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.
Hello all, I hope all is well. I received the update to 4.4.4 a few weeks ago. However, all i got from the update was all the ATT bloatware(Uber,Kids Mode,etc). I am curious as to why I didn't get Knox 2.0, while a my friends were able to. I contacted samsung about it and all i was told was the application "Knox application has been stopped from this version."
So i guess my question to the community is, is there a work around for this? I have tried downloading the apk but even so after installing it I cant open the app on my phone, only the icon is there. I like my phone as is so I would prefer not to root it, but is that my only option at this point if I want the Knox app?
Thanks in advance for any input.
~Azure
Why would you ever want Knox?.. Tr....
Some of us like having a 2nd locked screen for work and for home... our like me that uses my phone for fire/ems/home/work
I understand what knox does with profiles and different containers...But the 90% of us have no choice, Many users get worried when installing perhaps a camera app from market and the permission says "location"..Sometimes they won't even download it then...But "Knox" is "Highest Admin" And can virtually do anything on demand to our phones...And we have "No" choice to except or not...It's just there...
The Op stated that he doesn't have "Knox" 2.0 ?
Your not Rooted otherwise you could check to see if you have it installed.
> In "System/App/FixmoISA.Apk
Do you see that file? That's one of many files or apps hiding withing your phone and the manifest files says its currently active and running. And my rom supposedly has Knox remvoed...lol
wish777 said:
I understand what knox does with profiles and different containers...But the 90% of us have no choice, Many users get worried when installing perhaps a camera app from market and the permission says "location"..Sometimes they won't even download it then...But "Knox" is "Highest Admin" And can virtually do anything on demand to our phones...And we have "No" choice to except or not...It's just there...
The Op stated that he doesn't have "Knox" 2.0 ?
Your not Rooted otherwise you could check to see if you have it installed.
> In "System/App/FixmoISA.Apk
Do you see that file? That's one of many files or apps hiding withing your phone and the manifest files says its currently active and running. And my rom supposedly has Knox remvoed...lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hello, as zaptear posted I would like to have the 2nd locked screen for work. I checked and I do have the aforementioned FixmoIsa apk on my phone.
I have used Chroma in the past with minimal issues, but prefer the pure stock over a rom - so my question is; is there any way to use the Chroma Rom Dialer on the stock 5.1.1? (since I know there's several telephony, dialer, phonesky apps/files) I am not sure how I would go about doing that, or what all I would need to change in order to pull it off - if this is even possible at all?
Reason for my question, I like that it has BUILT IN native call blocking ability that the stock dialer doesn't, other than THAT feature it's identical to the stock dialer. I don't care if it's the Chroma dialer, or another rom dialer, I just want the STOCK dialer (or stock-like) to have this ability.
I know there's 3rd party apps for this type of thing, and I've used many of them, but I very much so prefer NOT to have to use a 3rd party app for something that (IMO) should have been built in to begin with.
If you wish to know why this is important to me, read the spoiler:
So, I get ~3-6 calls every day that's just the same BS; Scam calls saying I can lower my CC interest rates and to press 1 to speak to a representative. They always call from a different number, so blocking them individually doesn't work since it's never the same twice (typically - you'll understand after reading below). If you DO press 1 you get a rude person who will cuss at you, call you names, or laugh at you if you ask to be removed from their calling list. Doing that will only make it worse. I've recorded dozens of calls where they say really effed up things to me. Beyond harassment, it's straight up abuse.
I have been getting them for years, I DO NOT own a credit card, never have owned one, and have never even applied for one - plus there's THOUSANDS of pages on Google about these type of calls being a major problem. Even the FCC has a $50,000 bounty for anyone who can legally or illegally stop them - no questions asked (how badass is that!?) - THAT should tell you how hard they are to catch, find, or stop.
After more than 2 years of filing formal complaints/reports with the FCC, Local PD, FBI (as told to by the FCC), USCC, and have seeked legal advice from my lawyer as to getting this stopped via getting a subpoena so uscc has to release the real call origin trace, I'm on the Do Not Call list... - I've been met with ONE solution that has been common on all counts; change my number. That's not really an option, I've had this number since 1997, I'm not about to change it for obvious reasons.
