14 ms·

Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

565 points by pabs3 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
plorg 4y ago
The title of the article is misleading. The author says the phone cannot be bootloader unlocked without first connecting to the Internet. Once they have connected they are able to unlock the bootloader.
- croes 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - jffry 4y ago
    The very next text in the article after what you quoted (following the image) is: > I consider this a customer-hostile practice. I should not have to connect a piece of hardware to the Internet, even once, to use all of its features. If I hadn’t connected the Pixel 7 Pro to the Internet, then “OEM unlocking” would have stayed greyed out, thus I would not have been able to unlock the bootloader, thus I would not have been able to install GrapheneOS The author then describes connecting the phone to a networking sandbox and monitoring its traffic, all the way through where they were eventually able to unlock it after giving it internet access.
  - stavros 4y ago
    Have you read that part? > If I hadn’t connected the Pixel 7 Pro to the Internet, then “OEM unlocking” would have stayed greyed out, thus I would not have been able to unlock the bootloader, thus I would not have been able to install GrapheneOS.
  - sowbug 4y ago
    > Have you read that part? > >Google sold it to me with “OEM unlocking” greyed out. > So no unlocking even with internet access. Reading the whole article reveals that the option is enabled after providing internet access.
    - croes 4y ago
      Overread that, my bad.
- jkaplowitz 4y ago
  Possibly misleading indeed, but not wrong: the state that the phone is in at the moment ownership of the phone changes from Google to the customer has bootloader unlocking disabled.
  - sundvor 4y ago
    I didn't find it misleading at all. In my mind, it implied that there's a solution - albeit not an ideal one.
- quadrangle 4y ago
  The title is precisely correct, but it is easy to infer wrongly "and you can't enable it".
  - Johnny555 4y ago
    Which is what makes it misleading.
- p1mrx 4y ago
  The title actually is accurate for the Pixel 2. There are a bunch of those that nobody ever figured out how to unlock: https://jacobhall.net/2022/01/29/000177/ https://jacobhall.net/2022/01/29/000177/ https://support.google.com/pixelphone/thread/14920605/google-refurbished-pixel-2-is-always-defective-bootloader-unlock https://support.google.com/pixelphone/thread/14920605/google...
- BLKNSLVR 4y ago
  I understood the title, but only because I already knew that Pixel phones were able to have their bootloaders unlocked, so I assumed there was some kind of bar that had to be jumped. Support for LineageOS is a key issue for me in the purchase of a phone, so Pixels are desirable as a known quantity. I'm not too bothered about having to "do the thing" because so many other phone brands / models either can't be unlocked easily or aren't supported by LineageOS. Other comments about Pocophone F1 being compatible with PostmarketOS puts that on my watch list.
nelblu 4y ago
Yup, I am quite annoyed too with this practice. I have had 3 pixel phones and first thing i do is to unlock and flash calyxos or graphene. Since I always purchase used phones only, I just make it a practice to buy them in cash and unlock at a public WiFi.
- glenstein 4y ago
  I just got myself an old used Pixel phone as a daily driver, and I intend someday to flash it with a lineageOS. It already was somewhat tricky for me, at my skill level, to successfully do this on "ordinary" devices (Nexus 7 and Pixel C tablet), and it seems like getting the Pixel to truly unlock is going to be an added layer of complexity.
  - ewoodrich 4y ago
    Not sure if there is an equivalent for LineageOS but GrapheneOS offers an almost completely automated flashing process in Chrome via WebUSB and gives instructions for the actions you need to take on the phone itself when necessary throughout the process (on my Pixel 4a I just needed to press volume up and power to unlock the bootloader when prompted by the installer). The whole process was amazingly easy when I did it and took less than 15 minutes.
joecool1029 4y ago
> Request to Google: ungrey the “OEM unlocking” toggle in the factory, before shipping store.google.com devices to customers. Do not make your customers connect the device to the Internet before they are allowed to install the operating system they want. That won't happen. I can think of two big reasons off the top of my head: 1. Supply-chain attacks, someone gets a hold of the phone before it gets to you and unlocks the bootloader and then proceeds to modify or install another OS. 2. Warranty reasons, very likely they want to have it phone back and send a record that it was unlocked so they can deny warranty in cases where user damaged the device through software.
