Database Develop

Artfulbits Anti Piracy Database to ban people that pirate apps from using stealing

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.

[Q] Security concerns using a rooted / ROM'd Captivate

Greetings everyone.
Ill just start off with asking the question: How many of you give 2nd, 3rd or nth thoughts about using a rooted (or, rooted and ROM'd) phone?
Now, let me explain why I am asking this question.
Earlier this week, my Google account was broken into. The attacker mass-emailed everyone on my contact list a link to a Viagra ad, of all things. It could have been worse, since my contacts and emails were left in-tact. In a furious, chaotic, post-incident rush, I was scrambling in an attempt to figure out how they obtained my password. At the time of this writing, I have come up with nothing. The first thing I thought, naturally, was a worm/trojan/virus on my PC. Several anti-virus / anti-malware / anti-root-kit scans proved to be clean.
So, I turned my sleuthing efforts towards my phone -- a Samsung Captivate, which had been rooted and ROM'd to Captivate 3.04. I had Lookout installed the entire time, and I have been using Cognition ROMs since late December of 2010. In assuming the worst, I nuked my phone, reverted back to stock and re-rooted and re-ROM'd. While rooting my phone, my virus scanner pleasantly informed me that the One Click rooting solution contained an exploit (Lotoor, I believe). Now, I completely understand that its necessary to use these exploits in order to gain access. However, it kinda got me thinking -- what else could be going into the phone that I dont know about?
Note that all ROMs and Rooters were obtained from links available from this website. I did not get them from "shady" locations.
I am realistic about this. I download and install applications from the internet frequently. I put a some faith in my virus scanners / anti-malware applications. This little incident, however, is making me a little more skeptical about what applications I run, as its difficult and time consuming to monitor every application for "phone home" activities.
The bottom line is that I do not want to sound like that I am placing blame on any of the Cognition developers (or any ROM developer). In fact, I am probably going to donate to them because the 3.04 version finally allowed me to use my GPS normally. I honestly feel like I have a smart phone now, as everything works as it should and the phone is alot snappier compared to the stock version. I am saying this even after I tried out the official Samsung Kies Froyo update, which still leaves me hanging for GPS service.
And yes, I completely understand that I could have very well downloaded something on the Android market that was infected. Even though I did not download any of the applications mentioned on the latest hotlist (really, I just dont care about "screaming sexy Japanese girls"), I could have obtained an undiscovered beast. It could also be the case that I have something on my PC that scanners just arent picking up. I may never know.
Where do you all stand on this issue? Do most ROM creators have more than one set of eyes looking at the packages that get deployed, or is that too unpractical?
Thanks in advance!
(P.S. I have searched the forum and looked at the suggested links before posting. I just didnt find anything that quenched my thirst)

nope 10 chars

Mobile security is becoming a concern and should be. Regardless of stock or rooted, there is a risk.
I don't bank on my phone, use my 'real' gmail or put sensitive info on my phone. Mobile is becoming a huge platform to mine information from.

qwertyaas said:
Mobile security is becoming a concern and should be. Regardless of stock or rooted, there is a risk.
I don't bank on my phone, use my 'real' gmail or put sensitive info on my phone. Mobile is becoming a huge platform to mine information from.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Isn't that the truth? I definitely have not done any mobile banking over mobile, and I don't think that I ever will. Its just scary that the attacker probably could have dug up more information about me in my emails than I care to think about.
I switched over to Google's 2-step verification system, so hopefully that will deter future attempts. Notice how I didnt say "prevent," as I dont think anything can actually stop a determined attacker short of getting rid of the phone and my gmail account. Obviously, if my phone falls into the wrong hands, I could be potentially hosed.

Check this out
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/06/google-flips-android-kill-switch-destroys-a-batch-of-malicious/

cappysw10 said:
Check this out
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/06/google-flips-android-kill-switch-destroys-a-batch-of-malicious/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dilli already released a fix for this vulnerability for his 7.0 ROM. Maybe u cud get a similar one on ur custom ROM too.

