Slightly unrelated: is it relatively safe to root android phones nowadays or should I stick to the unrooted standard android?
The reason I'm asking is that I'm stuck with authy as a MFA code app, and would like to move to something that has both desktop and phone support, and my conclusion is I'd need to root my phone to get access to the actual MFA seeds (they don't allow exports to keep you stuck in their app).
torben-friis 11 hours ago [-]
The main issue is that many apps will block rooted phones (banks, state apps and the like). Usually more trouble than it's worth.
throwa356262 11 hours ago [-]
Some apps such as Aegis allow exporting the MFA secrets.
gorgmah 10 hours ago [-]
I think they allow importing from Authy but only on rooted phones. I missed the train to move away from Authy in 2024 and now the only non-root option is to regenerate the seed from every provider one by one.
As other commenters said, rooting my main phone would lock me out of banking apps.
I suppose I could find an old phone, sync from authy cloud, root it, and then migrate, but then generating new seeds is probably both safer and faster at that point.
shocks 9 hours ago [-]
You can extract keys out of Authy using mitm-proxy. I have done it and switched to Bitwarden.
That is alarming. They have access to the plaintext? And they will hand auth secrets out? That seems extremely wrong to me.
ForHackernews 7 hours ago [-]
>...data arrives as a CSV in which every token is encrypted with your backup password...
fc417fc802 7 hours ago [-]
Fair enough. That seems reasonable.
LoganDark 7 hours ago [-]
They always had access to the plaintext, they could do better to hand them out
gorgmah 8 hours ago [-]
So there is a real solution to that problem! Thanks a lot for sharing it
fc417fc802 8 hours ago [-]
The answer really depends. Root by what means? And to what end? Permanent or only temporarily?
Personally I reject with extreme prejudice the android security model (it's my &#^@ device not the vendor's). But I don't generally want to grant any apps root. Lineage strikes a nice balance by providing root adb.
exdeejay_ 7 hours ago [-]
AFAIK rooting an Android phone necessitates a factory reset of the phone beforehand, so I don't think you'd be able to dump the MFA seeds before Authy is uninstalled (unless that's a hardware thing)
izacus 10 hours ago [-]
It was never particularly safe to root the phone - both because it drills a hole into the security model and because you don't have any good ways of verifying what apps asking for root actually do.
Moreover, most of root tools and ROMs are rather poorly written and glued together with other forum scripts which you have no way of checking if they're not malware. (There are exceptions.)
So no, "safe" it's not and never has been. The tradeoff might be worth it for you as a user though.
> The reason I'm asking is that I'm stuck with authy as a MFA code app, and would like to move to something that has both desktop and phone support, and my conclusion is I'd need to root my phone to get access to the actual MFA seeds (they don't allow exports to keep you stuck in their app).
The way to do that is to take the hit and recreate your 2FA codes in an opensource app like Aegis or Stratum.
gorgmah 10 hours ago [-]
Thanks for the summary. I agree with you about 2FA, but it's still annoying, I was hoping I would find a lazier solution.
negura 8 hours ago [-]
Not sure why this is downvoted. It's accurate. A major problem is that when you root you loose assurance of the integrity of your /system partition. That means malware can now persist undetected.
FrequentLurker 10 hours ago [-]
I wonder if there is a vulnerability that allows for toggling wireless adb. I have an LG with android 12 which technically should support wireless ADB but LG stripped the option from settings. Some say they stripped out the feature entirely. On top of that the USB port is damaged and doesnt accept data but still accepts power. So no wired adb either.
veeti 6 hours ago [-]
If you can get root and a terminal emulator on the device, you could try something like "adb shell settings put global adb_wifi_enabled 1".
rickdeckard 8 hours ago [-]
> On top of that the USB port is damaged and doesnt accept data but still accepts power.
Data is broken on both sides of the port? (if you rotate the plug 180° it should use the other pins on the USB-C)
FrequentLurker 8 hours ago [-]
Tried both sides but no luck.
Gander5739 8 hours ago [-]
What's stopping you from rooting it and then sshing in? You can then run the adb commands using root access.
rickdeckard 8 hours ago [-]
> What's stopping you from rooting it
(probably the broken USB port)
Gander5739 7 hours ago [-]
Isn't the article about obtaining root from an unprivileged app? The recent GhostLock exploit is potentially usable for this purpose, for instance.
_ZeD_ 12 hours ago [-]
will the "exploit" app be available? asking for a friend :D
user_7832 9 hours ago [-]
Depends on your phone, but for some qualcomm devices there was a vulnerability some time ago, iirc the OnePlus 15 has a dedicated thread on XDA. I also found this on XDA while trying to find the other exploit:
Side note, it's quite ironic, google being so heavily anti-root is forcing people to opt for root access via more hidden ways, making it easier to avoid root being detected.
yehoshuapw 12 hours ago [-]
would you install such a app (without compiling from source)? I would not trust it to not come with "friends"
(but would love to verify and use)
sureglymop 11 hours ago [-]
On an isolated test device for this purpose, yes. But otherwise, I would decompile it to look at it.