- wldcordeiro 4y ago
  I swear it's been a clause in their phones since they were called Nexus instead of Pixel where you breach the warranty when you unlock the bootloader. I never bother anymore but when I used to swap the Android versions myself I recall running into something saying as much.
  - andrepew 4y ago
    I don’t think that clause would be enforceable because of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. They can’t deny warranty coverage because of a user modification unless they can prove the modification caused the damage?
  - pbasista 4y ago
    > breach the warranty when you unlock the bootloader Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in the USA, activities such as unlocking the bootloader, launching a service menu, removing a sticker or opening a case cannot by themselves void a device's warranty. If I understand correctly, in order for the warranty to be voided, it is the manufacturer who has to prove that what you did to the device has indeed damaged it or made it otherwise unsuitable for further warranty service. Unlocking the bootloader is a reversible action. The phone might implement some one-way unlocking mechanisms though. For example, a fuse which needs to be blown. Or some encryption chip whose private key needs to be erased while a new valid private key can only be generated by the manufacturer. Then it would be a process that is irreversible for a regular customer. That being said, undertaking such activity would only result in some control mechanism being triggered and some software flag being set. It might be permanent, similar to you scratching the case of your phone. But that does not mean it makes the phone unfit for warranty service. The phone's functionality would remain unaffected. It would be on the manufacturer to prove that the presence of a flag indicating an open bootloader is in some way detrimental to the device's functionality. There might be similar laws elsewhere.
smnrchrds 4y ago
> I bought a Pixel 7 Pro from store.google.com (Canada) ... being sold “unlocked” by Google Carrier-locking is not permitted in Canada, so all the discussions about where the phone was bought and that the full price was paid are immaterial.
- abeyer 4y ago
  But carrier locking is irrelevant, as the article is about bootloader locking.
  - public_defender 4y ago
    It is relevant because the excuse made for disabling bootloader unlocking is that unlocking the bootloader can defeat a carrier lock. They are interrelated.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    I thought so too, but in order to show that the device was sold as unlocked, the article has a footnote (#7) about carrier unlocking. > Keep in mind that I bought this phone full price6 from store.google.com, where it was advertised right in the FAQ as an “unlocked smartphone”7
- rchaud 4y ago
  Is that correct? Phones purchased via carrier are locked to the carrier. The customer has the right to unlock it after the purchase, but the default state of the phone is locked, is it not?
  - smnrchrds 4y ago
    > (CRTC) today announced that as of December 1, 2017, all individual and small business wireless service customers will have the right to have their cellphones and other mobile devices unlocked free of charge upon request. In addition, all newly purchased devices must be provided unlocked from that day forward. https://www.canada.ca/en/radio-television-telecommunications/news/2017/06/crtc_puts_an_endtolockedcellphonesandunlockingfees.html https://www.canada.ca/en/radio-television-telecommunications... https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/crtc-wireless-code-cellphone-1.4161711 https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/crtc-wireless-code-cellphon...
quaintdev 4y ago
This does not make any sense. GrapheneOS supports all pixel phones. In fact, they support pixel phones only. I am thinking of buying pixel just for this.
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  Bootloader unlocking is disabled until you connect to the internet.
  - theK 4y ago
    Just out of curiosity, is it "just" the Internet or "connect to the internet, log in to a foogle account"?
