Android apps are blocking sideloading and forcing Google Play versions instead
You might sideload an Android app, or manually install its APK package, if you're using a custom version of Android that doesn't include Google's Play Store. Alternately, the app might be experimental, under development, or perhaps no longer maintained and offered by its developer. Until now, the existence of sideload-ready APKs on the web was something that seemed to be tolerated, if warned against, by Google.
This quiet standstill is being shaken up by a new feature in Google's Play Integrity API. As reported by Android Authority, developer tools to push "remediation" dialogs during sideloading debuted at Google's I/O conference in May, have begun showing up on users' phones. Sideloaders of apps from the British shop Tesco, fandom app BeyBlade X, and ChatGPT have reported "Get this app from Play" prompts, which cannot be worked around. An Android gaming handheld user encountered a similarly worded prompt from Diablo Immortal on their device three months ago.
Google's Play Integrity API is how apps have previously blocked access when loaded onto phones that are in some way modified from a stock OS with all Google Play integrations intact. Recently, a popular two-factor authentication app blocked access on rooted phones, including the security-minded GrapheneOS. Apps can call the Play Integrity API and get back an "integrity verdict," relaying if the phone has a "trustworthy" software environment, has Google Play Protect enabled, and passes other software checks.
Graphene has questioned the veracity of Google's Integrity API and SafetyNet Attestation systems, recommending instead standard Android hardware attestation. Rahman notes that apps do not have to take an all-or-nothing approach to integrity checking. Rather than block installation entirely, apps could call on the API only during sensitive actions, issuing a warning there. But not having a Play Store connection can also deprive developers of metrics, allow for installation on incompatible devices (and resulting bad reviews), and, of course, open the door to paid app piracy.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/09/android-now-allows-apps-to-block-sideloading-and-push-a-google-play-version/Open linkView original on lemm.ee
If the Play Store becomes required like that then Android's already-shaky status as an open source base platform is going to go out the window. I'm glad there are non-Google distros of Android but there really needs to be more of a push to make a completely FOSS phone platform.
There are Linux phones available. I,m going to guess popularity of those devices to increase soon.
That was the hope with Android, too.
The problem is that as the OS is "free" that means it costs less functionally for the device manufacturer to get an OS on the device, so now they can pour more money into bloatware.
Android was supposed to stop bloatware but all it did was enable it.
Even without a forced "store" Linux is prey to the same issue of piecemeal support from various vendors all with in-house solutions that all stink.
At this point, even that would be preferable.
Your right, any open platform will be bastardized eventually, but that doesn't mean there isn't still a need for "resets".
There is no perfect platform for escaping it, because the market forces will always adapt and assimilate. The only true escape is to keep moving.
That's why it's important for users to be hermit crabs, and move to the next thing, no matter how janky, because they will at least be able to influence it positively and have a relatively open platform for a number of years. Then the cycle repeats.
If propping up Linux phones will get us the open platform we need, even if only temporarily, we should do it.
The issue I think is that the current trends in all consumer software are increasingly user hostile, and the major platforms are creating ecosystems to support this. It's become the norm now to be able to directly control the usage of the software on consumer devices. Apple has normalized this, Google and Microsoft followed.
At what point will developers refuse to even create software for a system that doesn't allow them that control?
Look at how many developers out there absolutely jerk themselves raw at the idea they should be able to compel users to update to continue using their software. Look at how many believe the modern security culture fallacy that handcuffing users and throwing away the key is the only way to protect them.
It's a development culture issue. Respecting user control of their own device is no longer in vogue.
As much as I want that to be the case, I don't think full mobile gnu+Linux is really ready to use daily?
I haven't exactly been keeping up with things, mind you
I sub to a few mobile Linux feeds and I want but don't at all think mobile Linux is ready, even for tech devotees. Too battery hungry, not enough ease of use, missing functions, etc. And that's not including lack of apps.
Sailfish gets closest so far I think. But yes, not ready. Ubuntu touch last time I tried is fine but still a bit out of sorts.
Yes. I think a huge issue is Linux doesn't handle other app activities like how Android's Intent or Broadcast does.
Just a note, one of if not the most popular mobile Linux distro is PostmarketOS, which is not GNU (it's based on Alpine)
Good to know, that's not the one I had in mind, however.
For whatever reason I thought PMOS was based on Manjaro. Could be something as silly as associating one green logo with another.
I used it as my daily phone for months, and... well, I'm willing to deal with the problems. Without pretty careful battery management it's not feasible, and it's hard to manage your battery given the glitches. I often found my phone dead after a couple hours because it woke the screen immediately after I locked it because... reasons, and then kept it awake until the battery died. The biggest issue aside stuff like that (small issues that cause big problems), the biggest issue was I couldn't get a map app working. There are some distros with working maps, none for my phone. Also call quality was horrendous. Like. I'm known for being able to tolerate bad quality, but this was, at times, about as bad as I remember my firefly phone being when I was 12, and I could not feasibly understand people at times with that thing.
But the only reason I stopped using it was because the wifi isn't working on it. Once I get that back up and running I'll likely switch back to it. As bad as it can be at times, I still feel more comfortable having that as my primary phone than my Android.