Now, I've tried many apps to get this stopped, ranging from free to paid, and have not found one that ACTUALLY works toward getting it stopped, many are difficult to use or require WAY too much effort and personal information in order to do anything but ask you to donate.
So far I have logged (through Google Voice VM) a growing total of 566 *different* numbers they have called me from - from all over the US and some that are unused anywhere on earth.
In conclusion, Ive logged 566 different numbers that have called me a total of 11,925 times since 2008.
If that isn't justification for this request, then IDK what is. Shy of ditching my phone altogether, I'm out of ideas.
Bumping - I'd really appreciate any help, gents.
iRub1Out said:
Bumping - I'd really appreciate any help, gents.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have no idea. If dialer would work would need boh contacts and dialer apk. Have no idea where the code for that mod is and if ASOP dialer will even work on stock. Then you have odex vs deodex to work through.
If it CANT work on stock (which, honestly, I didn't expect it to) given, as you said, the differences are small on the surface but in the actual build they're very different. I understand that, and those are things I considered leading me to wonder.
Can anyone MAKE the stock dialer with that mod added in, or a otherwise stock rom with that?
It seems like a lot to request, I know, but I've been looking for this for months, I've even set up a bounty in a thread on TUSCC, its something that I've really hoped would become a mod thru xposed or "Pure Shamu" rom with it. However, it seems that others don't experience this ridiculous problem, leading to it not being as popular as I wish it was.
Trying to stop an ex from calling is one thing, but trying to stop every call that isn't a contact, I realize that's quite another. Thus is my case, its crazy how many spoofed numbers they use. I'm more amazed that the carrier hasn't done something than I am that it's not a mod. There's tens of thousands of people with this problem and the one solution that requires no effort on the end user isn't available to cell phone users.
I don't know - I'm just at my wits end with these calls. I'd be happy to do it myself if a dev is willing to give me some direction, or ideas to try out.
As a side note, I've recorded several where I just screw with them for as long as I can - then put it on YT after they realize they've been trolled and blow up. It's a small, yet, satisfying "middle finger" I can do.
iRub1Out said:
If it CANT work on stock (which, honestly, I didn't expect it to) given, as you said, the differences are small on the surface but in the actual build they're very different. I understand that, and those are things I considered leading me to wonder.
Can anyone MAKE the stock dialer with that mod added in, or a otherwise stock rom with that?
It seems like a lot to request, I know, but I've been looking for this for months, I've even set up a bounty in a thread on TUSCC, its something that I've really hoped would become a mod thru xposed or "Pure Shamu" rom with it. However, it seems that others don't experience this ridiculous problem, leading to it not being as popular as I wish it was.
Trying to stop an ex from calling is one thing, but trying to stop every call that isn't a contact, I realize that's quite another. Thus is my case, its crazy how many spoofed numbers they use. I'm more amazed that the carrier hasn't done something than I am that it's not a mod. There's tens of thousands of people with this problem and the one solution that requires no effort on the end user isn't available to cell phone users.
I don't know - I'm just at my wits end with these calls. I'd be happy to do it myself if a dev is willing to give me some direction, or ideas to try out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If I knew what the mod is it would be possible to port to stock. My guess it is in smali which cannot access on stock odex. Stock Would have to be deodexed to access smali which is also possible in rom form. Nobody I know of is deodexing stock 5.1.1 We have done it and got it working but don't post as we still don't know if everything works. Lollipop is still hard to make fully working rom from stock image. M is even going to be harder. Would still need the code required to enable the mod.
prdog1 said:
If I knew what the mod is it would be possible to port to stock. My guess it is in smali which cannot access on stock odex. Stock Would have to be deodexed to access smali which is also possible in rom form. Nobody I know of is deodexing stock 5.1.1 We have done it and got it working but don't post as we still don't know if everything works. Lollipop is still hard to make fully working rom from stock image. M is even going to be harder. Would still need the code required to enable the mod.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I concurr, your talking about taking apk's not meant for a certain rom and adding them in to pray it works. Did you look in the market t.o see if there was a KB you liked there? You can't just switch around apk's like that because you could easily get force closes. If you want to try just copy and paste it into a rom. you wont brick doing that, it may work
I know it isn't as easy as swapping apks - I had *hoped* it would be similarly easy, but figured there was no way.
Idk what the mod is, or how Chroma did it - but the dialer looks stock other than the addition of that option under the advanced menu in the dialer settings.
