T-Mobile G2 'Permaroot' Achieved 262
VValdo writes "After over a month of relentless hacking, genius scotty2 has finally smashed the G2's notorious emmc-read-only-on-boot mechanism, which had been incorrectly characterized in the press as a 'rootkit.' The hack involves several steps — first achieving 'temp root' through a fork bomb exploit, then running a specially crafted kernel module that power-resets the read-only emmc to bring it up in read-write mode. Finally, the bootloader is re-flashed, which permanently removes the read-only on subsequent boots. The whole process is expected to be automated by tomorrow."
this just encourages them (Score:3, Insightful)
"Buying" a device that doesn't become yours and then going through extreme measures to make it yours doesn't help anything. It hurts everybody in the end, because (a) it makes the next round of devices even MORE locked down to since they learned from last time, and (b) it doesn't exert economic pressure against this sort of lock down to begin with.
on the fence (Score:4, Insightful)
Description makes the guy sound like a magician (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:on the fence (Score:5, Insightful)
and making the device less usable helps security?
I guess in some ways it does. This rock is definitely more secure than my computer, which has root. It suffers slightly in usefulness, however.
Re:this just encourages them (Score:3, Insightful)
Sooner or later we should start pushing for lock downs to be made illegal, and demonstrating that they are ineffective is as good a first step as any.
No, lock downs shouldn't be illegal, it should, however, on the packaging and in the contract say to what extent things are locked down.
It should be the manufacturer's right to lock down whatever in the product they send out, it isn't the manufacturer's right to send feature destroying firmware updates out with the intent to disrupt people who chose to use their devices in other ways just like it isn't within my rights to mail every Windows user I know a virus intending to cause harm and because it is fraud to sell a product then release something that makes the product inoperative.
On the other hand, it should be perfectly within anyone's rights to modify and use their legitimately purchased items in whatever way they want (assuming it doesn't cause harm to others).
Re:this just encourages them (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not?
Why, when it only disenfranchises the end user?
This conflicts with the manufacturer being allowed to ship things locked down. I can understand secured with option to disable, but stuff like what Motorola does (and HTC, if they start signing the bootloader) precludes your right to work with your property, and solely for the benefit of the manufacturer.
Re:this just encourages them (Score:5, Insightful)
Only in a truly free market.
We've long passed the point where cell service is a true free market, with any real competition.
Re:this just encourages them (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh boy, more nonsense. Is it really a fair contract when it's between you and a multi-billion dollar corporation presenting you a one-sided contract?
Indeed, it would be PUTTING POWER IN YOUR HANDS. They wouldn't be able to strip you of control over your own property (which it does eventually become.) And yet you whine?
Re:this just encourages them (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice and open platform... right? (Score:5, Insightful)
All I have to say is this, as an owner of two android phones, the second only because it physically fell apart from (ab)use and from someone with a love for the platform:
Looks like we still have that 'DON'T USE APPLE BECAUSE IT'S A CLOSED TOTALITARIAN SLAVE PLATFORM!!!! COME TO ANDROID WHERE ITS FREE AND OPEN AND CHAMPAGNE AND PUPPIES!!!!!!' card, right lads? I mean, we're still laughing at the silly iPhone users having to jailbreak their phones so they can run what they want, right chaps? Right?
Now while we're at it, can I can a 'connect phone, run program, press button and you're done' solution for rooting my HTC Wildfire? I'm perfectly happy of course, to run adb and replace my bootloader and all the other things that used to get me wet while I was a student - isn't that the definition of open? - but I get the feeling that we could make it just as easy as those Apple user fellows and not lose any of the openness. Right guys?
Sarcasm away, that dream is gone, guys. The phone networks got to you and Google gave up. If you're going to carry on tooting about the openness of Android to users (they couldn't care less if their developers have to pay to develop or not) then you need some other talking points.
Why would you want this, again? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's fine if it voids the warranty or whatever, but I'm not going to pay for something if I have to fight it to get full control over it.
Frankly, I might not even take full advantage of that--but I still demand the ability.
Re:this just encourages them (Score:5, Insightful)
So what then is your suggestion?
Allow me to make a suggestion. Pressure Google. The Google logo is writ large on this HTC/T-Mobile phone. Google is more responsible for the evil lack of respect for the free software this phone is built with than anybody else.
Make it known to any Google representative who will listen (warning: these are few and far between) that you regard the company as hypocritical and cynical, and not worthy of your trust unless the rights of owners of phones running Android/Linux are fully respected.
And yes, I know all about Google and cynical, after all I worked there for three years and had plenty of opportunity to observe Google management up close. Google is in fact just another cynical megacorp, however it is slightly unusual in that its stock will suffer greatly if its users ever become widely aware of this fact. Therefore, Google tends to be slightly more responsive to justifiable criticism than other cynical megacorps.
Re:this just encourages them (Score:5, Insightful)
They wouldn't be able to strip you of control over your own property (which it does eventually become.)
Eventually?!