While your concerns are rational and I await the answers, I believe they are borne out of a false understanding of what happened to you. When a spam e-mail is sent "from" your e-mail account it is not always the case that the attacker has gained access to your machine or your e-mail account. Most e-mail spam is sent via smtp "spoofing" whereby an attacker can make an e-mail look like it is from anyone else. These are done by automated scripts that can find and/or generate random "from" e-mails and then send to other recipients that have been found or randomly generated. If many of your friends received the e-mail, it IS POSSIBLE your computer or account was compromised, or that other friends' accounts have been compromised such that the automated spam bot gained access to a similar address book to yours.
Just wanted to let you know that you may not have been compromised.
Anyway, I too, am interested in the vulnerabilities of these custom ROMS.

sircaper said:
While your concerns are rational and I await the answers, I believe they are borne out of a false understanding of what happened to you. When a spam e-mail is sent "from" your e-mail account it is not always the case that the attacker has gained access to your machine or your e-mail account. Most e-mail spam is sent via smtp "spoofing" whereby an attacker can make an e-mail look like it is from anyone else. These are done by automated scripts that can find and/or generate random "from" e-mails and then send to other recipients that have been found or randomly generated. If many of your friends received the e-mail, it IS POSSIBLE your computer or account was compromised, or that other friends' accounts have been compromised such that the automated spam bot gained access to a similar address book to yours.
Just wanted to let you know that you may not have been compromised.
Anyway, I too, am interested in the vulnerabilities of these custom ROMS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He said the email was sent to every one if his contacts. He was compromised.
That said. Use a secondary junk gmail account if at all possible on your phone. Don't install any app that asks for stupid permissions. Be very leary of any app that wants internet access regardless of who developed it. Android virus scanners are a joke, do not trust them.
P.s. "(really, I just dont care about "screaming sexy Japanese girls")" = blasphemy

whiteguypl said:
He said the email was sent to every one if his contacts. He was compromised.
That said. Use a secondary junk gmail account if at all possible on your phone. Don't install any app that asks for stupid permissions. Be very leary of any app that wants internet access regardless of who developed it. Android virus scanners are a joke, do not trust them.
P.s. "(really, I just dont care about "screaming sexy Japanese girls")" = blasphemy
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Point taken. I don't disagree, but the odds say no. I figured he was using hyperbole and didn't really validate with every single person in his address book. The majority of spam e-mails are via spoofing.

sircaper said:
While your concerns are rational and I await the answers, I believe they are borne out of a false understanding of what happened to you. When a spam e-mail is sent "from" your e-mail account it is not always the case that the attacker has gained access to your machine or your e-mail account. Most e-mail spam is sent via smtp "spoofing" whereby an attacker can make an e-mail look like it is from anyone else. These are done by automated scripts that can find and/or generate random "from" e-mails and then send to other recipients that have been found or randomly generated. If many of your friends received the e-mail, it IS POSSIBLE your computer or account was compromised, or that other friends' accounts have been compromised such that the automated spam bot gained access to a similar address book to yours.
Just wanted to let you know that you may not have been compromised.
Anyway, I too, am interested in the vulnerabilities of these custom ROMS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the input.
As much as I would like to believe it was spoofed (and inherently making me feel better at the same time), I can say with a high degree of certainty that whoever did this had my password. How can I be somewhat sure of this? The "recent activity" list on gmail.com had an entry from a web browser access in Brazil. I do not have a proxy in Brazil, nor have I traveled there in.. well... ever. Also, the recipients' email headers claimed the email originated from gmail.com. Now, you're completely right that this part could have been spoofed, but I am not so sure about the first part. Upon doing some research, I've found that alot of other people who also had their accounts compromised had the same log entries and same origin in the email headers sent to the recipients.
Digression. Anyways, what they did is not as important as how they did it. Even to this day I am not sure. I really dont want to place blame on the ROM, because honestly the Cognition people did a fantastic job with it.
Bottom line is that I was curious as to everyone's security concerns, or lack thereof, when using custom ROMs.

How can you tell if your phone has been infected? What are some of the signs?