NoboruWataya 8 hours ago [-]
Probably wishful thinking but does this get us any closer to porting postmarketOS to these devices? (Or even LineageOS, though I think LineageOS may have decent support on many of these devices already?)
tym0 8 hours ago [-]
Don't really see why. The issue with PostmarketOS is that there isn't enough people working on it.
Not that the phones are locked down. Otherwise phones with open bootloader would have good support.
ArtTimeInvestor 12 hours ago [-]
A good security track record must be the most valuable company asset in history.
Apple makes $200B per year from selling the iPhone alone. Plus the services they sell on it, plus deals like the one with Google, plus app store ads, plus cross-selling of other hardware ...
I have one too.
Not because I like the hardware too much. Pixel phones are much nicer, they don't wobble when you put them on a table. Not because I like the software too much. Android is much more to my liking with more freedom to customize it.
But because I have the feeling Apple takes security more seriously.
I wish there was some kind of security arena like there is LLM arena for AI. That gives hard facts about the security track record of phone manufacturers.
cromka 10 hours ago [-]
It's a bit ironic to think Apple takes security seriously when they infamously delivered ridiculous bugs like 2017 High Sierra root login, which they fixed and then accidentally unfixed again.
What we're seeing is marketing/branding and a genuine for-show effort, all the while they do not audit their code outside some for-show technologies (Siri AI in the cloud).
So the point I am making is that it's all observational bias. You want actual objective security, use GrapheneOS.
And I'm saying this as an iPhone user.
throwa356262 10 hours ago [-]
The issue is that Android is open while Apple seldom talks about their security issues.
This might make Apple look like the more secure option but the reality may be different because Android is more scrutinised.
If you are sceptical consider these examples: (1) some versions of Apple silicon have unpatchable security defects, (2) Apple at one point decided to not contact up to 500M users affected by a supply chain attack in China due to "language difficulties".
close04 7 hours ago [-]
> Apple seldom talks about their security issues
I didn't find about OEMpocalypse from Google talking about their security issues, I found from calif.io. Security researchers don't wait for companies to "talk about their security".
> but the reality may be different because Android is more scrutinised.
This is famously why Linux appears to be less secure than Windows, right? Because Microsoft doesn't talk about their security while Linux is more scrutinized?
> In the simplest of terms, with the bug, if you created a new APFS (Apple File System) encrypted volume on High Sierra, and set anything at all as the password hint, then your password was stored as the hint. In plain text.
ArtTimeInvestor 11 hours ago [-]
I know Apple phones had bugs. Even worse bugs than the one you linked to.
But Google phones had those too.
That's why I said I "feel" like Apple takes security more seriously. And that I wish there were hard facts. Statistics of number of bugs by severity. Independently verified.
izacus 11 hours ago [-]
Your post is essentially admitting that you're ignoring the bugs from the company you love and taking seriously form the company you don't.
So the difference isn't about taking things "more seriously", but in the fact that you take marketing from Apple more seriously.
That's not the same.
(Note: There's plenty of proof that Apple does take security more seriously than Samsung, Xiaomi & Co. in the article, but your feelings aren't it.)
paweladamczuk 11 hours ago [-]
Good thing they never claimed their feelings were proof of anything.
izacus 10 hours ago [-]
This is where reading ability comes into play.
sschueller 11 hours ago [-]
Doesn't make a difference if Apple takes security more seriously if they bend like a rubber pole when the government comes asking...
spacebanana7 10 hours ago [-]
That depends on your threat model.
Realistically intelligence agencies aren’t too interested in my grandma, but malware/scams/bloatware absolutely are.
ece 10 hours ago [-]
You'd almost think supporting a phone for a longer amount of time might actually be better than trying to sell a new phone every year or two.
rickdeckard 8 hours ago [-]
Only if you find a way to create revenue beyond the time-of-purchase, to offset the cost of development and maintenance, aka service revenue.
So far only Apple achieved this by ensuring a walled garden around their ecosystem, securing additional revenue-share for every single 3rd party app and every transaction of the user.
All other vendors are structurally prevented to properly compete in services, and have to rely on Google paying some minor revenue-share on Services, while having only limited control over the user-experience to distinguish themselves...
applfanboysbgon 8 hours ago [-]
> Here, I describe the one I took and why, measured against three properties I use as a yardstick throughout
Nope nope nope. LLMs helped you do something cool, great. You can still speak for yourself. Stop outsourcing your humanity to a chatbot.
> In practice the coverage of each chain is exactly the set of devices the OEM chose to ship the vulnerable component on.
Wonderful insight, Claude. "The vulnerability covers exactly the devices that are vulnerable".
13 hours ago [-]
10 hours ago [-]
rvz 16 hours ago [-]
What a disaster for Android.
