They 100% would stop you if they could.
It’s why Google’s website DRM thing was so scary.
Was? What did I miss? Even if it was discarded, there will aways be another attempt.
Basically Google wanted to put checksums in webpages and then not render the page period if the checksum didn’t match and said checksum could only be verified by “approved” browsers that had the correct certificate (which surprise was Chromium only browsers such as Chrome and probably Edge). As such you wouldn’t have been able to run any adblockers as that would change the checksum and the way the page was rendered. They could also then go one step further and do a Denouvo type set up to make sure the OS wasn’t being altered.
Super useful technology for security purposes!
Super scary technology for literally everything else.
Yes, I know about what they attempted (actually published some of it already in an official repo).
But why you talk in past tense? Have they reverted the changes and publicly pinky-promised not to do it?
not was, is.
i dont think they dropped it.
Okay, so I originally was going to go in a long rant about how they’re still doing it, but decided that it didn’t really add much to the comment, so removed it.
Afaik they’ve, for now at least, shelved it in browsers, but are still going ahead in Android webviews (as part of their war on Youtube Vanced).
i guess they will probably try again with a new name later when the dust settles. can never trust them.
what about android webviews, i thought it isnt related to vanced? how do they plan to kill vanced this time?
MV3 is still happenning
I actually heard something about that in class not long ago
The story is that Android’s security heavily relies on the compartmentalization of apps that lives in the android layer, over the Linux kernel. Apparently, that functionality works in part because only this layer can perform operations that require root access, no app or user can. So software that allows you to root your phone apparently breaks this requirement, and makes the whole OS insecure. He even heavily implied that one should never root their phone with ‘free’ software found on the internet because that was usually a front for some nefarious shit regarding your data.
I’m just parroting a half-understood and half-remebered speech from a security expert. His credentials were impressive but I have no ability to judge that critically, if anyone knows more about this feel free to correct me.
Isn’t saying that allowing apps to have root lets them access anything just describing what root is? A rooted phone doesn’t have to give superuser access to every app.
A rooted phone doesn’t have to give superuser access to every app.
Sure, but apps that run as superuser can access anything, including the data and memory for banking apps. A big part of Android’s security model is that each app runs as a different user and can’t touch data that’s exclusively owned by another user.
It just means you need to trust apps that you give root access to, or only give elevated privileges during the very specific times when apps need them. Root isn’t something people who don’t know what they’re doing should be messing around with, I guess. But I’d think a lot of people who root their phone know and accept the risks.
People like you or I may know what we’re doing with a rooted device, but I think the issue for the banks is that they can’t guarantee that someone with a rooted phone knows what they’re doing or isn’t using a malicious app, so they have to be cautious and block all rooted phones.
An app that requires root may look like a normal app but it could be a trojan that modifies banking apps in the background (eg patches them on disk or in RAM so transfers done through the app go to a different recipient). There’s been malicious apps in the Play Store in the past, and rooted apps have way less oversight - some are literally just APK files attached to XDA-Developers posts or random blog sites.
I take your point, and I’m sure you’re right about the banks’ rationale, but in my own view it does not seem like it should be the banks’ decision to make.
As soon as a bank offers any sort of fraud protection, though, security becomes a bank issue (in addition to a “you” issue).
Not at all saying I agree with the banks on this, but I think that may be part of the thinking.
Your risk exposure is that you could lose your bank account balance. The banks risk exposure is that they could lose every bank account balance exploited by the same rooted phone vulnerability. So they evaluate risk differently than you do.
bro I gave my nana root on her eye phone and by the end of the week she had hacked half of North Korea - the other half thought her actions were a good example of juche ideals. It was crazy ngl
I think he was trying to say apps get access to “root features” through an abstraction layer/API calls that is controlled.
They don’t/wouldn’t have carte blanche root access to the underlying system. It’s kinda like a docker container or VM or flatpaks/snap packages on Linux. They are sandboxed from everything else and have to be given explicit premission to do certain things(anything that would need root privileges/hardware access).
No, but it can.
I wouldn’t even feel compelled to root my phones if Google would actually back up my phone instead of whatever 1/4 baked shit they’ve done thus far.
I’ve been using android since 2010, and it’s gotten significantly better over the years. There’s only a few things it doesn’t back up, like text messages and app data, most of which you don’t need.
Mine backs up my text messages, but I would prefer to backup my app data, authenticators, wallpaper, themes, games, etc., not every app is a shitty front-end to a website.
It is not Android that is backing up most things though, it is mostly done by Google Services. That means that your data is effectively vendor locked-in if you want to use Android as an actual open source project. Google gutting the AOSP to this extent should be illegal (maybe even is, but might is right).