    - rfoo 4y ago
      Just the Internet. You have to click Skip when the phone prompts you to log in to a Google account though, as it does this by default.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 4y ago
  What's special about GraphenrOS? It's the first time I'm hearing about it
  - quaintdev 4y ago
    Make phone Google free. More features here https://grapheneos.org/features https://grapheneos.org/features
    - lostgame 4y ago
      So I’m guessing with this you’d use an alternative store like F-Droid instead of the Play Store? (Pardon my ignorance, I’m an iOS dev and have been for a decade; I don’t really know the Android landscape.)
lopkeny12ko 4y ago
This behavior is not new. This has been the case since at least Pixel 3.
damisanet 4y ago
"Magic hostname" mentioned in article (afwprovisioning-pa.googleapis.com) makes me believe this may be related to zero-touch enrollment of Android Enterprise/Android for Work (https://support.google.com/work/android/answer/7514005 https://support.google.com/work/android/answer/7514005). I'm sure devices sold to regular customers and enterprises are identical and nobody is going to unbox and pre-provision them before shipment, so unboxed phone needs to contact provisioning server at least once to verify that there is no pending zero-touch enrollment configuration prepared for it (which may prevent bootloader unlocking if device is enterprise-owned).
- dingledork69 4y ago
  That just sounds like "you don't get to own your device"
  - mlyle 4y ago
    You get to "own your device" after you connect it to the internet once, to make sure it's not pre-provisioned for enterprise use.
    - MereInterest 4y ago
      If the servers are running. If the servers deign to give permission to own the device you purchased. If they correctly recognize that this device is owned by the user. After I've purchased the device, the seller has no right to withhold ownership, and the existence of enterprise devices doesn't change that in the slightest.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        If the process doesn't work then return it as defective. Transfer of control isn't happening exactly at sale time but a few hours later isn't a big deal. Though of course that depends on it staying unlocked.
        4y ago
pbasista 4y ago
> connect the device to the Internet before they are allowed to install the operating system they want Phoning home before undertaking such an activity takes away the ownership rights from the customers. They do not actually own these devices even after they have purchased them. The reason is that an important part of their ownership rights, i.e. the freedom to use the software of their choice, has been withheld from them. With a promise that it will be given to them on request. Unless, of course, the manufacturer changes their mind. Unfortunately, there are cases when the manufacturer did not even make such a promise and disabled bootloader unlocking permanently with no way of enabling it again. On Pixel phones. This used to happen (and perhaps still happens) to some Pixel phones purchased in the USA from Verizon. They have been known [0] for disabling the bootloader unlocking and for giving their customers no way to enable it. Not even after phoning home. Some people claim [1] that they paid someone from China to unlock their Pixel 1 phone remotely using some shady approach. I assume that someone with inside information from Google has leaked some software and instructions for doing so. It is unclear whether later Pixel phones sold by Verizon with locked bootloaders could be unlocked in a similar way. As a result, it seems like the only way to have a chance at unlocking such Pixel phones, which have been made by a US company and purchased from a US carrier, is to pay someone in China and hope for the best. It has gotten that far. [0] https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/how-to-unlock-bootloader-on-verizon-pixel-xl.3796030/page-73 https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/how-to-unlock-bootloader-... [1] https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/how-to-unlock-bootloader-on-verizon-pixel-xl.3796030/page-73#post-88299591 https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/how-to-unlock-bootloader-...
- ls65536 4y ago
  > With a promise that it will be given to them on request. Unless, of course, the manufacturer changes their mind. Or if the manufacturer decides to simply shut down those servers after some time, at which point the effective default situation will almost certainly be a denied request. In this case, they may not necessarily even be actively changing their mind, but rather just trying to reduce some overhead for those devices they deem to be "no longer supported" but which are nevertheless still out there being used.
