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 Alternately, the app might be experimental, under development, or perhaps no longer maintained and offered by its developer.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.

  • odelik@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    196
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    This seems like a brilliant feature to roll out as they’re getting investigated by the DOJ for being a monopoly.

    • over_clox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      81
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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…

      • micka190@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • over_clox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          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…

        • over_clox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          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…

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            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.

            • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              Fidelity apps doesn’t require any of this shite?

              But some shiti cash-app does?

              I wonder why 🤔

    • philodendron@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      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

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        44
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Kinda. It might be 3rd parties using it but it is 100% an API designed by Google to keep apps on Google Play.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • Madis@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Well, there is a separate system for pirating prevention, the Google Play license check. That has existed for years.

  • bad_alloc@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    136
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Just the term “side loading” instantly frames installing software on a device you own as something shady.

    • SlothMama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      64
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yes, that’s the implication, and it’s certainly intentional for you to think of it like that.

      • doctortran@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        51
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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.

        • quant@leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

        • ceiphas@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • xavier666@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            A package manager and app-store, which looks very similar from the outside, operates very differently with respect to security and privacy.

        • SlothMama@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      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).

      • quant@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I bet they’ll say staying healthy without getting sick equals robbing from hospitals and pharmaceutical companies.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

      • bad_alloc@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Angle sphere got a special relationship with the “poors” theybare dirty, stupid and they deserve to get fucked.

          Hearing this shit being said in earnest with that class bravado is so fucking cringe

          Usually biggest bootlicker is himself 3 pay checks from being homeless too lol

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            “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”.

  • T156@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    122
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    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?

    • whats_all_this_then@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      3 months ago

      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

      • doctortran@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

    • FierySpectre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      3 months ago

      According to the dumbfucks making the government application of Belgium (to read official communication) trustworthy means having developer mode disabled.

  • heavy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • EddoWagt@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      3 months ago

      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

    • 0x0@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      So the EU’s been forcing Apple to allow sideloading and Google goes Nah, it’ll be fine?

      • Plopp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • diffusive@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          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

          • Plopp@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

  • 0x0@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    So the EU’s been forcing Apple to allow sideloading and Google goes Nah, it’ll be fine?

    • flatlined@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      3 months ago

      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?

    • bitfucker@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      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

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        GOG model

        wut? The main selling point of GOG is that games purchased from them are DRM-free.

        • bitfucker@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          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

      • Starbuncle@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        DRM is to prevent piracy. This does not prevent piracy unless it only applies to apps that cost money.

        • bitfucker@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • Starbuncle@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            What legitimate reason would an app developer have for not wanting to let people install their app from sources other than the play store?

            • bitfucker@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

              • Starbuncle@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                That’s a very legitimate reason! I was talking about free apps, but I failed to mention that in my comment. My bad. Any legit reason for free apps?

                • bitfucker@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  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.

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      Google is allowing the app developers to choose (for now?). With Apple, developers never had the option to allow other stores or sideloading.

  • penquin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    What’s the point of having an android phone then? I fucking hate android so much, but I only use it, not iOS, because of sideloading. Of If they take that away from us then why not just get an iPhone then? Our only hope is Linux phones picking up a little.

    • lemme in@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • penquin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I have high hopes for apps like lucky patcher and Revanced manager to help us avoid this bullshit

      • penquin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Fuck me, it’s like a butterfly effect, every mother fucker now will follow suit.

    • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • penquin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Right on. I do use F-Droid and droidify. I also use Obtanium. Linux phone has never sounded better, godammit. Like you, I really don’t give a shit about those banking apps and other shit, web browsers are more than enough in this day and age.

        • needs_more_butter@eviltoast.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          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!

    • Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      One reason would be that with an iPhone, you’re paying two to five times the price of an Android phone with comparable hardware.

      • whats_all_this_then@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Hardware isn’t everything. Apple has a couple of advantages over iPhone that let them do more with less:

        • iOS needs to support a MUCH fewer devices than Android. Even before they switched to their own silicon, they’ve been optimizing the OS to the hardware really well giving you devices that go toe to toe with Android flagships of the same generation with SIGNIFICANTLY better hardware and like double the RAM. Also why Apple doesn’t really care to increase RAM as much as the android side of things.
        • Apple silicon is actually really good and making their own hardware allows them to optimize on both sides of the equation and lets 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.

      • penquin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I do the same on android, as I have always owned a Samsung Note/Ultra. Only this year have I purchased a OnePlus phone, and I’ll never fucking do it again, I hate this phone so much. Going back to Samsung for sure once the S25 Ultra drops.

  • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    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

    • doctortran@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      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?”

      • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

  • subignition@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • Azzu@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      Indeed, I already bypass SafetyNet and Play integrity with some kind of xposed module, I don’t expect this to change.

        • Azzu@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          Xposed is just an API which is provided by the LSPosed Magisk module.

      • mrvictory1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Can you tell me which modules you use? I am trying to pass SafetyNet on Waydroid but can’t pass even basic integrity.

        • whats_all_this_then@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          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

        • Azzu@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          idk where I got it from, but it’s called “Universal SafetyNet Fix” by kdrag0n

          • mrvictory1@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            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?

    • vin@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Why would that be possible? Wouldn’t the developer have their server rejected any calls from “unsigned” apps?

      • subignition@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        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

      • doctortran@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Possibly, but many apps don’t actually need to phone home to function.

        Of course that doesn’t stop developers arbitrarily requiring it.

  • eleitl@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • loutr@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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…

      • vinyl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        for me for example i just use the web version of navy federal, works pretty fine.

        • UnsavoryMollusk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            So people that only have a computer and not a smart phone can’t do those things at all?

          • vinyl@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            i feel like if you switch to the desktop version of the website, it wont pester you.

            • loutr@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

      • eleitl@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • loutr@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          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…

    • sentientity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

  • vext01@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    3 months ago

    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?

    • diffusive@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      Likely android 7 would not honor (or even be aware) of this new metadata bit. You’ll be fine 🙂

  • FireWire400@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    3 months ago

    They’re still pissed that people won’t put up with their shitty YouTube app and use Revanced instead, eh?

    • ngwoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s not on Google Play so it doesn’t affect it. I honestly don’t know what the point of this is.

      • FireWire400@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Oh I see, so it only affects modded apks… They probably want to crack down on all those slightly-shady “spotify premium free”-apks.

        • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          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

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          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”

          • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

            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?

      • Chozo@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • Cris@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          3 months ago

          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

        • Azzu@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          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.

          • Chozo@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • mrvictory1@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

            • Azzu@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              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.

        • QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          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).

          • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

        • kalpol@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Some places are ditching the website and going app-only. Stockpile as an example.

      • ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

    • owenfromcanada@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.