The problem is very simple - the majority of people are technically illiterate. Apple and Google saw the Windows XP security fiasco, looked at how many people use smart phones today and decided that giving users any rights is not worth the risk.
Because they want to “protect” you from “yourself”. Imagine, you could scrape your own data that you can already see.
I’d be really worried if the security of server operation for my bank depended on the client-side. But playing devils advocate, some people will most likely point out that a root exploit on a phone may be unintentional and used to spy on people, to which I answer:
- show me a big scary box where I can “accept the risk” and move on
- keep in mind that if I am root on my phone, I can hide the fact that I am root on my phone and you’ll be none the wiser
Currently, option 2 is in effect, sadly.
The issue with option one is that scammers get old (or not technical) people to do stuff when they don’t know what they’re doing and click the box not knowing what they just did. So yes very frequently they need to protect people from themselves because they’re dumb, but I still expect banks to do business with those dumb people, sooo… Option 2 it is.
Ok but also What tech illiterate person roots there phone
That’s where this part becomes relevant
a root exploit on a phone may be unintentional and used to spy on people
I think I just figured it out, hang on with me.
It’d be the tech literate person in the family. The nephew that’s working as a programmer or something like that. Now, if that nephew has some interest in stealing their uncles money, they now have access to their bank account through a freely rooted phone.
This gives them a lot of options, which I don’t have to explain.
Given that a lot of scams actually happen between presumed family and friends…
Yeah I kinda get why banks are doing this
Option 2 is not long for this world
As long as we’ll have control over the software, it’ll be there. If we reach the point were you’re not allowed to own computers, we’ll have bigger problem.
You deftly evaded the leading attack vector: social engineering. Root access means any app installed could potentially access sensitive banking. People really are sheep and need to be protected from themselves, in information security just like in anywhere else.
You don’t get a “accept the risk” button because people don’t actually take responsibility, or will click on those things without understanding the risk. Dunning Kruger at play.
Why is this prevalent on Android but not desktop Linux? Most likely a combination of 1) Google made it trivially easy to turn on, and 2) the market share of Android is significantly large enough to make it a problem warranting a solution.
The fact that you know how to circumvent it is inconsequential to the math above. Spoiler: you never were nor ever will be the demographic for these products, in their design, testing, and feature prioritisation.
Root access means any app installed could potentially access sensitive banking
That’s not how it work. Having a rooted phone does not turn it into a digital farwest were every application can do anything. It becomes a permission like everything else; if you only grant it to safe stuff (like, for example, not granting root to a single app but using it to customize your phone through ADB), there’s not much to see here.
The word “potentially” was critical in the parent’s comment. A banking app cannot be assured that other apps are prevented from accessing its data when the phone is rooted.
So? If I, the customer, want to access my banking info, on my phone, with whatever means I want, I should be able to. As I said, it’s not like every app gets root access, if I, as the owner of the device, explicitly gave root access to something, it’s for a reason.
And the main point that a rooted phone can basically hide itself from any app remains; these “detections” are trivially bypassed in the exact situation they’re supposed to detect.
And if you don’t want to wear a mask on your face during a pandemic, you should be able to? Not everything is about you.
Banks practice defense in depth as other security practitioners do. Not every defense will stop every attack, so a layered, overlapping approach is used.
You really are missing the point that if the device is rooted there is nothing an app can do to protect itself. Defense in depth is layering (sometimes overlapping) solutions that do something. Detecting root and saying “nuh-uh” is not doing anything.
The reason is very simple: They rely on Google Safetynet (basically self-diagnosis). And that will immediately tell you off if it notices your device is rooted. And while you can have a lengthy discussion regarding whether this makes your phone less secure or not, this is another simple argument from Google’s POV: The device has obviously been tampered with, we don’t want to put any resources into covering this case. As far as we are concerned, you shouldn’t use our OS like this.
So basically laziness.
SafetyNet is dead.
They rely on Play Integrity API.
That covers:
App Binary signatures App source corroboration - Was it actually installed from the Play Store? Android device attestation - Is it a genuine device powered by Google Play Services Malware detection - Google Play Protect is enabled and has not seen known malware signatures.
They can choose to ignore any number of those but they do not. It’s part of their security reporting requirements to use attestation I expect.
Beyond that - a device that doesn’t meet Play Integrity is more likely to be a malicious actor than it is to be a tech enthusiast with a rooted phone: One of them is far more prevalent than the other in terms of device usage.
Android apps are trivial to reverse engineer, inject code into and generally manipulate. That lets apps like ReVanced work the way they do… but that also means that blue team developers have a lot more work to do to protect app code.