- j1elo 4y ago
  Xiaomi does the same (or at least did until my latest phone change i.e. around 3 years ago). You must unlock the bootloader before being able to install a custom recovery image such as TWRP, which itself is used to install custom ROMs. This unlock involves: creating a user account in the Xiaomi services website, logging into that account from your phone's system, then having the phone logged in for at least 7 days, then using a Windows software which sends a request for unlocking, which they will grant (at least in my experience). The most outrageous part of all this process (apart from the fact that it exists at all) is the 7 days of usage with the phone logged in. If you attempt an unlock earlier than that, the software will say: "You have to wait X days and Y hours before you can unlock this device." EDIT: This Reddit wiki page explains the process. I'm flabbergasted that it actually takes 720 hours aka 30 days: https://www.reddit.com/r/Xiaomi/wiki/bootloader/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Xiaomi/wiki/bootloader/
jesprenj 4y ago
I got a Samsung S21 FE 5G as an award on a programming competition. OEM unlocking wasn't even an option in the developer settings until I connected the phone to the internet and set the date to one month in the past (I assume this has something to do with the warranty -- you can't even unlock the bootloader right away). An internet connection was required before even using the phone on the Android initial setup screen. Apart from that, developer settings can't even be enabled before agreeing with Samsung EULA. Initial setup screen can be weirdly manipulated into opening settings (Accessibility, Additional apps, Live transcribe, Connectivity settings (only shows if there's no inet connection), back), but spamming the Build number does not enable developer settings. Granted that I did not buy the phone, but it's still disgusting that such devices are being sold.
- m_kos 4y ago
  One thing I find very annoying about Samsung is that it tries to get people to use Bixby (Samsung's "Google Assistant") by remapping their phone's power button to Bixby. Due to the nature of my current project, I talked to many Samsung owners in their 50s and 60s who don't know how to turn Bixby off and, consequently, don't know how to, e.g., shut down or reboot their phones.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    Another way of looking at it is they had a bixby button and a power button, and decided to remove the power button.
  - Xeamek 4y ago
    You can remap it back. Not to defend them, just FYI
- zeagle 4y ago
  I liked my Samsung phones but after the a couple of them went end of life despite being very usable I am never buying one of their devices again and sticking with Pixel. There should be an Android code of ethics or regulation to unlock bootloaders of these devices when discontinued to minimize eWaste.
nimbius 4y ago
I got sick of this malarkey years ago with HTC. Oneplus phones just unlock when told 'OEM unlock' over the adb. No big brother home to phone, no bullshit begging for the rights to my device. If I decide to unlock it the worst I get is a nagscreen at boot with a scary warning about security.
hexagonwin 4y ago
I have a much older Google phone, a Verizon sold Pixel 2 which is not unlockable even after connecting to the internet. I got the phone second hand hoping to run LineageOS but I couldn't, so I just left it on my drawer. They really need to put an end to this ewaste generating policy. I should be able to do what I want with my device.
bravoteam5 4y ago
[dead]
distantsounds 4y ago
not only is the title misleading and click-baity (connecting to wifi is the only pre-requisite) the format of the blog doesn't format correctly (text and media is cut off on the right) . maybe spend less time writing misleading articles and more time fixing its viewability?
prettyStandard 4y ago
Does this help prevent supply chain attacks... at all?
- taco9999 4y ago
  Probably not, since there will be a warning screen displayed on boot if the bootloader is unlocked.
  - prettyStandard 4y ago
    And wouldn't I see that warning?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jacooper 4y ago
Honestly be glad that google still allows bootloader unlocking. And the WiFi requirement is very small, and the article is overblowing it.
- JeremyNT 4y ago
  Yeah, the state of affairs with Google is better than any other mainstream vendor. It seems lame that you have to phone home to unlock a new device, but it's nothing compared to what they could be doing.
  - opan 4y ago
    OnePlus has no such restrictions that I've seen, from the One to the 8T. I haven't heard of them locking down newer ones either. You just run the usual command to unlock the bootloader, no funny business. I've run a custom ROM on all of them that I've owned.
    - JeremyNT 4y ago
      One plus actually required an account to unlock the boot loader on one of the devices I owned. You had to log in and submit a request for unlocking. Perhaps they aren't all this onerous, but that really put me off of them.
    - izacus 4y ago
      OnePlus also doesn't allow enrollment of custom signing keys like Pixels do so they're objectively worse for your ownership even if they don't phone home. Their security patch and update support for hardware is also abysmal.
