Related
Has anyone in their rom building and reverse engineering ever found anything Big Brotherish in the code? Keyloggers and hidden processes that phone home
your location come to mind.
When you set up the phone there is a question about sharing your location with google
jsapp said:
When you set up the phone there is a question about sharing your location with google
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But that is upfront, I'm asking about hidden processes. One that would crop up after you say no.
I'm sure Google wouldn't stick a keylogger or hidden process for the fun of it in a fresh build of the OS. I doubt it, like if you choose "No" it will tell the OS not to send location data to google.
Coburn64 said:
I'm sure Google wouldn't stick a keylogger or hidden process for the fun of it in a fresh build of the OS. I doubt it, like if you choose "No" it will tell the OS not to send location data to google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but what about HTC? T-Mobile? No offense but have you actually dug around the code? I don't know much about code besides web but I wouldn't put it past a company to do something like that.
ATT already got busted for helping DHS spy on citizens. I'm not paranoid, just curious.
Danny double post. Srry
thedroid said:
Yes, but what about HTC? T-Mobile? No offense but have you actually dug around the code? I don't know much about code besides web but I wouldn't put it past a company to do something like that.
ATT already got busted for helping DHS spy on citizens. I'm not paranoid, just curious.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am wondering also now that u guys bring this up. Maybe someone could ask the devs. I faintly remebering a dev saying "got rid of shady HTC log apk". I think it might of been cyanogen but I'm not 100% on that. So if I gave credit to the wrong dev feel free to correct me.
Well it wouldn't be incredibly smart to put in something like that, and then make it open source.
jsapp said:
Well it wouldn't be incredibly smart to put in something like that, and then make it open source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HTC's code is technically closed source AFAIK.
jsapp said:
Well it wouldn't be incredibly smart to put in something like that, and then make it open source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the biggest reason I love open source. The more people with the code the better.
thedroid said:
I'm not paranoid, just curious.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Im curious too, and paranoid
I just assume the governments watching me all the time, and I make sure to give them something to talk about.
thedroid said:
ATT already got busted for helping DHS spy on citizens. I'm not paranoid, just curious.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would a telecom company put spying code on the mobile? It would be so much easier to just snoop on their server end, where there's little possibility you could discover such an intrusion.
Thoughts and responses appreciated
Privacy policy from Google suggest private user information IS sent to Google*. I am moving from HTCs WM devices to the G1 and I'm getting quite concerned about things of this nature. I can see that a user has the option to share or withold some information but not sure if there are options to withhold ALL personal details (location, contacts etc). Are there any options or methods that COMPLETELY stop ANY information being sent to Google or any other party? (Device config options, ROMs etc???)
I am new to Android and still learning so any help would be appreciated. (also posting in a hurry!)
Thanks
*G1-specific information we collect
* In order to set up your device, we ask you to sign-in with your Google Account (if you already have one) or create a new, free Google Account. Your Google Account information is stored by Google. If you change your device, you will have to associate the new device with your Google Account before we can authenticate you.
* Each device is assigned one or more unique identification numbers. These identification numbers are associated with your Google Account and the IMEI number, mobile country code, and mobile network code of your device (which is also stored by your wireless operator), and allow your device to sync your Google email, contacts, and other Google services.
* In order to continually improve our services and provide a better user experience, we collect some basic usage statistics from your device. Information such as the hardware model of your device and the version of the Android software you are running is collected but not stored in association with your Google Account. In addition, we collect some information on device-level events such as crashes that is associated with your Google Account temporarily in order to provide customer service. Neither of these categories of usage statistics contains application-level information such as the content of emails or phone call records.
* Certain applications or features of your G1 device may cause other information to be sent to Google but in a fashion that cannot be identified with you personally.
* Your device may send us location information (for example, Cell ID or GPS information) that is not associated with your Account.