Really appreciate the insight
I don’t want to be pessimistic about it, however I think it’s gonna be like Windows: enshittification will happen, but inconvenience is “too small” for people that they’ll rather check for a workaround than leave the platform.
My guess is that we need something more appealing like the Steam Deck to make people take the step.
Hear me out! The Steam Phone®!
Steam's UI is tolerable, but inconsistent. In a SteamDeck, OK, but in a phone? Idk.
I get that this isn't meant that seriously.
I'd be happy with 2010 era desktop Linux level of support. It doesn't need to get everybody to switch, just needs to be good enough for my needs.
Sadly the only people who would switch over to an actual Linux phone would be the people like the stereotypical Linux using Lemmy user. The average android user would just continue on like nothing happened because they're not tech literate enough to know what's going on or why they should care.
Hey! I bought this android cus Im Tech literate u-u
Though im not one bit familiar with Linux.
But part of the appeal of Linux is the fact that you can repurpose existing computers running other OSes to run Linux instead. This is a great way to lower the barrier to entry for Linux, because it's easy to test it on a Live USB or a dual boot. It's much harder to do this on phones because they have locked bootloaders.
Another problem is that phones are not productivity devices - they're consumption devices. Maybe this is just my personal bias, but I don't think people will be as passionate about liberating their phones because they're inherently less useful than computers. Convenient, yes, but useful? Not as much.
That said, I would love to be proven wrong. I would definitely consider a Linux phone if they become more popular/useful, but I can't really justify spending hundreds of euros/dollars on something for which I don't see any particular use.
When I say Linux phones, I mean selling a phone with Linux already or Linux ready, not taking existing phones with Android and putting Linux on them.
Examples:
Purism Librem 5
PinePhone Pro
Pro1 X
Volla Phone X23
There aren't, really. There are a few antiques and half baked things.
A big problem is that these days, unless you're the size of Apple or Samsung, it's impossible to get a reasonable hardware soc and modem other than one which only runs a soon obsolete blob laden android which is going to be EOL before you've even finished your design.
The hardware is not there. The firmware/hw data/platform isn't there even to begin OS work with. And there's a global shipping, regulation and mobile operator hell waiting on the other side. And a product lifecycle that's only a few years long.
Yes, I've worked for phone manufacturers.
The more I think about it, this may finally convince me to...shudders...switch to an iPhone. I've always stayed on Android because despite the recent Google bullshit, it still for the most part lets me do whatever. Side-loading apks is a huge part of that.
If it's turning into a shittier iOS clone, what's the point?
Don't do IOS, it's such a pain. It took us 2 days to figure out how to play an audio book file that I was able to download an F-droid app for and play in like 3 minutes.
Yup that sounds about right for iOS.
Meant more that if Android ends up in the same boat (and by the looks of it, that's exactly what Google and Samsung want), then iOS starts to look viable because the situation becomes: all the same bullshit but iOS is polished to a shine.
Don't plan on switching phones until my less than year old Note 9 kicks the bucket 😅
Can you side load on ios?
Seems like the kind of thing they wouldn't want you to do?
There are Linux mobile operating systems like PostmarketOS, but they are too early in development to be used by most people.
Murena phones look promising. And you can download their e/OS if you want to flash the phone you have, provided it's supported. https://murena.com
Seems stupid of them to crackdown on sideloading given their recent and ongoing monopoly spanking.
If someone would be buying those, someone would be selling. You have all the opportunity to fork current android, put it on a different platform, make sure all the drivers are open source instead of blobs, and sell it.
I'd really want to buy one. But I'll only do that after you somehow make sure the 3-5 major messaging apps, 2-3 major browsers, and a really good maps app are available.
So, basically, it's a 100 mil endeavor for an MVP really. So, I think, the chances of someone actually pulling it off are pretty slim.
This seems like a brilliant feature to roll out as they're getting investigated by the DOJ for being a monopoly.
Also, didn't the EU declare that Apple needs to allow other app stores on their devices?
This seems like a bonehead move all around..
everyone wants to be like apple
In this case, it seems like it's the app makers themselves who are requiring the Play Store, though. Unless I'm misreading this, the developers are using the Integrity API to determine if the app was installed through "official channels" (in this case, the Play Store). Feels like people should be upset at the companies behind the apps, here.
Okay. Then either use older backup versions of those apps before the requirement of the Play Store, or just quit using those apps and services and switch to less enshittified apps and services.
Easier said than done these days, I know..
Android already has other apps stores, like F-Droid.
Yes, I know. The point is that people seeking privacy eventually won't be able to use their banking apps and other online financial accounts unless they're signed into Google Play to 'authenticate' the app.
AKA force you into letting them steal more of your private info..
I kinda understand it from the bank's perspective... They need to reduce risk which is why a lot of banking apps check if the phone is rooted (if it's rooted, how can you be sure that a malicious app with root access isn't patching the app in memory and redirecting transfers to a different account?)