  - ehsankia 4y ago
    > It seems lame that you have to phone home to unlock a new device, but it's nothing compared to what they could be doing. My guess is that it's protection against stolen hardware? They can basically ban S/N of stolen phones, and the thieves can't unlock the bootloader and resell the device. But yeah, it seems like a reasonable thing. Out of all the vendors, Pixel phones are by far the easiest to unlcok, seems like a weird thing to complain about.
r00tanon 4y ago
ELI5 - everything about a phone only works when the carrier allows it to connect to the network. So, the way this is done is to, well, connect to the network and allow the phone to be unlocked - which according to the article is what happened? So the real complaint is that the Pixel can't be loaded with a customized Android OS (or Linux, etc.) without being connected to the internet first and this is bad because the vendor might put bloatware, spyware, etc. on the phone, which, once you install your OS will be gone anyway? OK, well then other than the underlying hardware needing to still be recognized on the carrier's network, which pretty much means you still have to be connected. The point is you aren't going to be stealthy using the carrier network on a phone, so at the EOD you have a pretty expensive device you can really only use on WIFI using your own VPN without the Vendor's software. So what's the advantage over a small tablet based on OTS SOC hardware that you have full control over? IOW why buy the phone in the first place?
- justsomehnguy 4y ago
  > this is bad because the vendor might Because the vendor can anytime say 'fuck you' and disable/remove the process which allows unlocking the bootloader. Edit: already happened with Pixel 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35854552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35854552
  - r00tanon 4y ago
    So anyone who has already unlocked their Pixel 2 is good to go right? Getting the latest Pixel unlocked requires an internet connection, but once done it's done. So the complaint is that in the far future the vendor might not support that on a six year old phone (by that time)? But, it is supported now, so what's the beef? My old Pixel 2 only works now plugged into power and on WIFI because the battery is dead. I can get super-pissed off at Google for not supporting battery replacement on the Pixel 2, but it's a 6 year old phone. How long should I expect them to support it knowing at the time about the sealed battery. I can't get that pissed seeing as I bought it knowing the facts at the time :)
    - saagarjha 4y ago
ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
Disgusting. Google has taken the fraud of Android to a new level. The great "open-source" OS that was supposed to free us all from vendor and telco tyranny has spectacularly failed to do so, and to cripple fully-owned hardware in this manner just adds further insult. Say what you want about "socialist" countries in Europe, but I don't think this kind of bullshit would stand in France. Based on laws they've passed over the last decade or two, Europeans seem to protect consumers; while the U.S. government abets corporations in ripping them off. Google apologists busily downvoting...
- flexagoon 4y ago
  > I don't think this kind of bullshit would stand in France France allows carrier locking, just like every other European country.
  - ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
    Indeed, but from Wikipedia: "In France, SIM locks are not prohibited. However, the mobile operator must inform the consumer of the existence of a SIM lock, and the subscriber has the right to request that the lock be removed at any time. No later than three months after the subscription of the contract, the mobile operator must "systematically and free of charge" provide the subscriber with a procedure to deactivate the SIM lock. Proposal to shorten the time that operators may charge a fee for removing the SIM lock prior from six-month to the three-month deadline." The stupid thing, at least in the U.S. is that carriers lock phones if the user is UNDER CONTRACT. This is backward; who cares if the user takes the phone to another network, when he has to continue paying the contract? This actually benefits the original carrier.
williamDafoe 4y ago
Google has a console called panopticon where they can see every Chromebook in the world. This monitoring facility is used to measure bug / crash prevalence in e.g. 802.11 driver software and to determine how much of each fleet is running the latest ChromeOS security patches. They can do this because Unlike Microsoft Google ports ChromeOS onto new laptops and tests the crap out of them (including the verification that the manufacturer meets about 25 min performance requirement standards for Chrome hardware like LCD viewing angles and speaker volume). They also test the laptops by giving them to employees and then demand hardware improvements of the manufacturers to get the Chrome branding logo. I bet the have a similar system for for their HTC phones. So your Pixel is probably registering with a panopticon type system because 99.9% of customers are gonna use the stock OS. They do this so their users perceive and experience higher hardware reliability. So it may sound creepy but the goal (100% fleet registration) is hard to meet without forcing 1 internet connection at the 1st boot. It will be hard to meet your freedom goals and google's reliability goals at the same time ..