Hondo209 said:
How can you tell if your phone has been infected? What are some of the signs?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, I am no expert in this area, but the first place to look would be at an anti-virus, anti-malware application (such as Lookout). However, that probably wont do you any good if the virus/trojan/worm/whatever is still unknown.
Second place you might want to look is at your data usage. Excessive amounts might indicate something is up.
Other than that, maybe one of the sure-fire ways is to see which system files have changed and how. For some reason, a software package like Tripwire comes to mind. Although, I dont know how useful something like that would be on a mobile device.
Someone much more versed in this topic should have some better ideas

EggplantWizard said:
Thanks for the input.
As much as I would like to believe it was spoofed (and inherently making me feel better at the same time), I can say with a high degree of certainty that whoever did this had my password. How can I be somewhat sure of this? The "recent activity" list on gmail.com had an entry from a web browser access in Brazil. I do not have a proxy in Brazil, nor have I traveled there in.. well... ever. Also, the recipients' email headers claimed the email originated from gmail.com. Now, you're completely right that this part could have been spoofed, but I am not so sure about the first part. Upon doing some research, I've found that alot of other people who also had their accounts compromised had the same log entries and same origin in the email headers sent to the recipients.
Digression. Anyways, what they did is not as important as how they did it. Even to this day I am not sure. I really dont want to place blame on the ROM, because honestly the Cognition people did a fantastic job with it.
Bottom line is that I was curious as to everyone's security concerns, or lack thereof, when using custom ROMs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm.. Interesting.... I may take back my argument then!
As far as the concerns? I am also on Cognition 3.04 and up until now, I brushed aside the security issues. I had concerns, but hoped the community was strong enough to expose them. There definitely is an inherent risk downloading files authored by the developers. I know that some of them add in their own signature files just to track the programs and see if they are being altered. I'm not sure what can be done. Maybe you can run the ROM zips through a virus scanner on your pc before installing?

whiteguypl said:
P.s. "(really, I just dont care about "screaming sexy Japanese girls")" = blasphemy
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HA! Now that's just funny.

sircaper said:
I figured he was using hyperbole and didn't really validate with every single person in his address book.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, I didnt validate with *every* single person in my address book, but I talked with a few that I speak with on a daily basis. They all had the same headers originating from gmail.com
Although, I do have to admit that one of the bizarre after-effects of such a compromise is that I have been "reunited" with people I haven't spoken to in a very long time. Take the good with the bad, I suppose.

I agree that security is a concern especially so when one is rooted. There are so many things to take into account. Even using wifi hotspots where hackers can hijack your logged in sessions whether it be Gmail, websites or banking. There are other methods where they can intercept packets with password and account information. For myself, I try and keep antivirus apps like Lookout running and scan often as well as am very cautious as to what hotspots I connect to. It doesnt look like your virus scanner helped you much. However, there may the possibility that you received malware on your PC where you may also be checking gmail from and it spoofed your account using information from there. Its all a guessing game though as there is probably no way to tell how this happened to you. I'd be thankful that it was just an ad that was sent out and nothing more serious came as a result...and change my passwords damn fast (lol)

Oh yeah, I only use wifi networks that I know. I don't log onto public wireless or random networks...

[Q] Password protect certain applications?

Is there an application that can password protect certain apps that I choose?
And please do not say Kids Corner as it does not do what I am asking.

It's probably possible (though far from easy), but I'd actually be more inclined to help if you hadn't opened a duplicate thread about this.

Only made second thread about this to attract some attention, 7 months passed since that guy opened his thread and nobody could give a good answer.
To me it's weird that nobody tried to make an app like this still, it would be very popular and help users very much.
Anyways, thank you for replying.

Really, just bumping the other thread was enough, but since we're here anyhow... my idea for how to approach it (and this would take a *lot* of hacking) goes something like this:
1. Create an app (call it X) that has the capability to launch other apps, and filesystem write access.
2. Have X take another app (call it Y) and encrypt its binaries. This prevents anybody from launching it by any means.
3. Tweak the app database to make it so that when you try to launch Y, it instead launches X and passes the id of Y as a parameter to the launcher.
4. X prompts the user for a password to Y. On getting the right one, it decrypts Y's binaries and writes them back to the correct location, then launches Y.
5. When the user (or OS) closes Y, a background process of X notes that Y is closed and re-encrypts it.
Currently we know how to do... well, some of #1, and we think the rest is possible. Given that, #2 isn't too hard. #3 is something I don't have the least notion how to do *right now* but I'm sure it's possible. #4 shouldn't be too hard given #1 and #2. #5 will be a trick - currently, apps have no way to know what other apps are running - but I'm sure it can be done.
It's a large engineering problem blocked by an even bigger research and hacking problem, though. Nothing we'll have soon. You'd never be able to publish it in the store, either, and it would only work for people with hacked phones. It's exactly the kind of *useful* thing that would be possible if Microsoft were willing to let up the restrictions on third-party developers a bit, of course, But for the time being, there are *reasons* nobody has done it yet.