My phone was mine the instant I bought it. I did, however, acquire it for a sub-retail price by agreeing to be either a customer of the reseller for 24 successive months or to pay them $375, pro-rated monthly after fulfillment of the first 12 months of the prior option have elapsed.
Contract or not, there's no fucking way that the device belongs to anyone other than its owner. The fact that rooting *a computer* that you own is dangerous and sometimes impossible, warranty or not, is egregiously offensive to me as a consumer.
If I buy your shit from you, it's not your shit anymore. It's my shit and you have no damn business telling me what I do with it, and no, I signed no contract stating otherwise.
Don't ever forget that, and don't ever let a retailer tell you differently.
Re:Description makes the guy sound like a magician (Score:2, Insightful)
Only one word was used as a qualifier: "genius". You admit that it is supported by the article. The rest of the summary is a description of the hack -- the facts -- and says nothing about how clever it is. It seems to me that you are inventing something to be upset about.
Re:this just encourages them (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this why the monthly price is cheaper and the coverage higher in countries where consumer protection prevents the mobile phone companies from locking phones (or for locking them for more than a couple of months after purchase)?
When legislation serves to increase competition instead of allowing de-facto oligopolies to strongarm the consumers, it isn't trampling people's rights; it's securing them.
Re:this just encourages them (Score:4, Insightful)
"So what then is your suggestion?"
Stop giving the manufacturers of such locked-down devices your money?
Trust me on this one--they will stop making something that doesn't make them money.
Re:this just encourages them (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations have too much power and control information too well for there to be a truly informed consumer base
While I agree that corporations in general (in the USA) have way too much power I disagree that the public wants to be truly informed. The general public in the USA suffers from what I call plug and play syndrome. People don't care if you can get root on a phone and load your own software. They want something that fills a need ( the corporations sold them on) and they want it to work with a minimum of hassle. This is why the Iphone is so popular. Try to talk to a person about tech and use a few terms they are unfamiliar about and you'll see the eyes glaze over. You're right on when you say "corporations deliberately leverage the ignorance of the masses for their own benefit". They get away with it because there are too many sheep in this country who have been bread for ignorance.
one quick point. (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't actually say anything negative about android. It's the handset manufacturers that are doing this at the behest of the telephone companies.
All the evil is coming into the pipe _after_ android, down in the boot loaders and the skins.
And Google doesn't actually have the Apple Fanboy features that Apple has. Google knows that they will be held to some account by their fickle fan base if the screw up or let their brand get _too_ tarnished by the handset cartel.
It is a given that "Apple can do no wrong" as far as an Apple Fanboy is concerned. Google has simply not done wrong enough yet to deserve derision as far as Android is concerned.
Not the same thing at all. In fact, there are legions of people waiting to catch Google out to crucify them.
Re:this just encourages them (Score:2, Insightful)
i'm sort of wondering how you'd fare in a county where the government stepped back and let the free market reign do the government's job.
some essential services simply can't run at a profit - that's why government exists and why it collects taxes. looking at privatization, sometimes it works beautifully, but often running costs exceed reasonable expectations of profit.
i'm not advocating any particular point of view, just saying that yours is misguided, at least as i understand it.
Re:this just encourages them (Score:4, Insightful)
It's pretty sad you believe that. For one, if you'd like a phone that lets you reflash the OS you are welcome to buy a Nexus One [blogspot.com] direct from Google. The nature of open source code means that the phones made entirely by HTC may do things you disagree with. But that's openness for you. Sometimes people will do things you disagree with. It would be fairly pointless to have an open source OS if Google had veto power over every way in which it was used.
I believe you missed the part where the Google trademark is stamped all over the T-Mobile G2. If you do not think that gives Google veto power over evil additional restrictions on the distribution of GPL software, you did not think very hard.
If they were really as cynical as you believe, they wouldn't have ensured Android was open source and the Nexus One was reflashable out of the box would they?
Eric and Larray are plenty [huffingtonpost.com] cynical [sfgate.com] by any objective measure. Sorry if you're too tanked up on koolaid to see it. Want another one? How about the posturing on carbon credits in context with their 767 pleasure buggy parked across the street at the air base? How about the blatant nepotism? [markevanstech.com]
I don't really know a lot about Sergy, but I had plenty of occasion to note that Larry and Eric are both pretty "flexible" when it comes to morals versus money versus power. Sad, it certainly did not have to be that way. That said, Google is nowhere near as far gone as Microsoft, or Oracle say. And EMG certainly does recognize the value of getting the open source community to do their heavy lifting for them. It's not like full time Googler's actually have the stomache for hard work any more.
Re:this just encourages them (Score:3, Insightful)
Brilliant suggestion: buy a Nexus One. Best phone you can get right now. If you buy one of these locked down Android phones and whine about it, it's your own fault, and you are voting with your dollars for carriers to lock phones down. You are now part of the problem. Be part of the solution instead.
Re:this just encourages them (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like you have a bit of a bone to pick with the big G.