* Using some applications or features may send information to Google that is stored with your Google Account. If you use standard Google services on your G1 device, for example by creating new contacts or Calendar events, then this information will be associated with your Google Account and stored consistent with the privacy policies for those services. Likewise, if you use the Android Market, information about your downloads, comments, and ratings will be stored with and accessible through your Google Account. You have the option to disable or not use these features, in which case Google will not receive this data.
* Certain of our products and services allow you to personalize the content you receive from us. For these products and services, we will store your preferences and the information you provide for customization. These preferences may be associated with your Google Account or elsewhere with Google, as explained in the Privacy Policies for those products.
Yes in settings and during setup it asks you if you want info to be sent...However you should know that microsofts has the win update which sends info about your pc. You shouldnt be concerned though...Contacts/emails/calender is sent/stored on servers.
Ace42 said:
Yes in settings and during setup it asks you if you want info to be sent...However you should know that microsofts has the win update which sends info about your pc. You shouldnt be concerned though...Contacts/emails/calender is sent/stored on servers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was curious to know if all the data collection methods could be switched off reliably. Thanks for the quick response Ace
Does anyone know where i might find a code that pirate wars uses to identify my phone ? I updated to 2.2 and get a huge list of pirates to choose from but not my pirate and according to info thye software uses an access code that unique i guess and now I am wondering what code it could be to get it back
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.
So the bootloader allows 5 tries before forcing a reboot. I'm working on a brute force method to send unlock codes until one is successful. Basically send 4 codes, do a fastboot reboot bootloader, send 4 more - until a valid code is found. It takes 6 seconds on my system for the fastboot command to function again after issuing a reboot. At this rate I can only do 12,342 codes per day (give or take a few hundred). Total possible combinations is 7,958,661,109,946,400,884,391,936. This is based on 16 character alpha numeric (36^16). Of course, if there was a pattern like (111AA1111A1AA111), it would greatly reduce this. I'm within my 30 day window, so I'm likely just to send it back and put my $800 in a company that supports the community, but if I find enough of a pattern to consider brute forcing, I might consider keeping it around. I love the hardware, hating the UI and my inability to install my favorite apps from F-Droid that require root...
I think you would also need the IMEIs and Serial Numbers as the unlock code most probably gets generated with them.
P-Chan80 said:
So the bootloader allows 5 tries before forcing a reboot. I'm working on a brute force method to send unlock codes until one is successful. Basically send 4 codes, do a fastboot reboot bootloader, send 4 more - until a valid code is found. It takes 6 seconds on my system for the fastboot command to function again after issuing a reboot. At this rate I can only do 12,342 codes per day (give or take a few hundred). Total possible combinations is 7,958,661,109,946,400,884,391,936. This is based on 16 character alpha numeric (36^16). Of course, if there was a pattern like (111AA1111A1AA111), it would greatly reduce this. I'm within my 30 day window, so I'm likely just to send it back and put my $800 in a company that supports the community, but if I find enough of a pattern to consider brute forcing, I might consider keeping it around. I love the hardware, hating the UI and my inability to install my favorite apps from F-Droid that require root...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hello P-Chan80,
Did you success ?
I'm also thinking in brute forcing the unlocking oem code on my Honor 6c Pro.
In my case I can try as many code as I want without rebooting but I have to confirm the fastboot unlocking command by pressing Volume UP and Power on the phone. Do you have this procedure on your Huawei ? I was thinking if it is possible to automate it by opening the phone and sending electrical impulses where the buttons are (with an arduino or a raspberry pi for instance).
Hey. It's a very interesting idea - try to brute the code. BUT I think that it is irrational - as the wear of the phone buttons will cost more than the cost of paid methods of obtaining the code. The question is-how do these services get the codes? I can only assume two options: they take the codes from huawei's database or they know the code generation algorithm(If Huawei use one), because they only need the imei or serial numbe to get unlock code. Do you think it is possible to to find this algorithm too?(Having a data: Imei – unlock code)?