ReptileMan 11 hours ago [-]
It is a feature. Every device should give root by mandate to the owner, the same way they have USB-C for phones.
la_oveja 13 hours ago [-]
better see these in the open than in an israeli lab
hzwanip 12 hours ago [-]
the israeli labs exist anyway
9865322689965 9 hours ago [-]
[dead]
LoganDark 14 hours ago [-]
End users love these for rooting! (I sure would have.)
sega_sai 8 hours ago [-]
I think old Android phones not supported by their makers are so problematic in the LLM era. I would think that even before LLMs the 3 letter agencies had exploits for those, but now one should assume common criminals will...
I am happy that the pixel phone I got has 7 year of support, but it is clear that Apple is in general is much better in this than all the Android providers (including google)
bayindirh 8 hours ago [-]
I keep my old iPhone X powered on as a handheld gaming device. It still gets software patches now and then. Funnily, even though the device is in its forsaken era, most of the applications I used to use daily still gets updates too.
Not being able to update an app on it is a rarity.
Rendered at 19:13:07 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
The secret looks something like this:
JBSW Y3DPF QQHO ....
(usually fairly short unless its google)
Then you can import them into Aegis or some other FLOSS solution: https://github.com/uiltondutra/authy-migrate
Personally I reject with extreme prejudice the android security model (it's my &#^@ device not the vendor's). But I don't generally want to grant any apps root. Lineage strikes a nice balance by providing root adb.
Moreover, most of root tools and ROMs are rather poorly written and glued together with other forum scripts which you have no way of checking if they're not malware. (There are exceptions.)
So no, "safe" it's not and never has been. The tradeoff might be worth it for you as a user though.
> The reason I'm asking is that I'm stuck with authy as a MFA code app, and would like to move to something that has both desktop and phone support, and my conclusion is I'd need to root my phone to get access to the actual MFA seeds (they don't allow exports to keep you stuck in their app).
The way to do that is to take the hit and recreate your 2FA codes in an opensource app like Aegis or Stratum.
Data is broken on both sides of the port? (if you rotate the plug 180° it should use the other pins on the USB-C)
(probably the broken USB port)
https://xdaforums.com/t/the-holy-grail-universal-no-bl-root-...
Side note, it's quite ironic, google being so heavily anti-root is forcing people to opt for root access via more hidden ways, making it easier to avoid root being detected.
(but would love to verify and use)
Apple makes $200B per year from selling the iPhone alone. Plus the services they sell on it, plus deals like the one with Google, plus app store ads, plus cross-selling of other hardware ...
I have one too.
Not because I like the hardware too much. Pixel phones are much nicer, they don't wobble when you put them on a table. Not because I like the software too much. Android is much more to my liking with more freedom to customize it.
But because I have the feeling Apple takes security more seriously.
I wish there was some kind of security arena like there is LLM arena for AI. That gives hard facts about the security track record of phone manufacturers.
What we're seeing is marketing/branding and a genuine for-show effort, all the while they do not audit their code outside some for-show technologies (Siri AI in the cloud).
So the point I am making is that it's all observational bias. You want actual objective security, use GrapheneOS.
And I'm saying this as an iPhone user.
This might make Apple look like the more secure option but the reality may be different because Android is more scrutinised.
If you are sceptical consider these examples: (1) some versions of Apple silicon have unpatchable security defects, (2) Apple at one point decided to not contact up to 500M users affected by a supply chain attack in China due to "language difficulties".
I didn't find about OEMpocalypse from Google talking about their security issues, I found from calif.io. Security researchers don't wait for companies to "talk about their security".
> but the reality may be different because Android is more scrutinised.
This is famously why Linux appears to be less secure than Windows, right? Because Microsoft doesn't talk about their security while Linux is more scrutinized?
> In the simplest of terms, with the bug, if you created a new APFS (Apple File System) encrypted volume on High Sierra, and set anything at all as the password hint, then your password was stored as the hint. In plain text.
But Google phones had those too.
That's why I said I "feel" like Apple takes security more seriously. And that I wish there were hard facts. Statistics of number of bugs by severity. Independently verified.
So the difference isn't about taking things "more seriously", but in the fact that you take marketing from Apple more seriously.
That's not the same.
(Note: There's plenty of proof that Apple does take security more seriously than Samsung, Xiaomi & Co. in the article, but your feelings aren't it.)
Realistically intelligence agencies aren’t too interested in my grandma, but malware/scams/bloatware absolutely are.
So far only Apple achieved this by ensuring a walled garden around their ecosystem, securing additional revenue-share for every single 3rd party app and every transaction of the user.
All other vendors are structurally prevented to properly compete in services, and have to rely on Google paying some minor revenue-share on Services, while having only limited control over the user-experience to distinguish themselves...
Nope nope nope. LLMs helped you do something cool, great. You can still speak for yourself. Stop outsourcing your humanity to a chatbot.
> In practice the coverage of each chain is exactly the set of devices the OEM chose to ship the vulnerable component on.
Wonderful insight, Claude. "The vulnerability covers exactly the devices that are vulnerable".
Not being able to update an app on it is a rarity.