Here's a life lesson kid, don't crap on your past employers in public. It makes it hard for people to hire you in the future. I've worked for some big names (call them the big A) and I could tell stories. And I do, with friends after a few drinks. But I never would do that on a public geek forum like /. because maybe someone that is thinking of hiring me is reading.
Re:Forgive my ignorance... (Score:5, Insightful)
What does rooting the Android accomplish? Beyond the ability to change your prompt... what is the result of this?
I don't have an Android so if somebody could enlighten me (and I'm sure others as well).
Much appreciated.
AC
Well, I will tell you what. Among a number of interesting things, rooting allows you to run any of a number of third-party operating system ROMs. One guy even got Debian Linux running on a G1 (not too practical, but it shows the power of an open device.) My personal favorite, and by far the most popular, is the Cyanogenmod ROM. Keep in mind that the relatively open nature of the open-source Android operating system has made this a legitimate affair: this is not remotely comparable to what iPhone users suffer under Apple's heavy-handed rule. Frankly, having used Cyanogen's product (generally faster, more stable, and more featureful than the stock firmware) for over a year now, if a particular phone won't let me install it ... well, that's one handset I won't be buying. More interestingly, Cyanogen (aka Steve Kondik) has a close relationship with the lead Android developers at Google, and much of his team's work has been used to improve the mainstream OS, so even those who are running the stock firmware have benefited. Are you listening, T-Mobile? Yeah, and that applies to the rest of you bloodsuckers as well: open is good for your customers, and good for your business.
Here's the deal folks. It was one thing when we were all using not-particularly-smart phones that had a few built-in applications, a camera, and maybe some extra flash to store a few MP3s. That's not what we're talking about here: these are not cellphones, they're personal computers that happen to fit in your pocket. I cannot accept that cell phone carriers (who are, after all, just fat pipes, not gods) have an intrinsic right to determine what operating system and/or applications we can use on our rather powerful pocket computers. I wouldn't accept that treatment from a PC vendor, and I see no reason for society to accept that from corporations who have spent years trying to convince us that they absolutely must limit the potential of these devices in order to "manage their networks", to provide us with a "better user experience." Of course, we all know what it means when a carrier is in control of the user experience. I will decide upon the kind of experience I want, and so far as network management goes, well that's not my problem. I expect to be provided with the service that I pay for, and that includes a hands-off approach to the phone and it's software. It's my pocket computer, not yours. Just deal with that, and stop trying to use it as an alternate revenue source.
Re:this just encourages them (Score:3, Insightful)
And it is, but it may void your warranty; which it should.
Why? Does it it void your warranty if you install Windows XP on a computer that used to have Windows 98 on it? The only reason there's any risk whatsoever of damaging a phone while installing a third-party operating system is because the phone manufacturers have made it that way. Now, I had a G1 (rooted, running Cyanogenmod) and with a decent recovery partition installed and Nandroid backups it was damn near impossible to brick it. Not impossible, just very difficult ... and it wouldn't have been hard for HTC to made it impossible to brick. This "void your warranty" excuse is just that: an excuse, and frankly I'm sick of carriers making up reasons to turn powerful personal computers into pocket calculators. Pisses me off.
Re:on the fence (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:According to your resume, that would be Amazon (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that I didn't tell the stories on /. and everyone has stories from past employers. The making the stories public was the point.
The above stories are all public. I have plenty of private stories about Google, none of which you are going to hear whether good or bad. BTW, don't be shy about using your real name. Some people will hate you for speaking your mind, and my life advice to you is: never work for one of those, it's not worth it.
Re:Now if they could only add another rows of keys (Score:4, Insightful)
The G2 keyboard is pretty nice, but Goog totally dropped the ball on handling special symbols. You simply cannot enter the special symbols with the keyboard and the cursor control is way broken. These are software issues. Just one of a huge list of little warts marring a decent product.
If the Android project were truly open such issues would be well on their way to being fixed by now. But it is not truly open and satisfactory solutions will therefore not come from Google, they will come from people who like to fix things for the love it, not just to pull down a paycheck. And that in a nutshell is why root access and community built roms are essential to the continued success of Android.
Re:on the fence (Score:3, Insightful)
making it hard and trying to make it impossible are not the same thing. they are trying to keep it impossible, but chickened out on hw design to back it up. simlocks and appstore security(piracy) is what it boils down to, nothing else. the operators really, really don't like it when device manufacturers simlocks turn out to be worthless(it's bad for the business model of giving out "free" crack*erm* phones that can only be used on their network).
Re:this just encourages them (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're misusing the term "free market". A (truly) free market is a market without regulation.
No. A completely unregulated market will be owned by the big players on that market, and not be free at all. You need the right kind of regulation in order to free a market.
Re:this just encourages them (Score:3, Insightful)
What you're forgetting is that monopolies and cartels can also regulate supply and demand. There is a difference between a "free market" that's completely unregulated by anyone other than the big players in that market, and a market that is really free.