Source - Android App Developer, worked on apps with high level security audits (like banking apps).
The banking apps I’ve tried don’t require SafetyNet, instead they use Android AOSP’s
basicIntegrity. The latter doesn’t require certification by Google, but also checks whether the device is rooted and the bootloader is locked.This means custom ROM’s on most devices won’t pass
basicIntegrity, as only Google Pixel,OnePlusand Fairphone allow for relocking the bootloader.OnePlus no longer supports that as of ColorOS OxygenOS 12 unfortunately.
That’s a bummer. Seems like Google Pixel and Fairphone are the only ones left. I don’t even know why manufacturers wouldn’t allow for relocking or even unlocking of their phones. I can’t imagine they make much money with user data and the phone is already paid for. Warranty claims shouldn’t be much of an issue either, as modifications can be easily detected and it’s likely not a relevant amount of people anyway.
Google and Apple have been very successful at convincing everyone, including banks, to see the idea of users having control over their own phone-like computers as dangerous.
Next thing you know, banks will try to convince its clients that they really don’t need to access all their money.
Because as per usual they don’t understand security. I have started choosing my bank based on software they have. If software looks competent, that’s my most significant influence.
They think rooted device = insecure device, but at the same time PC is even less secure and yet all the business users use them and more to the point have passwords written on a sticky note glued to the screen. My old bank at one point “upgraded” their software system and then started asking me for weird characters in password and then asked for maximum length which was the final sin I allowed them to commit. Left them that week.
My bank keeps their app up to date with all the latest anti-root stuff but allows passwords made of 5 digits. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Unless they’ve changed it very recently, Paypal still limits your password to 20 characters
Unless they’ve changed it very recently, Wells Fargo’s passwords are case insensitive
Air Canada’s online account system required a 6 character password, which was secretly converted via T9 to 6 numbers on the back end, meaning “aaaaaa” and “bbbbbb” were effectively the same password, and this was only fixed in 2018
That sounds like someone who topped out with highschool level programming tried to implement a hash algorithm.
My personal theory is that it’s a remnant of an old system that was only accessible by phone (hence the 6 digit pin), and they simply grafted an online component on top of it
You’re better off with random different passwords for each service written on a sticky note than using the same password/email combofor multiple accounts.
I mean, you’re comparing very different scenarios.
If one account gets broken into and their password hashing was crap, the attacker can try the email/password combo with other services and can stumble onto another one you use.
If someone has access to your sticky note they have all your accounts.
I don’t think I’d call either of them better.
Of course, all this assumes no second auth factor.
If someone has access to your sticky note they’re already in your house, and that’s a bigger issue IMO… even from an itsec perspective, once the attacker has physical access to guarantee safety is difficult.
But seriously, there’s a guy in your house.
Banks when you use browser 3 years of updates behind on Windows XP with multiple unpatched CPU vulnerabilities:
Old, insecure browsers are rejected too.
Does your bank have a Linux application? Of course not, you’re using the website. So why not use the website on your phone?
many banks require use of the app, regardless
It’s not just root. They would prefer you not to have a custom keyboard either.
That’s actually got a solid reason behind it.
It’s because the OSK is just another program as far as Android is concerned. It can’t directly look into the application, per Android specifications, but it CAN record key presses, even for passwords. It even receives context hints based on the metadata on the input box, so it knows when you’re putting in a password. Then it can send your data off to unknown servers.
thats a bit ironic seeing how the default keyboard on most phones are a privacy nightmare.
That it is, but at least it’s not sending your card details to me.
My bank doesn’t know for some reason. I don’t even pass (
as femme but that’s not relevant) safetynet, but it doesn’t seem to care. Sadly can’t pay with my phone or watch thobUt sEcuRiteeeEeeeEEE
There is no banking app for authenticating transactions for desktops?
Web browsers.
Edit: Nevermind, I don’t know what this even is.
At least in the EU web browsers don’t allow for authenticating transactions (beyond a limit of e.g. 30€). Either an additional authenticator app or a standalone card reader is mandatory.
Luckily my banking apps work flawlessly on GrapheneOS and even microG, likely because of they care about the bootloader being locked again.
I guess I don’t know what you mean by “authenticating transactions”.
Online transactions require a second factor which displays the actual amount to be transferred. This works by either an app which receives the transaction data (recipient, how much) over the network, or a device which takes the bank card and is used to scan something similar to a qr code. The device then displays the transaction data.
This makes sure a fraudulent site can’t easily change the amount or the recipient of a transaction, even if they somehow made an identical website (or close enough).