Having said that, I really don't think they need to restrict it such that the app can only be installed through the Play store, as long as the app is properly signed and uses certificate pinning to prevent MitM attacks.
Google : "You don't own your phone, we own you."
I unironically think so. It offloads the blame onto individual app developers. Google can turn around and say oh well it’s what the market wants
This has almost nothing to do with Google, it's a feature that has to be enabled by the app developer. Meaning they want to exclude users getting the APK for their app from elsewhere.
Kinda. It might be 3rd parties using it but it is 100% an API designed by Google to keep apps on Google Play.
For all we know it could have been requested years ago by developers who have apps that get pirated but there was no mechanism in place to implement it at the time, and wasn't a priority.
Just because it's beneficial to Google maintaining more direct control now, that doesn't necessarily mean that's the origin.
Well, there is a separate system for pirating prevention, the Google Play license check. That has existed for years.
If an app gets pirated they're going to have thrown out this check too.
Just the term "side loading" instantly frames installing software on a device you own as something shady.
Yes, that's the implication, and it's certainly intentional for you to think of it like that.
The fact that an entire generation thinks the only proper way to install software is through an app store is absolutely terrible. Talk about a boon for the gatekeepers, Apple and Google did a bang up job training them to trust no one else.
Schools and universities in principle should be the place where they're introduced to what really means to own a computer. The trend however seems to give out everyone a locked down e-waste with proprietary restrictions all over the place.
As a long time linux user i find it normal to only install apps through a package manager (essentially the same) but you have a defined API for package sources and can add sources as you like. that would be the best solution. manually installing apps IS risky, and opens the door for malware and incompatible packages, but if you have a trustworthy package source that your packa manager can varify its packages against it gets way better.
A package manager and app-store, which looks very similar from the outside, operates very differently with respect to security and privacy.
Microsoft saw Google and Apple do this with phones, and Steam do this with games, and that's why they made the Windows store a thing starting with 8.
They wanted to go the same direction.
I've had people clueless about tech tell me that:
using Linux and not buying Windows I rob MS's developers,
not doing things the way big corporations want I deprive them of profits and thus rob their workers,
using your own device the way you want it is a crime if you have to bypass what the vendor does,
GPL and BSD licenses are not real sovereign citizen stuff, and if I'm not paying someone for software, I'm robbing the working class,
repairing things yourself in your house is robbing people working in those trades,
reading things in the Web is robbing university professors and book store workers and publishers,
having to learn a particular technology while doing my task at work means I'm a fraud and rob my employer or our clients, because apparently I have to keep all the today's tech in my head before needing any of it,
if I don't know some single thing another person knows, they are obviously better qualified than me (say, that other person can write Windows device drivers, while the job is about systems integration),
...
and I don't remember more stupid shit from those people and I don't want to, but generally being not a dumb ape in today's world is considered suspicious apparently.
After that wonderful experience I might be silent about my views with people usually, but really I'll never stop being anarchist (whatever kind of anarchism that is).
I bet they'll say staying healthy without getting sick equals robbing from hospitals and pharmaceutical companies.
Their views were in general along the lines that there are poor people and there are rich people. Poor people owe nobody nothing (including respect to property rights, personal space, privacy and so on), and are owed everything. Rich people vice versa, it's them paying with rights for their asocial riches.
Now who's poor is not absolute, it's who owns less than deserved, and what's deserved is big for their friends and similar-minded people. And who's rich is the same, but owning more than deserved, and if they don't like you, you deserve less.
It's the kind of people who love Stalin.
Out of curiosity, where and in which social groups did you hear this? I have never heard such thoughts here in Germany, and we tend to be idiots.
Keep fighting the good fight, we have to keep the lights on in free soft- and hardware to provide a harbor for people who want to escape this shit.
Russia, the social group - eh, schoolteachers
Interesting, thank you!
"This shit" was said in the context of a society exactly opposite to anglosphere, where being "poor" is an indulgence for violating every moral rule, every promise, every obligation and every law.
More than that, it was said about the exact people who are, relatively speaking, not poor, rather almost privileged, but are hateful and envious of everyone actually doing useful work, and consider corruption good because in their opinion a bureaucracy worker stealing something entrusted to them is "a respected in the society person collecting rent from their position" or something like that.
The profession of a schoolteacher in Russia pays shit, which is why 3 kinds of people want that - those who are too dumb for other work, those who are idealistic, and those who want to feel that they are important and powerful (power over children) even more than to be paid well.
There are more people of the 2nd kind than you think, but those were of the 3rd undoubtedly. 1st kind is almost extinct - it's not hard to find a job that pays better, if you don't want power over children.
I think it's clear how the 3rd kind intersects with sympathies to sociopathic behavior, and sympathies for corruption and organized crime.
EDIT: Oh, I just realized you thought they were bootlickers and hateful of poor people in this memory of mine. No, they considered that BS to be good for poor people. Basically hateful of capitalism most when it's many small businesses honestly competing, but thinking oligopoly and state capitalism would be better. They considered me to be on the side of some "rich" people who hurt the poor. While big company owners and such were not, because they are apparently doing lots of charity etc and are respected people. So the "rich" they'd hate would be the "middle class", not the "boss class".
