4 ms·
Ouch. That was not an intended one. Those colourful overlays are just android stickers. I didn't expect them to be translucent. . :( I fixed it. I would kindl
by arunmagesh 6y ago
Ouch. That was not an intended one. Those colourful overlays are just android stickers. I didn't expect them to be translucent. . :( I fixed it. I would kindly request you to modify / remove the link part please . :(
- kspacewalk2 6y ago>I would kindly request you to modify / remove the link part please . :( But... why?
- arunmagesh 6y agoThis might give out information about the device we used. That should be a secret.
- dylan604 6y agoI'm sorry, but this is your fault. You improperly tried to conceal a picture by being cute instead of effective while trying to earn bragging points with a very public announcement about your hack. You brought the eye of Sauron upon yourself. It'll be a painful lesson to learn, but I'm guessing you won't make this mistake again. Some of us have been there before. Welcome to the club. We've got jackets.
- jerome-jh 6y agoIf MDM is deployed by companies, the device may come from the author's employer, friend's employer, government? Memory ref + CPU ref makes it somewhat identifiable.
- jstanley 6y agoIf you think the numbers on the chip contain some personally identifiable information: fear not, they are generally just part numbers and sometimes date codes. If that's not the reason for trying to redact them, what is the reason? I can't think of anything else reasonable. EDIT: I now realise that this was a very condescending comment to write to someone who, based on the submitted blog post, is considerably better at electronics than I am. Sorry about that!
- danbruc 6y agoThat's now unfortunately too late, I can no longer edit or delete the comment, maybe one of the mods can censor it. And by the way, you added a new photo to the article but the original file is still there, following the link in my comment still yields the photo with the visible part number. There might very well be people out there that notice that the article has 1.png, 2.png, 3.png, 44.png, an image with something hidden, and then 5.jpg [1] and then start to wonder what 4.png or 4.jpg might look like. [1] Yes, there are also 5.png, 6.png, and 8.png in between out of order, it is not a perfect pattern, but it is still close enough that one might notice the missing 4.png.
- crazysim 6y agothe blog poster can edit the image on their own site right?
- danbruc 6y agoBut they can not get the link to the chip out of my comment.
- arunmagesh 6y agoNo worries mate. Sorted! Doesn't matter as of now.
- stordoff 6y agoIt's also on the Internet Achieve.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]