For remote transactions (e.g. online payments), the security requirements go even further, requiring a dynamic link to the amount of the transaction and the account of the payee, to further protect the user by minimising the risks in case of mistakes or fraudulent attacks.
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/intro/mip-online/2018/html/1803_revisedpsd.en.html
It’s not perfect, especially with people using a banking app and the second factor app on the same device for convenience sake.
Interesting. If they do that in the US some day, I would absolutely much rather buy that device than unroot my phone.
Not for authentication. No idea if this is not a thing, but banks here in Germany all have their weird proprietary TOTP app that checks if your device is rooted or now even if it is a “Google certified OS”.
You can use some weird hardware device instead with the obvious drawbacks.
My favorite thing is when banks don’t allow passwords that have spaces in them or are more than 12 characters long.
Honestly there should be a standard of what security means, like how passwords are stored and how TOTP is implemented, and if a bank doesn’t implement it then THEY are responsible for any “identity theft” that happens on their site, not the users.
Your browser?
Rooted mobile devices are a reasonable signal they been have hacked and security features might be disabled or work as expected.
It just banks, a lot of corporate security polices don’t allow rooted devices, as they could bypass mobile device management policies for devices owned by the company.
With laptops it’s a different story. Whether users have Mac, Linux or Windows, there’s a reasonable chance they have admin access too, so checking for root access is not such a useful signal there.
Rooted mobile devices are a reasonable signal they been have hacked and security features might be disabled or work as expected.
Rooted mobile devices are a reasonable signal that someone wants to actually own what they buy, and corporations want to make sure as few people think that as possible.
Windows/Macos/Linux are designed around the fact that the person managing the device has root access, Android and iOS are designed around noone having root access.
Sure it’s fine to mess around with rooted phone and look what’s inside, but essentially for your daily operations having rooted phone is unnecessary security risk.
Android and iOS are designed around noone having root access.
Yes and I consider that to mean I don’t own the device. And there are plenty of Android forks specifically designed around you having root access.
The important question is why smartphones are designed around not having root access and computers are?
What are the incentives at play?
The answer is obvious, tech companies wouldn’t have given users access to root control on their computers either if they knew what they were doing and thought they could have gotten away with it.
It is just circular logic claiming smartphones have to be this way, circular logic that provides a rhetorical smokescreen for the process of corporations taking our agency away from us over our lives and the tools that sustain us.
You’re free to install another operating system or variation on Android on your phone still. And if you decided to go with another Android such as Graphene, you’d still not want to root it because it’s a security risk.
The issue is that you don’t want to give some random untrusted process root access. You, the user, have root access as long as you’re capable of running processes as root, but that doesn’t mean you should.
There could be tons of apps on the iOS App Store or Google Play Store that are completely benign under the existing security model but do nefarious things when run as root. No one knows that for sure because they aren’t tested under root by Apple or Google.
The problem with root is that it’s giving the process the keys to the Ferrari. That’s long since been decided to be a bad security model. Far better to have the process request permission to access particular resources and you grant them on a case by case basis.
The issue is that you don’t want to give some random untrusted process root access.
It’s been awhile since I’ve used anything but Magisk but usually you have to set root permissions per app, or you can get Magisk notification to request access.
I just want to point out, that what you are saying sounds good in an ideal world. But the realitiy looks different. (I actually typed out some points, but then I remembered that I don’t want to engage in yet another lengthy internet-debate, that ultimately comes down to personal preferences and philosophy)
Ah but I love reading these specific philosophical discussions on tech, I don’t blame you though
There’s also the fact that on Win/Mac/Linux, you’re interacting with the bank via a browser and not a bespoke app.
So just warn the user that it’s their own responsibility and all claims are waived, instead of just saying “no” ?
There is parallel with masking. The bank values the safety of the whole rather than the freedom to root for an individual. You stand to lose only your own bank balance. The bank stands to lose the funds of every rooted phone that contains a banking app exploit targeting them.
I mean, they get that anyway with malware and security exploits. Except that rooted phones usually have a root manager, which asks for permission if an app wants to do more. And i don’t think the root user listening into the app/their own account should be a problem; because in this case the problem is with the banks’ security practice.
Well, at least my bank doesn’t care about root or safety net.
The concern is not much phones rooted with intent by their owners, but phones rooted by malware without the owner’s consent:
https://thehackernews.com/2021/10/this-new-android-malware-can-gain-root.html
If there was a way to signal that a rooted phone was actually secure, malware would send that signal.
“Magisk hide” doing fine for me tho
I said i have no Smartphone and the gave me the same app for Windows or mac, after asking twice vor more times. It runs in Virtualbox for years now. (I know i know. KMV would work better but i don’t change it aslong as it works.