Where do find such bootlickers?
"side-loading" is literally the norm on Windows and Linux
This poster gets it!
What is a "trustworthy software environment"?
Does that mean that it will get mad and fail you for having Developer options enabled? Having F-Droid installed? Having it plugged into a computer?
There's a bank here that refuses to let you log into their app if you have developer options enabled. Their service was getting much better until that point, but I dropped them completely after that.
I use developer options to get better screen density on my large ass screen, and to you know...develop apps 🤷♂️
FUCK THESE ASSHOLES WHO THINK THEY CAN TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CAN NOT DO WITH MY PHONE
People seriously need to start pushing back on the word "secure" being used as a blanket excuse for every restriction.
It feels like every time that word is used, no one is willing to call out the fact that user freedom is equally as important and it's a lazy, disrespectful developer who won't take that into account by finding ways to maintain both.
The Papa Murphy's app does this as well, it's ridiculous
According to the dumbfucks making the government application of Belgium (to read official communication) trustworthy means having developer mode disabled.
Androids best advantage used to be full control of the device... Those were the days. Then it started with saying they know better than you, then locking you out. Now I'm waiting on a new, better solution.
Honestly it's not like native Linux is too far fetched, but there would have to be a big open source common ground device collaboration.
Man I really hate how they stripped your permissions to access the internal and external storage, files can no longer access data from other apps even if you say allow all file access. Also if your phone supports SD cards, you might notice that you don't have write access to it for some reason on later versions of android. (I really struggled with this with my Galaxy S9 on Lineage), had to use apps that remounted my SD card and what not
So the EU's been forcing Apple to allow sideloading and Google goes Nah, it'll be fine?
Google still allows sideloading, it's the app developers that can prevent you from installing their app from other sources than Google Play. Sideloading an app works fine on Android if the app's developer allows it. Apple didn't allow that even if the app devs wanted it.
You are technically (and possibly legally) correct... But the spirit of the law is allowing customers to install what they want on their devices.
This move defuses the responsibility to the developers but EU showed in the past that what they care is the spirit of the law and not the law itself...and they are happy to change the laws to make them more adherent to the spirit
I would be really happy if you're right, but I sadly think Google's fine here. As far as I understand it, this particular regulation is to prevent a powerful actor (Google, Apple) to use their monopolistic powers to shut alternative stores down. It's not about allowing customers to install whatever and however. Google doesn't shut anyone down with this, so they should be fine. They give the option for app developers to choose if they want to run only on an attested platform - which they sell as a completely optional security feature that nobody has to use.
My guess is if the EU is going to take this further it would have to be regarding a potential monopoly on the attested platforms on the device. Google only offering their own platform as trusted could potentially be seen as another monopolistic behavior. If we're lucky.
The problem is though that the attested platform only accepts Google play as a store, for this to be truly fair you'd need a way to set a default store setting up and then the attestation API checks that store, but as things currently are it's giving Google play store an unfair advantage.
Waiting for steamphone
So the EU's been forcing Apple to allow sideloading and Google goes Nah, it'll be fine?
No but you see we at Google aren't locking down sideloading. It's the individual app developers. With the api we gave them for that express purpose. Totally not us locking stuff down though, so EU please ignore us trying to indirectly close doors in our walled garden?
the same API that helps your app ASO
Ehh, this is basically just another form of DRM. No different than you having a Steam and GOG model. You can make your apps using DRM and enforce certain constraints
wut? The main selling point of GOG is that games purchased from them are DRM-free.
Yes, that's my point. Android "doesn't" have to use Google Play Store, but it is convenient. Other store fronts exist like F-droid and many vendor specific one. Google just provide the DRM mechanism like steam does provide DRM via steamworks
There already exists a "Google Play licence check" permission apps can use to verify whether or not the app has been bought on a Google account that's present on the device.
If people can crack the app to remove this (which is a thing for some of the popular apps), they'll also figure out how to patch this out. This is strictly useful for free apps, and only serves to make it unviable to distribute verifiably clean apk's outside of Google Play (so rip APKMirror)
What I mean by that is, this is just an API/SDK for app developers to use. Google does not enforce the use of such things. Much like steam does not force the use of their drm for example (please note the difference between the marketplace and the drm). App developers can always choose how they make and distribute their app.
Enforcing payment comes to mind without resorting to in-app purchase or any account creation. A lot of desktop software is a good example of those. Sure, you can still have cracks and whatnot, but then again, that's not the point. Might as well ask what is the point of Denuvo. That is a whole other discussion.
Nothing comes to mind. DRM literally means digital rights management and unless you wanted to be petty, like blocking a certain person from using your app, then DRM for something free is not something that I can think of a use case for.
Google is allowing the app developers to choose (for now?). With Apple, developers never had the option to allow other stores or sideloading.
Fuck off google.
...as I upvote you from my Pixel. ☹️ I give the sad face because Google isn't who they once were and I'm just going to have to deal with that.
Never ask a company to pick between the right thing and profit. It was all a matter of time till Google needed to stop growing and start producing profit for investors.