Well the word that I actually was thinking after reading your post was "crap".
It seems only with time (and a whole [email protected]#$ing lot of it) will wp become a true competitor to android, but to be honest I don't think it will come to that.
Thanks for replying GoodDayToDie, I'm freakin' sad that there is no app that can suit my needs, I even tried with kids corner but the screen still needs the password entered like the normal one. Nothing really can make up for what I have in mind.
Cheers mate.

as soon as we can interop unlock all WP devices, it will be pretty easy... if you're able to provide the XAP (uncrypted of course )
i'll be able to "mod" this in for you... which app are we talking about?
@GoodDayToDie: i do'nt think he is looking for real data security here, so encrypting the whole thing shouldnt be required... i think it's more about preventing his gf to read his private messages or something like that
oh btw.: you would need a dev-unlock to deploy the modified XAP then...

tfBullet said:
as soon as we can interop unlock all WP devices, it will be pretty easy... if you're able to provide the XAP (uncrypted of course )
i'll be able to "mod" this in for you... which app are we talking about?
@GoodDayToDie: i do'nt think he is looking for real data security here, so encrypting the whole thing shouldnt be required... i think it's more about preventing his gf to read his private messages or something like that
oh btw.: you would need a dev-unlock to deploy the modified XAP then...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're right tfBullet! I need it for whatsapp, photos, message and games app, mostly to prevent from friends but gf too.
I was thinking it might be possible to mod an app and add password before it can be accessed, although I have no experience in this domain. Many apps in store have this function, like wallet or prive photo apps.
My phone is dev-unlocked as I started a few days ago to study and try to create a simple app for me and my friends.

Modding an app like that would actually be quite hard, because it would break the signature and prevent the app from running. The encryption thing really isn't too hard, although you could skip it anyhow too.

If there was a way to run a program in the background that monitors when certain apps are selected and then prompts when its activated would work, but it would need an unlocked phone. And even under home brew I don't know if its possible to run apps in the background. Yet.
Sent from my Nokia 521 using XDA Windows Phone 8 App

The encryption thing really isn't too hard

Yea, but that's a little extreme. If you can create that password program that runs in the background you could probably have it watch files, apps or pretty much anything. You'd have to password protect the cofig file. And maybe if you can't remember the password after so many attempts you can have the program email the passwords to your email. Just some ideas.
Sent from my Nokia 521 using XDA Windows Phone 8 App

Running software in the background is actually shockingly easy. The trick is getting it to run with better-than-app-sandbox privileges. We're still working on that one. In the meantime, apps can't even read, much less write, to the install location of other apps.

GoodDayToDie said:
Modding an app like that would actually be quite hard, because it would break the signature and prevent the app from running.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@GoodDayToDie: actually these .NET apps are pretty easy to decompile, if you're willing to fix the bugs that the decompiler leaves you with...
so there is not really a need for a valid signature, if you're able to compile & sideload the app yourself
the only thing is: you need the decrypted XAP, as far as i know these get decrypted while installation and can be pulled from a interop unlocked device?!
It would be nice to get my fingers on some OEM (Nokia etc..) XAPs, to see if we can find any exploit in them

I know better than probably 95% of this forum what it takes to decompile managed code; I have reverse engineered huge numbers of apps. However, you are missing several important points.
1) Modifications like you suggest are very complicated to automate. It's certainly possible, but it's not simple.
2) Re-installing the app would be a pain. You would really want to do this as an in-place modification, and that means (for store apps) that it would still be signature-checked.
3) Not all apps are managed code; WP8 supports purely native code.
4) Even with managed code, obfuscation can make tinkering with the binary nigh-impossible.