- martius 4y ago
  Source for this? There is a well known tool named Panopticon (abbreviated pcon) internally and this is not at all what you describe. (I work at Google)
  - williamDafoe 4y ago
    I was in the chrome dogfooding program at Google, testing pre release hardware and I used panopticon. They locked it down a short while later. I could see all the acer Chromebooks in the wild before the lockdown. I imagine they renamed it and/or came up with a new tool named panopticon since it's a common term for a special type of prison where from one location you can observe every prisoner at once.
    - jle17 4y ago
      > it's a common term for a special type of prison where from one location you can observe every prisoner at once. Which is kinda unsettling. At least it makes it clear how they view their users.
azalemeth 4y ago
If I wanted to buy a new phone that I could root, install a custom ROM on, and use without voiding the warranty, what's the current best bet? One Plus used to be pretty good, but they've gone down in freedoms and up in price. Samsung are an obvious no. The entire design of the iPhone is specifically aimed at keeping the user out of it. Linux phones aren't usable yet. The shop on the /e/ foundation website seems to be selling flashed Samsung devices. Is there an alternative?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dleslie 4y ago
  Pinephone Plus is a decent option, but you will be underwhelmed by the camera.
  - seti0Cha 4y ago
    Are you using it as a daily driver? Seems like every time I look into Linux phones, there's always been some fundamental bit of functionality that wasn't working yet, like waking from sleep for phone calls. Are we beyond that now?
    - fsflover 4y ago
      I'm using Librem 5 as a daily driver. Calls, texts work fine. The battery life is just about 10-12 hours, since suspend is still experimental. But it is progressing: https://forums.puri.sm/t/status-of-suspend-for-librem-5 https://forums.puri.sm/t/status-of-suspend-for-librem-5.
- userbinator 4y ago
  Generic Chinese Androids might fit. There's still many with features that mainstream manufacturers have started removing like expandable storage, removable battery, and a headphone jack. Of course there's no voiding the warranty, because there isn't one to begin with.
- 4y ago
chenxiaolong 4y ago
In case anyone is curious which Android components are responsible for this: * There are 3 boolean states: 1. whether the bootloader is unlocked 2. whether the bootloader unlocking ability is enabled by the user ("OEM unlocking" toggle) 3. whether the bootloader unlocking ability is allowed to be enabled (carrier restriction) * The Android Settings app grays out the "OEM unlocking" toggle if `isOemUnlockAllowedByCarrier()` returns false [1]. * The state of `isOemUnlockAllowedByCarrier()` is changed by a call to `setOemUnlockAllowedByCarrier(boolean allowed, @Nullable byte[] signature)`, which is done by the `android.apps.work.oobconfig` package (/product/priv-app/OTAConfigNoZeroTouchPrebuilt/OTAConfigNoZeroTouchPrebuilt.apk) on the Pixel's stock firmware. This is the same package that handles the Android Enterprise zero-touch provisioning. It's not obfuscated and can be trivially reverse engineered. Prior to the December 2022 update, it was actually possible to bypass the check just by disabling this package via `pm` [2]. This is now blocked both by [3] and also the bootloader's requirement of a signed blob to lift the carrier restriction. This package is also responsible for preventing the removal of the carrier restriction (for the bootloader) when the SIM is locked. * The Android framework talks to `android.apps.work.oobconfig` at all because the stock firmware ships an overlay (/product/overlay/framework-res__auto_generated_rro_product.apk) that contains `<string name="config_deviceProvisioningPackage">com.google.android.apps.work.oobconfig</string>`. * The communication with the bootloader is done via the `oemlock` HAL: /vendor/lib64/android.hardware.oemlock@1.0-impl.nos.so. Its implementation of `setOemUnlockAllowedByCarrier()` seems to require a signed blob from Google (passed in from `android.apps.work.oobconfig`) before the state of the setting can be changed (see: `carrierUnlockFromSignature()`). Once unlocking is allowed, the setting is persisted by the bootloader unless something calls `setOemUnlockAllowedByCarrier()` again to disable it. Without the carrier restriction, the bootloader allows the user to freely toggle the "OEM unlocking" state. I don't know for sure since I haven't tested, but I believe even SIM-unlocked Pixels purchased from the Google Store use this "carrier" restriction mechanism. It's just that when the device asks Google's servers for the signed blob to lift the carrier restriction, it's always granted. (EDIT: Though there are reports that refurbished devices from warranty claims for bootloader-unlockable devices may sometimes have a carrier restriction that Google's servers don't allow removing.) [1] https://cs.android.com/android/platform/superproject/+/android-13.0.0_r42:packages/apps/Settings/src/com/android/settings/development/OemUnlockPreferenceController.java;l=221 https://cs.android.com/android/platform/superproject/+/andro... [2] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-20611 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-20611 [3] https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/base/+/3ac6aa1e4daeb646bdb40813e988d1013d72150c%5E%21/ https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/base/+/...
