both would take million of years.
I do really don't understand the whole process I was just giving some noob suggestions.
It's strange for me that after the app is installed it doesn't require an active network to start.So I am wondering if it could be possible to trick the app to start somehow?
Sent from my Windows Phone 8S by HTC using Tapatalk
While suggestions are always welcome, you really should read up on digital signatures and how they work. @greenboxal's explanation seems like it might have gone over your head a bit... The fact that you didn't understand about ID_CAP_* also means you've probably never looked at WP development, or even looked at the manifest of a WP app, either; you may want to do some of that. Until you do so, it would be only by the sheerest crazy luck that you managed to hit on a solution, because you don't even know what you're actually trying to accomplish!
For example, it's pretty obvious why there's no need for a network connection to start an app, once it's installed. There's a license on WP apps, which is checked when the app is installed (requires Internet access) and is then valid for some time (never checked how long exactly, probably years though). The signatures are different. When the app is installed, the signing certificate (which contains the public key, but not the private key, of the keypair used to sign the app) is extracted from the app and checked to see whether it is trusted by Microsoft (the phone has Microsoft's certificates embedded in the OS; it doesn't need a network connection for this). When you try to launch the app, it checks to see whether the signatures on each binary (which are, as greenboxal mentioned, created by taking the cryptographically secure hash of the binary and then applying something like encryption to it using the private key) are valid (it applies the public key to the signature to get the signing hash back, and checks whether that hash still matches). We (developers) can't fake store signatures ourselves, because we don't have Microsoft's private keys. Therefore the phone wouldn't trust our signatures (make sure you read up on the concept of a "chain of trust" and the concepts of public key cryptography and public key infrastructure in general too) and would refuse to load the binaries. The process of verifying signatures is just a bunch of math once you've already got the public keys, and those are, as I said, extracted from the app at install (for individual apps) and stored in WP8 itself (for the Store-wide signing key); no need to access the network.
Thanks guys for clearing this up for me.I know that it`s not that simple as i say.Anyway, just keep up the good work.We the Noobs depend from you.
If you are not those who you really are i personally know that i will never buy a Windows Phone again.You are the reason for the MS`s profit.
Sorry again for jumping in into this "battle".
This thread is becoming way out of hand, question is asked and answered : adding a app via proxy which may interop-unlock other WP is not possible. Locking thread now.
PS : yay, ten posts.
When developing an application for desktop windows, there's always a way to access functionality - sometimes through back doors like the registry, etc... I'm developing an application for Windows Phone 8.1, but there are certain pieces of functionality that aren't exposed in the PRT APIset that is available to me. For example, we want to ensure that the user has password protection on the lock screen when using the application. There doesn't seem to be any associated APIs to readily use. So my question is, are there back door ways to do such things? How? Is there a way to access ALL system settings - like a registry or something of the like?
proch said:
When developing an application for desktop windows, there's always a way to access functionality - sometimes through back doors like the registry, etc... I'm developing an application for Windows Phone 8.1, but there are certain pieces of functionality that aren't exposed in the PRT APIset that is available to me. For example, we want to ensure that the user has password protection on the lock screen when using the application. There doesn't seem to be any associated APIs to readily use. So my question is, are there back door ways to do such things? How? Is there a way to access ALL system settings - like a registry or something of the like?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Another question would be - if something like intune can enforce lock screen password policies, shouldn't I be able to do it the same way that intune does it? If so, how? If not - why not?
It's not possible to check if user enabled lock screen password or not as far as I know
but if you want to made your app secure (because it may include important data)
you can create a password for your own application !
I did it in a little notepad app my password page allow user to set a password with all English and Persian Characters , numbers and special Chars like [email protected]#$ and etc.
Sent from my RM-994_eu_poland_1183 using Tapatalk
It's pretty easy to check, using the registry, but at least in 8.0 that's not allowed at all for store apps (your app would get rejected). I don't know if the rules changed for 8.1. There are ways to sneak past the store checks, but they could pull your app from the store if they ever found out. I know of at least three ways to access the registry APIs (4 in WP8.1) and two of them are pretty hard to detect unless somebody checks for them specifically... but they're the kind of technique that malware uses, so such checks may be in place.
I don't know what InTune is doing, specifically - I'd need to pull the app apart to see - but there are special application capabilities (not normally available to third-party developers) that can query and even set policies. Apps without those capabilities will get Access Denied if they try to use the same methods though, and normally you can't add those capabilities to your app.
GoodDayToDie said:
It's pretty easy to check, using the registry, but at least in 8.0 that's not allowed at all for store apps (your app would get rejected). I don't know if the rules changed for 8.1. There are ways to sneak past the store checks, but they could pull your app from the store if they ever found out. I know of at least three ways to access the registry APIs (4 in WP8.1) and two of them are pretty hard to detect unless somebody checks for them specifically... but they're the kind of technique that malware uses, so such checks may be in place.
I don't know what InTune is doing, specifically - I'd need to pull the app apart to see - but there are special application capabilities (not normally available to third-party developers) that can query and even set policies. Apps without those capabilities will get Access Denied if they try to use the same methods though, and normally you can't add those capabilities to your app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for this great and detailed information. See, that's exactly what I'd do if I were developing a desktop app - since i know that intune does it, I'd figure out how intune does it and voila. I'm finally getting over the idea that the same methodologies apply to windows phone development.
For my own educational purposes (since I want to understand this platform better), I would really like to know specifically how you go about accessing the registry APIs (for example). If there's any way for you to describe any number of these methods, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks again!