May be it's sounds silly, but what do you think about it?
P-Chan80 said:
So the bootloader allows 5 tries before forcing a reboot. I'm working on a brute force method to send unlock codes until one is successful. Basically send 4 codes, do a fastboot reboot bootloader, send 4 more - until a valid code is found. It takes 6 seconds on my system for the fastboot command to function again after issuing a reboot. At this rate I can only do 12,342 codes per day (give or take a few hundred). Total possible combinations is 7,958,661,109,946,400,884,391,936. This is based on 16 character alpha numeric (36^16). Of course, if there was a pattern like (111AA1111A1AA111), it would greatly reduce this. I'm within my 30 day window, so I'm likely just to send it back and put my $800 in a company that supports the community, but if I find enough of a pattern to consider brute forcing, I might consider keeping it around. I love the hardware, hating the UI and my inability to install my favorite apps from F-Droid that require root...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did eventually worked?
Equivalent is winning the lottery. Considering the number of possible combinations it would take years to complete the whole sequence. Not practical at all.
It would help a lot if you get some sort of pattern but that would be hard to get unless all people with the unlock phones provide their IMEI and unlock codes.
If you get enough matching pairs you might be able to figure out the logic. Then should not be too hard to create a generator by putting together a small script (python/perl/php/bash/whatever). The hard bit is to get the pairs and then the script should not be too hard to create. I could try.
I ask this not knowing anything about the Android bootloader process. Is it possible to dump the bootloader of a locked or unlocked phone and analyse the code to identify where and how it identifies a valid unlock code? And then work backwards from there? Or are codes signed by Huawei using a private key and such an analysis would prove unfeasible?
If the unlock codes are signed, but dumping the bootloader is possible, could an analysis of the bootloader code from a dump allow for an exploit to be developed similar to the Amonet exploit used on the 5th, 7th and 9th gen Fire 7 tablets?
It seems someone is trying this method: https://github.com/SkyEmie/huawei-honor-unlock-bootloader
However no-one has confirmed if it actually works, but some users said it doesn't.
EDIT: Started the process 5 hours ago and it did like 1%. The Huawei M3 Lite I'm testing this on doesn't reboot ever. Not sure I'll keep it running for 20 days.
would it be possible to pause it and resume other time?
that would be great.
hfmls said:
would it be possible to pause it and resume other time?
that would be great.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Considering it's a command window, you can make a selection with the mouse and it will "block" / pause until you unselect. That should help run the whole thing to the end.
Are you sure the unlock codes are alphanumeric?
Can someone who have unlocked bootloader send me the code and IMEI in PM ? - I know that is private info, but Unlock code should be related to the IMEI
I do a little research today using this bootloader dump: https://forum.xda-developers.com/hu...rch-requesting-bootloader-dump-t3897062/page2
There are two interesting functions that are taking a param - I think it should be a unlock code, and then one of them is passing the code to other function:
void FUN_000be4e6(void)
{
undefined *puVar1;
undefined *puVar2;
undefined *in_pc;
longlong lVar3;
undefined4 in_cr5;
undefined auStack140 [140];
coprocessor_storelong(0xe,in_cr5,auStack140);
puVar1 = (undefined *)0x3e8;
puVar2 = (undefined *)0x3f0;
lVar3 = 8;
while( true ) {
*in_pc = *puVar1;
in_pc[1] = *puVar2;
in_pc = in_pc + 2;
lVar3 = lVar3 + -1;
if (lVar3 == 0) break;
puVar1 = puVar1 + 1;
puVar2 = puVar2 + 1;
}
/* WARNING: Bad instruction - Truncating control flow here */
halt_baddata();
}
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it should be related because it is getting two elements at a time and the loop iterates 8 times - 8*2=16 - the length of the unlock code
Pretty sure that Huawei only asked for my serial, can't remember them asking for my IMEI, but then it has been a couple of years nearly.