To make it worse the Pixel 9 starts at $800 just like iPhone. So if you're buying Android you don't really save money over an iPhone like you used to.
It's fundamentally impossible for a publicly traded company not to choose profit over 'The Right Thing', fullstop. Shareholders feel that have a fundamental right to growth, and if Google's CEO were to choose 'The Right Thing' over profit, the shareholders can oust them in favor of a CEO willing to choose profits.
Enshittification is where every public company ends up, because the line MUST go up, no other alternative is acceptable.
Google and apple you can let us worry about our security ourselves, thank you, though I'm sure you have our best interests in mind and only that
This is just Google's clever way of not removing the sideloading feature from their OS.
They let app developers to prevent users from using sideloaded app.
This way they can avoid antitrust lawsuits.
It's the apps that prevent themselves being sideloaded. Presumably, their devs will enact similar policy on EU iOS too.
F-Droid
Most of the apps I have and use are installed via Droidify. The ones that aren't are company apps, like banking or airline. I could just used the web sites for those; they're only conveniences.
My phone isn't rooted, and I didn't read the article so I don't know how this will affect me. If push comes to shove, I'll simply bite the bullet and get a phone I can install Linux on next time, regardless of how polished for daily driving it is.
I would most likely be using a phone with Ubuntu Touch on it as my daily driver if it wasn't for the fact that the cellular carriers force me to have VoLTE support for calls, which is kind of the point for a phone! And guess the one thing Ubuntu Touch doesn't have support for!
One reason would be that with an iPhone, you're paying two to five times the price of an Android phone with comparable hardware.
Hardware isn't everything. Apple has a couple of advantages over iPhone that let them do more with less:
The selling points for Android (at least the way I've seen it over the years) have always been full control (talking about non-root, I'd rather not go down the root rabbit hole here) and (since iPhone 11 started doing firmware blocks on parts) reparability...but both seem to be going out the window lately.
Prices are crap though, but then again Android phones on the top end don't seem much better. 1-2 gen old iPhones are usually a bit more reasonable though tbh.
the google store environment is such a pain, at work we have android based Zebra barcode readers... today when I was sideloading our app one of the devices kept uninstalling it because of google play... what a fucking pain in the ass
only when intune fully took it over did it stop...
DONT MAKE ME LIKE INTUNE GOOGLE.... JFK
Did you turn off Play Protect?
And yeah, when we set these barcode scanners up, unfortunately it made me appreciate Intune's Android management tools. I despise Microsoft and Google, but Microsoft won that round of "Who do I hate the least right now?"
I had a workflow that I designed in May and then we had to wait for the fiscal year to turn over before we could get another batch of the new style of devices. Between May and this week, Microsoft and Google must have made some changes because my workflow didn't work as directed. I hadnt needed to disable Play Protect for that initial workflow. I just waited until the Intune enrollment was clearly done (policies and profiles were completed in Intune) before I did the customization of the device with abs and such, that seemed to make the other devices go according to plan.
He'd probably try eating the stupid thing!
It's not like dedicated people aren't going to be able to just patch out the calls to this API from the apps themselves...
This feels like yet another attempt at DRM that is doing more harm than help.
You mean like literally every single attempt at DRM since the Big Bang?
Indeed, I already bypass SafetyNet and Play integrity with some kind of xposed module, I don't expect this to change.
Whoa, is Xposed still a thing that works? Had to use Magisk instead to get the safety net stuff working on Lineage OS android 11
Xposed is just an API which is provided by the LSPosed Magisk module.
Huh...the more you know. I just assumed Magisk was a spiritual successor, apparently I misunderstood how any of it works.
Can you tell me which modules you use? I am trying to pass SafetyNet on Waydroid but can't pass even basic integrity.
I've used Magisk with the safetynet module + hiding root from apps with like a 95% success rate. Quick search for "magisk safetynet" and look at the xdadevelopers threads
idk where I got it from, but it's called "Universal SafetyNet Fix" by kdrag0n
Did you just install the module and passed safetynet or did you have to use custom fingerprint? Also are you on custom or stock rom?
Don't remember, sorry
Am on e/os/
Why would that be possible? Wouldn't the developer have their server rejected any calls from "unsigned" apps?
If functionality exists in the client app, there's nothing to be done to stop someone from bypassing checks.
Looking into it further this looks like it's an API between the backend of a service and Google though. That would be difficult to defeat, but you could probably spoof the identity of the requesting device with enough effort
Possibly, but many apps don't actually need to phone home to function.
Of course that doesn't stop developers arbitrarily requiring it.
I get most of my stuff via F-Droid or I could use Obtainium. My tablet is Google-free. This sounds like my phone should be Google-free as well.
Yeah but banking apps are starting to check integritynet, and (in France, at least) they're pretty much mandatory to do anything useful with your bank account/credit card online... I think Uber does too, I boycott them but others might follow suit...
Currently running lineageos, but I think I'll just give up and go for a Pixel for my next phone... Sucks to let google win but I like to do useful things with my phone...
for me for example i just use the web version of navy federal, works pretty fine.