It's just so incredibly stupid that WP is so limited. I know it's under Android big time, but I think even iOS more customizable, right?
Also, is there a message app in the store that has pass option? I searched but found nothing...

I don't believe iOS is any more customizable, no. It has some feature that WP lacks (it ought to; it's been out for years longer and Apple completely controls the hardware it runs on) but it's also missing some features that WP8 offers. In any case, this isn't the thread to have that discussion in.

GoodDayToDie said:
I don't believe iOS is any more customizable, no. It has some feature that WP lacks (it ought to; it's been out for years longer and Apple completely controls the hardware it runs on) but it's also missing some features that WP8 offers. In any case, this isn't the thread to have that discussion in.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But with the jailbreak and MobileSubstrate, iOS is extremely customizable, and there are tons of tweaks, that's where Apple gets its new features from
Back to topic, I think the OP would be happy with a solution that locks the "normal" user of his phone out of some apps, so it wouldn't be necessary to modify anything of it, just making the standard launcher (I don't know how it's called, but I mean when you launch the app via home screen or with a toast) ask for a password should be enough.

[Q] Most SECURE Keyboard? One that require no permissions?

It's not that I don't like the stock keyboard, I'm always looking for something new, safe, practical and well....not questionable.
Keymonk Keyboard, from the app store did not require permissions. However...
"Attention: This method can collect all of the text you enter, except passwords, including personal data and credit card numbers. It comes from the app Keymonk FREE. Use anyway?" ---- (Upon some digging, I've read that this is a mandatory message for all after market keyboards?) Well, if it doesn't require permissions then is this just another way of saying...."just kidding, we can and have the ability to collect all your inputs and we may or may not jack it from you."
SwiftKey is obviously ubber popular, but it asks for these permissions:
In-app purchases (obvious)
Identity (WHY?)
SMS (WHY?)
Photos/Media/Files (WHY?)
Wi-Fi connection info (WHY?)
Device ID & call information (WHY?)
For those who care, seeing all these apps requiring permissions that are not related to the apps function can be uncomfortable. To be clear, I understand that some codes for specific functions are written within the OS for another particular function. (It'd be nice to know what basic functions are connected to what so that we know to make sense of all these permissions.)
So the question is, what keyboard is the most secure to use?
Obvious Tips, but questionable:
Stick with reputable companies? - This to me can go either way. Just because they are a big name doesn't mean that they are necessarily more secure and honest. A lot of big names are very questionable and can probably get away with more....
Use a VPN? - By doing so, although the data is secure within the pipeline, would the actual input be vulnerable by collecting its data at the point of input before the data is actually sent? Possible I'm assuming...

They're all secure.
They're not saving everything you type in a database to somehow use against you later.
But what makes you that special that you think someone would do that?

Haha, because I'm Santa clause and I don't want anyone knowing my secrets. Lol j/k...
No but on a serious note, the thread was intended to be more general to address the point of how secure the keyboards really are and why they have the default prompt of it telling you that it has your personal info on tap at their disposal.

At the same time, I'm fully aware that most people don't care, but on the flip side of the coin there are people who do care for legitimate reasons whether it'd be work or what not. Either way, it raises an interesting question.

devynbf said:
They're all secure.
They're not saving everything you type in a database to somehow use against you later.
But what makes you that special that you think someone would do that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
SwiftKey can store your information in the cloud to be shared across devices, however.

RiverCity.45 said:
SwiftKey can store your information in the cloud to be shared across devices, however.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea I guess that's true. But I'm pretty sure anything you type isn't going to be relevant to, really, anything that matters on the scale OP is proclaiming.
Literally, absolutely nothing.

On the scale that OP is proclaiming? You're pretty optimistic. I'll give you that, but I think you're missing the point here. Not everyone is lolly dolly like you in thinking that everything is all fine and dandy where you can trust anyone and everyone. You're also pretty wishy washy and hesitant in agreeing with something that is true. What RiverCity.45 pointed out is true. Face it.
Literally, absolutely nothing? Where have you been hiding?
Also, what have you done to contribute to the original question? NOTHING. Just leave it be.
devynbf said:
Yea I guess that's true. But I'm pretty sure anything you type isn't going to be relevant to, really, anything that matters on the scale OP is proclaiming.
Literally, absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

I wouldn't be in such a hurry for "Q"

https://www.xda-developers.com/android-q-storage-access-framework-scoped-storage/
... Looks like porting old pie roms to new phones is going to become a thing

According to what I've read, it would be very easy to build a workaround for it, especially considering Google already has a workaround in place until Q apps are enforced in Google Play.