I've looked in the market, used many of them, Mr. Number was my go to for a long time but it is iffy on 5.1 as *sometimes* a call will get through for a couple rings then gets blocked. It would also block known contacts on a rare occasion, I would go a couple days without knowing I had missed a call from a family member because it didn't show up in Mr. Number or the stock dialer - somehow it blocked it and had no record of the call even coming in.
That's why I was hoping to find a way to get this option in the stock dialer - without porting anything or swapping apks, that way it's a native feature to the dialer and I wouldn't have to depend on 3rd party apps to do it.
I've asked Google, but their solution was to add them to one contact and send the calls to VM - while that essentially works, that means I'd have to add all 500+ numbers to a single contact, and they OFTEN call from spoofed numbers I've never seen before - so that really doesn't solve anything.
Hello!
I'm afraid my phone might have malware. Hopefully it's a false alarm but I would appreciate any insight into the behavior:
Yesterday I saw a notification with the EMUI icon (stylized red "UI") but when bringing up the notification panel all I saw was a green "down" arrow and no text. I've had apps with bugs creating broken notifications before so I tapped it to check. It sent me to a webpage flagged as a source of malware "d1.3gmimo.com/handpet/wallpaper/...<can't remember rest>". I closed the page and since Chrome showed the warning before loading the page I think it's safe to assume I didn't download anything.
I don't know the origin of the notification though so I'm afraid there might be some malware already present. It had the EMUI icon but that can be faked or may be the default when no icon is configured (not sure how it works).. The notification appeared over mobile data so no router redirect infection. Searches gave me only one hit I could make sense of - a forum thread with the poster describing a similar event. They got not explanation but see here for their screenshots: Google Translate on thread-5858387-1-1.html on club.huawei.com (can't post links yet it seems)
I am very careful with the apps I install, avoid all the copycat crap, and I only allow Google Play as a source. The phone was only ever used by me except briefly by a family member which I trust not to download anything sketchy. Still, I uninstalled the most recent 2 apps: Hashi and Nonogram Katana (has ads) , though these had been installed a week before. The list of installed apps shows nothing new/strange. I also installed AVL, Bitdefender, and Avast but they found nothing. (I know it's debated whether av/anti-malware apps are helpful but thought to cover everything.)
Any thoughts?
Thank you in advance!
Phone details:
Huawei P7-L10
Android 4.4.2
EMUI 2.3 (V100R001C02B129)
Branded by Vodafone and with their uninstallable apps - using it on different network though.
I know I should update but the update app doesn't find anything (I understand this may be due to modifications made by telecom companies) and I got lazy since I've had no compatibility issues. I guess I should think more about security.
After doing more digging and learning to use adb to look at the logcat, I think the notification might have been created by VLife, which is Huawei's wallpaper distribution service.
On my phone I have VLife 2.23.3 installed (seems to be stock) as a system app. The title is in Chinese but the icon is the EMUI logo. (I figured out which app it is by the icon and version number, after I found the app hosted on aptoide.com while googling for "vlife".)
I presume what happened is that VLife tried to download a new wallpaper (no idea why all of a sudden) and it went to 3gmimo.com, which might serve as a mirror for apps. The site is flagged as having malware. This might be a false alarm or the site might have been hijacked since my version of VLife came out.
So the app might be ok. Though I'm still worried why the sudden update. Maybe there's a central message that was sent to the app to update? (The logcat below mentions a receiver.) The only suspicious thing about the app otherwise is that it has the permission to record sound along with changing sound settings. The latter isn't so surprising since it provides multimedia wallpapers. Maybe recording comes with the rest of the sound permissions. I've disabled the app and disabled its notifications for now. It can't be uninstalled since it's a system app.
These lines come up quite often in my logcat:
I/am_proc_start( 604): [0,18761,10089,com.vlife.huawei.wallpaper:main,broadcast,com.vlife.huawei.wallpaper/com.vlife.receiver.PetMainReceiver] - the link I got referred to a "handpet"
I/am_proc_start( 604): [0,18907,10089,com.vlife.huawei.wallpaper:main,broadcast,com.vlife.huawei.wallpaper/com.vlife.receiver.InstallEventReceiver]
Does anybody know more about this app or service?
Thanks!