You can't in some countries. Like if you want to wire something, or setup a payment you have to use the app. It's mandatory. If you go through the website it ask to open the app to confirm it's you.
So people that only have a computer and not a smart phone can't do those things at all?
Yes. They to go to a physical location. Then ask an employee there... Sounds so stupid to me but 🤷♂️
They have to call, mail or physically go to the bank I guess.
i feel like if you switch to the desktop version of the website, it wont pester you.
Unfortunately it will, if I want to add a new transfer recipient or make a payment on a 3D secure website, the app is mandatory, even on desktop.
I use a hardware TAN generator though I also have a banking app as a fallback on my Lineage OS phone. If I ever buy a Pixel it's only to install Graphene OS on it.
Sadly most French banks use a custom validation process which requires you to use their app to validate a transaction. And my main bank's app has warned me that it will "soon" stop working on custom ROMs...
You can still pass play integrity with a rooted phone/custom ROM. Mine is currently passing with strong while rooted.
What do you use? I rooted my phone precisely for this, but google pay and my bank still see I'm not on the stock ROM : (
I'm currently using APatch, PIFork in script-only mode, and Tricky Store with a leaked keybox.
If you need to spoof for apps you'll need some other stuff. For APatch there's a thing called Cherish Peekaboo, for KernelSU you can use Shamiko. These will do their best to hide the fact that you're rooted from apps. There are some detector apps that can help you fix things that apps might see, but there not entirely needed.
Also since you're not on the stock ROM, you'll need to spoof your props so just use the regular Play Integrity fix.
Turing in to Apple
Waging war against ad blockers and third party clients and now this it seems?
Amazing that they can't seem to see that they are not going to win any customers by trying to out Apple Apple.
Haha, gross: We can't control the devices we own.
I genuinely don't even know where to buy an affordable device that is free from this kind of control. Some company always has outsized control (and in some cases arguably surveillance) over anything you can find on the market. It sucks so bad.
Ironically, it might be Pixel + Graphene
How tricky is this to install and use? I have a samsung and use lots of the usual apps. Wondering if it would be feasible for that purpose.
Haven't tried yet but it's becoming increasingly appealing to me lol
Was always inching closer, but looks like android has fully outstayed its welcome. The revolving door of executives hit its last person with any integrity on the ass on their way out the door.
I have an android DAP (music player) that runs Android 7. It's a box with a headphone jack (remember those?) and it's sole purpose is to play offline music from an SD card.
I side-loaded a few music players, because there's no way I'm putting my Google password in android 7 in 2024.
I'd be upset if I couldn't side load. These DAPs never have an up to date android.
Let's hope the music apps I use don't block sideloading.
Poweramp won't. Musicolet?
Likely android 7 would not honor (or even be aware) of this new metadata bit. You'll be fine 🙂
They’re still pissed that people won’t put up with their shitty YouTube app and use Revanced instead, eh?
That's not on Google Play so it doesn't affect it. I honestly don't know what the point of this is.
Oh I see, so it only affects modded apks.... They probably want to crack down on all those slightly-shady "spotify premium free"-apks.
No, it only affects vanilla apks where the dev implemented the check. For some reason the dev might forbid to run the app to users that side loaded the app instead of getting it from play store
Patched/modded apks are unaffected because the check is patched out
That seems likely. The question comes down to where the line should be drawn. Allow the apps the be installed and then when the data is eventually reported/found by the app owners to have them file law suits against those who are "stealing" from them, or to not allow the cracked application to be loaded in the first place, which is easily disguised as a security protocol because if an app has code in it that is not originally supposed to be there, it is very possibly a form of malware, which then can hurt the users in the long run or short run if it actually acts malicious and starts doing shit like old school viruses did on PC.
People want to say we own the device so we should be able to do whatever we want, but blatantly allowing people to install cracked apps with keyloggers onto their phones unintentionally will get them sued, and ultimately hurt how many people stay using their products.
Imagine every user and password with the site listed was suddenly just accessible by everyone. It would be a hellscape of credit card companies trying to stop accounts because you order 18 pizzas off the dominos app in Georgia, and another 13 sandwiches in the burger king app at the same time in Jersey.
We need to have the freedom to load apps we trust, but if you look at the standard user base, that's who they have to make the phones for.
Could do something like make the users agree to terms by taking the phone into developer mode that makes them non responsible somehow? Might not hold up in court when they get sued though. "All the photos I took on my phone got shared online"
It has been 16 years since Android came on the scene. Why do you think that these things are going to become such a big issue now in 2024 and beyond?
I think things are fine the way they are, we don't need to interfere, unless for profits ofcourse.
The only reason I'm still sticking with Android is the ability to sideload
I have no reason to use an android if this is the road Google wants to follow and expect my next phone to be an iPhone SE
May as well sideload on iOS~
The only caveat is you Gotta pay yearly $99 for dev account or be limited to 3 apps.
Looks like you’re someone who doesn’t read but it uses DNS filters to use revoked certificates.