Also looks like it might be a pain in the ass

I cannot believe what I just read. I wasn't aware this was coming and I couldn't despise the decision more.
Proper access to the file system was for me one of the main advantages Android offered over iOS.
Way to go, Google...

I think this is the best move Google made for security thus far. Too many apps ask for full unfettered access to my storage. I will be happy when apps get a little bit more locked down in this aspect.

Scott said:
I think this is the best move Google made for security thus far. Too many apps ask for full unfettered access to my storage. I will be happy when apps get a little bit more locked down in this aspect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not even just storage, it's to everything these days. Why does the app for my Apex Fusion interface on my reef tank need access to contacts and text messages?
On topic, I agree 100% with you.

Those tears in my eyes... yeah not because of the blue light in the middle of the night here... because of what I read... agree +1

I personally think it's a good move. I don't use a lot of apps because of their required permissions.

Well if you can disable Q's "scooped storage" on per app basis with adb shell then it's easy to write a script that enables general storage for every app.
Sent from my OnePlus 6T through Tapatalk

hank81 said:
Well if you can disable Q's "scooped storage" on per app basis with adb shell then it's easy to write a script that enables general storage for every app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, but I'm sure eventually, just like with most every other special permission these days, you will wind up having to enable it on every boot.
Yes, the entire bug report is atrocious, but let's not get our pitchforks just yet. Google effectively punted on this for Android Q, by making it possible to contribute business as usual. It's quite possible that these issues will be resolved by Android P, or even that the whole idea will be scrapped in favor of something else.
The fact of the matter is that storage permissions in Android are terrible, Trying to address that is not in and of itself a bad thing, in fact I would argue that part alone is a good thing.
Attempting to read the tea leaves a little, this whole project reeks of "new hotshot product manager with poor (at best) understanding of the technical complexities at play forces bad decision into product because he needs to make 'highly visible' changes to the product to demonstrate his worth or get himself promoted". Especially given that the general idea at play isn't the part people are complaining about, just the fact that it's currently technically unusable as a posix api replacement, but the fact that the current one they have is terrible/slow/etc I find the above scenario to be highly likely

partcyborg said:
Attempting to read the tea leaves a little, this whole project reeks of "new hotshot product manager with poor (at best) understanding of the technical complexities at play forces bad decision into product because he needs to make 'highly visible' changes to the product to demonstrate his worth or get himself promoted". Especially given that the general idea at play isn't the part people are complaining about, just the fact that it's currently technically unusable as a posix api replacement, but the fact that the current one they have is terrible/slow/etc I find the above scenario to be highly likely
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats deep!

Scott said:
Thats deep!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lots of adult beverages to come up with this ?

Ayahuasca ?

Scott said:
I think this is the best move Google made for security thus far. Too many apps ask for full unfettered access to my storage. I will be happy when apps get a little bit more locked down in this aspect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't get this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you already disable specific permission for every app through system settings? Unless something like a wallpaper app refuses to work without access to your phone's contacts or something. Do you get what I'm saying?

roaduardo said:
I don't get this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you already disable specific permission for every app through system settings? Unless something like a wallpaper app refuses to work without access to your phone's contacts or something. Do you get what I'm saying?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not exactly. Storage access in the current world is a binary yes/no decision (well, 2 binary yes/no decisions if your device has a SD card slot), either "yes here is access to all of /sdcard" or "no you can't read or write to anything outside your specific app data folder". Using something like the API gives you the ability to do much more fine grained access like "give Poweramp access to my normal music collection in /sdcard/Music, but not my keepassxc password file.", Or "let photos index all the pics it finds on my machine, except for the ones in a 'certain' telegram folder".
The cause for pitchforks in the bug report isn't that people are in love with the posix apis for file access, just that the current Android API implementation is something like 50x slower in Android Q, making it essentially useless for file manager apps that need to do things like directory listings and maintain indexes of all shared storage, etc.