My NativeAccess libraries (check my signature, or search on the forum or on Codeplex) contain an example of one way to access the registry. The code is open-source; you may use the libraries as-is (don't expect to get them into the store, though I won't stop you from trying), use the source code as a reference, or modify/build them yourself; the license is very liberal (MS Permissive). The functions I use are generally documented on MSDN, in the desktop APIs section; the phone has the same functions, although the DLL names are changed and the header files hide them.
Hello - I am doing a pen test for a customer. They are not giving me the xap files like they did last time. Is there a way to pull the xap file off the phone and on to your PC? I have a dev unlocked phone which I can sideload apps using power tools. I have done some research and it doesn't sound like this option is available, but I wanted to ask.
Thanks in advance.
First of all, the phone doesn't store the XAP files (PLEASE search before posting! This question gets asked a lot). I assume all you really care about is the app binaries and manifest file, though. (You can rebuild an installable XAP from these if needed.)
There's a complicated series of hacks for doing it on 8.1 via the ability to install apps to the SD card. If you don't have 8.1, don't have an SD card, can't install the relevant versions of specific apps, or if the app is marked to not allow installation to SD, then that method won't work for you.
The other approach, which in my experience is standard in the pentesting world (which is my field as well), is to use a hacked/jailbroken/unlocked phone. Samsung (unless it has the very newest firmware versions) and Huawei phones can be unlocked by flashing modified ROMs. The unlock lets you sideload apps with vastly more privileges, such as the ability to read and write the install directory of any app. Using that, it's pretty easy to get the files you want. Such unlocks are also possible with some Nokia phones via JTAG, and possibly some other models too, but the Samsung unlock (which I and -W_O_L_F- found) and the ability to flash customized ROMs for Huawei are the easiest approaches.
On the offhand chance you're part of NCC group, PM me and I'll send you my work email address. If you're with one of our competitors... well, I actually don't mind helping a competitor that much either; some Deja Vu folks gave me a good tip lately though, and I've got friends at SI as well.
GoodDayToDie said:
First of all, the phone doesn't store the XAP files (PLEASE search before posting! This question gets asked a lot). I assume all you really care about is the app binaries and manifest file, though. (You can rebuild an installable XAP from these if needed.)
There's a complicated series of hacks for doing it on 8.1 via the ability to install apps to the SD card. If you don't have 8.1, don't have an SD card, can't install the relevant versions of specific apps, or if the app is marked to not allow installation to SD, then that method won't work for you.
The other approach, which in my experience is standard in the pentesting world (which is my field as well), is to use a hacked/jailbroken/unlocked phone. Samsung (unless it has the very newest firmware versions) and Huawei phones can be unlocked by flashing modified ROMs. The unlock lets you sideload apps with vastly more privileges, such as the ability to read and write the install directory of any app. Using that, it's pretty easy to get the files you want. Such unlocks are also possible with some Nokia phones via JTAG, and possibly some other models too, but the Samsung unlock (which I and -W_O_L_F- found) and the ability to flash customized ROMs for Huawei are the easiest approaches.
On the offhand chance you're part of NCC group, PM me and I'll send you my work email address. If you're with one of our competitors... well, I actually don't mind helping a competitor that much either; some Deja Vu folks gave me a good tip lately though, and I've got friends at SI as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks again for all your help. So my situation is this: I am doing pen testing for a client (and I'm sure we are competitors some what). The have provided me a Nokia Lumia phone running 8.0 and another Lumia running 8.1. The app is installed by their dev team (app is not avail from the store). They are reluctant to provide my the XAP file as they consider it proprietary info. I have done a dev unlock on the phone, but my primary goal is to view the isolated storage/dlls for the app to make sure they are not storing sensitive data. I am using the standard tools for viewing the isolated storage, but for these to work (best of my knowledge) they require you to sideload the application which I cannot due (not XAP file). I am proxying the traffic, but without looking at the file system there is not much I can do. As an aside, they are using MDM with jailbreak detection.
Whoa, somebody actually got around to writing jailbreak detection for WP8? Crazy. I wish I could see that; I'm sure it's trivial to bypass (at least for interop-unlock, the difference between locked and unlocked is changing a registry value and it would be easily possible to re-lock it, launch the app while keeping the editor app open in the background, switch back to the editor, and unlock/jailbreak again) but I'm amused that anybody even bothered trying. Also, the APIs you would need to do the detection aren't even available on 8.0, officially; you're in violation of the store rules if you use them. Then again, maybe this is an internal, "Enterprise" app; those have permissions to do stuff that typical third-party apps do not. Are you sure they don't just mean they have jailbreak detection for iOS? I see something about Office365 MDM offering JB detection, but while I suppose they could have written something for WP8.x as well I feel like I probably would have heard of it?
If the app was sideloaded by the dev team, then you can see its isostore using the official tools or using Windows Phone Power Tools. If it's an enterprise app and the app was installed that way, then things get more difficult (especially if the phone they gave you doesn't have an SD slot). Not giving a pentester access to the binary they're testing is silly on a number of levels; if you succeed in breaking in then you'll get it anyhow, and an attacker will have a lot more than a week or two to poke at it so they're wasting your presumably-paid-by-the-hour time if they want you to see how good their security is without actually examining the app. I bet they used obfuscation, too... Some people just don't get it. "Security" by obscurity... isn't. Sorry, end of mini-rant. Anyhow, there's a guy on the forum who claims to have a non-JTAG unlock for Lumias, but no idea when or if it'll see the light of day.