I read through your tutorial. One thing it doesn't mention(probably, ADHD means sometimes I skip a line or two and don't realise) is if there's a lower limit for iOS version. Does it assume the person following along has a device <X years old?
Works fine on latest version.
What's the oldest version it works on?
I am not really sure, iOS 13 I suppose?
Cool, thanks.
I'm in this boat. I really liked using Android and tinkering with it. If I do so now I cannot even use my banking app without doing aftercare each update
I just won't use any apps that do this. Simple.
Good luck when banking apps start doing this.
I'll be real, I wouldn't trust a banking app from any third-party storefront to begin with. That's the sort of app I'd really want to be properly vetted and secured.
If you're using a custom de-googled rom you don't have the play store, so this would just gut that functionality :/ same for any other app that decides they need this, which if the past is anything to go on is going to be a ton of apps that really don't need it
When did Google start verifying security on play?
Play Protect has been around for a few years now and will disable apps it detects that are abusing user data.
My point is, it doesn't do much, if anything.
aww man is that still a thing ( as in working )
But, there's no difference in security between using a different storefront? The difference in security depends on the app itself, not where it was downloaded from.
Assuming the app is legitimate, sure. But unless you can verify the code, yourself, then you're having to trust that the source you download from hasn't altered the APK in some way. That's a pretty big risk for most people when it comes to finance apps.
APKs are signed, you can verify the integrity of an APK. If you have a previous version of an app installed, a new version with incorrect signature won't even install.
Yeah but I mean if your bank would offer their app through F-Droid as an addition to Google Play, there is no reason to assume the app suddenly got less secure because of that.
Do we really need banking apps? Fuck it I'll use their website.
The features you miss out on would be direct deposit from checks and app notifications (usually there are a few that you want enabled but are only available through the app).
Most banks I've used allow SMS notifications for things like deposits and purchases.
The check things is true but I need to use it like less than once a year so eh.
There's an app to make web apps icons. Or just use Firefox to add the bookmark to your homepage
Hermit - Lite apps browser
Some places are ditching the website and going app-only. Stockpile as an example.
personally, i wouldn't trust a third-party created app with my banking details. what's more, i've removed all banking apps from my phone.
i don't need to allow access to my finances on the device which is most likely to get pinched out of everything i own. plus google and apple don't need to know which banks have accounts of mine.
imo that additional inconvenience to conduct all banking transactions from a browser is worth the candle.
Cash. No app part. Just cash.
Yeah until the cops pull you over and take your cash under civil asset forfeiture because it's "suspicious that you have so much cash on hand".
https://ij.org/press-release/highway-robbery-in-reno-nevada-cops-use-civil-forfeiture-to-steal-a-veterans-life-savings/
I knew a dev once that absolutely refused to use banks. I'm a populated California city. With security cameras all over outside, everywhere. Buried cash in Mason jars. We lost touch but I always wondered how that worked out.
There's no way my broke ass would ever have that much cash.
Oh shit..
I already have to do this. My office wants everyone to use the MS authenticator app, won't run on LineageOS. Even if it did, I wouldn't install it, but still.
Ended up making them purchase a hardware security key for me instead.
Google Pain Services. Google Pisses Itself API.
Long live custom degoogled ROM.
Well, at least not without root lol
Root detecting apps to Side loading detecting apps:
First time?
I installed FakeStore and set the app's relevant
/data/system/packages.xmlproperties from Aurora Store to FakeStore (installer="com.android.vending" packageSource="0" installInitiator="com.android.vending", the same as Google Play Store) and rebooted, which was enough to fool the public transport app I'm using. Is this the workaround you're talking about, or does it require MicroG too?Yea that sounds about right, really hiding root is straight up magic as is (even though it's a cat and mouse game lol) and achieving that is 98% of the hard work of hiding the fact an app has been sideloaded. Short of a complete overhaul from Google where they actually try that is.
Which, if I'm being honest, doesn't seem like they are. It seems like a rather simple system all things considered. There's no Playstore specific keys or signatures or file checks or hashs as far as I can tell. Its just a flag and checking if Playstore exists on the device at all
"root access is used to bypass security measures!!!! We will make it harder to root your phones to keep your data safe" – Google
The EU is going to be furious about this
I hope so. I don't want Android to become the new Apple
Nah, I doubt it. The app developers are freely adding this themselves.
The EU should limit Google giving developers this ability is what they mean
I also dislike DRM but I don't think it makes any sense to make it illegal.
Well that fucking sucks
The whole point of #Android is the ability to control your device without #Apple, or #Google, or anyone else dictating your apps and content.
@lemmee_in @android
gee I wonder how long it will be before I can download the custom patches to get around this
Revanced patches will go BRRRRR on these
Good that most apps I use now are open source but for those few that I still get from Aurora Store it might be a death sentence but perhaps this API could be spoofed?
From where does the aurora store get the binaries?
From the Play store
I use apps that aren't available in my region for language study, so this could end up being a real problem for me.
This is stupid. I will dig further into the real impact to Graphene.
Can we do anything ?
Custom ROM or just go back to a flip phone.
It's only going to get worse with the big players from this point on.