Also seem to remember the code being numbers only, but again it's been a while.
dladz said:
Pretty sure that Huawei only asked for my serial, can't remember them asking for my IMEI, but then it has been a couple of years nearly.
Also seem to remember the code being numbers only, but again it's been a while.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What device are you referring to?
Certainly that's not how it worked o.n the latest devices.
They asked for imei number only and on the devices with multiple imeis I think only 1st one was needed. The code that they provide also is alphanumeric : FNHHZ85YQ3WP2T0X
If I find my old imei I'll share it as well, I hope I have a backup somewhere ( I actually found old transcripts from Huawei support including my 1st imei, I'll look for the 2nd one in the following days )
Imei #1 - 866219037075115
borovaka said:
Are you sure the unlock codes are alphanumeric?
Can someone who have unlocked bootloader send me the code and IMEI in PM ? - I know that is private info, but Unlock code should be related to the IMEI
I do a little research today using this bootloader dump: https://forum.xda-developers.com/hu...rch-requesting-bootloader-dump-t3897062/page2
There are two interesting functions that are taking a param - I think it should be a unlock code, and then one of them is passing the code to other function:
I think it should be related because it is getting two elements at a time and the loop iterates 8 times - 8*2=16 - the length of the unlock code
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was the one who started that thread. I couldn't narrow down on any functions related to unlock code verification though in any of those dumps. Can you share some more light on how you identified that particular function? I'd be interested in taking this up again in my spare time too.
The reasons why I didn't purse it further at that time (as far as I remember) were:
1. There's no partition titled "boot" or "aboot" on atleast EMUI 9. I remember doing some more research on this but seemed to hit a dead-end.
2. Fastboot dump seems to be encrypted. This would make sense since the device has roots-of-trust implemented. Not sure if they only check & verify signatures or also if important sections are encrypted at rest. Didn't pursue this further due to lack of time.
Aodrulez said:
I was the one who started that thread. I couldn't narrow down on any functions related to unlock code verification though in any of those dumps. Can you share some more light on how you identified that particular function? I'd be interested in taking this up again in my spare time too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I used ghidra with the image from the other post. With ARM CORTEX little endian profile
Rstment ^m^ said:
What device are you referring to?
Certainly that's not how it worked o.n the latest devices.
They asked for imei number only and on the devices with multiple imeis I think only 1st one was needed. The code that they provide also is alphanumeric : FNHHZ85YQ3WP2T0X
If I find my old imei I'll share it as well, I hope I have a backup somewhere ( I actually found old transcripts from Huawei support including my 1st imei, I'll look for the 2nd one in the following days )
Imei #1 - 866219037075115
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It was two years ago, can't remember giving my IMEI out, 100% my serial via the official Huawei bootloader unlock method, cannot remember if it was alpha it not.
Either way. Best of luck with this, would love to see someone crack this, could make a tonne of money if you did.
Or even better free
Did some more research on this & it turns out, on recent Huawei devices, the bootloader is named "xloader". The fastboot dump from my rooted phone is encrypted & so won't yield anything useful. It's also very rare to find references to detailed information on this "xloader" image/partition on the internet. Will dig some more when I get time.
Rstment ^m^ said:
What device are you referring to?
Certainly that's not how it worked o.n the latest devices.
They asked for imei number only and on the devices with multiple imeis I think only 1st one was needed. The code that they provide also is alphanumeric : FNHHZ85YQ3WP2T0X
If I find my old imei I'll share it as well, I hope I have a backup somewhere ( I actually found old transcripts from Huawei support including my 1st imei, I'll look for the 2nd one in the following days )
Imei #1 - 866219037075115
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
P20 Pro, Huawei method..
Like I said it's been 2 years so may be remembering it wrong..
dladz said:
P20 Pro, Huawei method..
Like I said it's been 2 years so may be remembering it wrong..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I got myne from support so who knows, I didn't get a chance to use website