I honestly think I'll be getting a feature phone next time. I'll keep an old smartphone just for Android Auto and that's it.
Some time ago, I looked at kaios devices, and they looked really cool. I only didn't get one because I need to use some banking apps only available for android
OK I'm not going crazy then.
Yeah, it happens to Spotify mods as well. This isn't good
Ew. Fuck google
I hate having to be on the side of "Defending" google... but this is the app makers fault, They are the ones using whats provided and installing the artificial limitations.
Google just provided the capability to do it. The app makers are executing it.
No, thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood that part.
i JUST started enjoying adfree YouTube via revanced, now it could go away?! fuck lol
This has absolutely nothing to do with ReVanced.
oh okay, thanks
Lucky Patcher?
I'm pretty new to this sort of stuff. I was planning to buy Google Pixel 8 sometime in November when they usually have sales. And install GrapheneOS. I never used this type of stuff before.
So will I have some trouble installing some stuff like some of mobile games, banking app, emails, etc? I'm in Canada if this help.
This explains why I couldn’t install retroarch on the GalaxyS24 Ultra of a friend via apk or google play store. Would not work, but somehow the Galaxy store version worked….
App developers need ways to know the app has not been modified in unsanctioned manner, glad to see Android finally catching up on security with integrity checks.
No, this will only lead people without access to Google Play to be forced to get it from somebody who has modified the app to fake the check.
If they don't have access to Play, then the developer of that app specifically does not want to service them as a user. Developers have to enable this feature in their own apps for it to do anything. If that developer wanted to support de-Googled users, they wouldn't enable this in the first place.
It's my phone. If I'm specifically going out of my way to do that, they have no right to force me to do it their way.
Why do you think apps should verify their integrity in the first place? In the case of banking apps or other online apps, the APIs they use should be secure in the first place so a user can't achieve anything meaningful by modifying API calls. In the case of offline games with monetization, a hacker who makes a pirated APK will also remove the restriction so legitimate players on non standart ROMs will get screwed. In the case of messaging apps with a "delete messages" or "one time view" function ie. Whatsapp, the sender shouldn't take that their actions will be respected by other clients because modded apps exist and Whatsapp doesn't care if you install it on a rooted device.
This!
APK signatures exist and they're enough for making sure the file you got isn't modified. Warning people when they use apks for stuff like banking, I get, but if they wanna take the risk, it's on them.
Blocking root makes no sense because I'd argue that if the person knows enough to root their phone and got past all those bricked phone/thermonuclear war warnings, the onus is on them to not get their keychain compromised by giving root to some random app. Again, a warning is fine.
Aside from that, people need to understand: THE CLIENT IS NEVER SECURE. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Any self respecting secure API is made under the assumption that all the calls are coming from some malicious state actor using
curluntil proven beyond doubt that it's an actual user.API are secure only if you can secure the authentication details. A modified app (be it as something modified and distributed on a unsanctioned channel, or custom injected by another malicious actor/app) can easily siphon out your authentication tokens to a third party unbeknownst to you the user. However, if the app verifies it came from the approved source and have not been tempered with, then it is much easier to lean on ASLR and other OS level security to make it harder to extract the authentication info.
Multiplayer game operators have obligation to curb modified clients so their actual paying clients have a levelled playing field. By ensuring their apps are only distributed via approved channels and unmodified by malicious players, this improves their odds at warding off cheaters creating a bad time for those that actually pay them to play fairly.
These are just simple cases where this kind of security is beneficial. I am glad Android is finally catching up in this regard.
Downloading APKs from reputable sources and signature checking can help with this one. Android will refuse to upgrade an app if APK has a different signature anyways.
If this is possible there are bigger problems.
There isn't much I can say for that.
Personally, it's not Google's place to dictate how an app verification ecosystem works. If a company has developed an app, they need to be the ones to make sure it's secure in the first place, not trusting a monopolist tech company that has almost all control with how someone uses their phone.
Google has rules yes, but Android is open-source and should be open with a free & open market for apps. After all, we paid for the device.
Yup, this is important for certain apps with a high security bar. Surprised at all the downvotes.
like the McDonalds app, which already requires workarounds to work on rooted devices?
You want affordable food, you WILL pay them with your data. Always on location please! Oh and precise as well, thank you.
Of course not, sometimes it really is just corpo bs, don't use their app if it's such an issue for you.
Slippery slope. Soon it wil be for all fucking mundane apps because they don't want you running a modded version...which is my fucking choice to do
This is Lemmy. If you’re not advocating for FOSS, or piracy to spite the corporations, you’re gonna get downvoted. I don’t care. We need better security standards whether these kids like it or not.
Security by default is fine, but not if its being forced.
If I go out of my way to root my phone or sideload an app, I have a reason for that. I'm fine with an app going "Hey! This phone is rooted / this app is not from an official source! Wait 10s before you can click 'I understand and take full responsibikity in case of a security breach'".
I'm not OK with an app going "I will not work on this device because yiur environment is non-standard, period".
This does jack-all for security, it's just monopolization in disguise and you're buying into it.