1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
"Here is the rest of the network activity, all of which is TLS-encrypted by keys buried in the stock Google operating system, and thus not controlled by the device purchaser: Hostname Downloaded to phone Uploaded from phone storage.googleapis.com 383 MiB 8 MiB fonts.gstatic.com 137 MiB 3 MiB afwprovisioning-pa.googleapis.com 18 MiB 1 MiB www.gstatic.com 8 MiB 287 kiB googlehosted.l.googleusercontent.com 8 MiB 345 kiB ota-cache1.googlezip.net 3 MiB 175 kiB dl.google.com 3 MiB 86 kiB instantmessaging-pa.googleapis.com 1 MiB 300 kiB www.google.com 46 kiB 24 kiB ssl.gstatic.com 25 kiB 3 kiB ota.googlezip.net 17 kiB 6 kiB digitalassetlinks.googleapis.com 17 kiB 4 kiB clients.l.google.com 14 kiB 7 kiB gstatic.com 13 kiB 3 kiB mobile-gtalk.l.google.com 8 kiB 1 kiB mobile.l.google.com 5 kiB 1 kiB lpa.ds.gsma.com 5 kiB 4 kiB connectivitycheck.gstatic.com 3 kiB 3 kiB app-measurement.com 1 kiB 0 bytes time.android.com 180 bytes 180 bytes Only Google knows precisely what all that data is and what it is used for." Why should the owner of the computer be allowed to see what is being sent to Google? (Maybe the strange folks at Google cannot think of any reasons.) Who pays for transport of the data to Google? (Is there any reason Google should not pay?) Putting the data sent aside, there is the question of whether the computer owner should have a choice in whether they want to send it, and there is the fact that these unauthorised connections are all pings to the mothership. Using NetGuard, it's possible to block all these connections without rooting or installing GrapheneOS. It's also possible to log all the DNS lookups and attempted connections, without rooting or installing GrapheneOS. The log will indicate which software is making the connection attempts. One can also create PCAP files showing the patterns of network activity, again without rooting or installing GrapheneOS. It's relatively easy to determine what connections are actually necessary for the computer to work as desired. After installing GrapheneOS, I wonder if it is possible to selectively stop connections to GrapheneOS servers. There are probably some connections to Graphene servers enabled by default. Would be fun to compare PCAP files from a device running NetGuard versus one running GrapheneOS.
- cubesnooper 4y ago
  > After installing GrapheneOS, I wonder if it is possible to selectively stop connections to GrapheneOS servers. There are probably some connections to Graphene servers enabled by default. This is actually extensively covered in the GrapheneOS FAQ: https://grapheneos.org/faq#default-connections https://grapheneos.org/faq#default-connections
neximo64 4y ago
I im honest I don't see the big deal with this practice. a) You can unlock the device b) You can connect via WiFi, why is the device 'phoning home' such a big deal when its brand new and has no data on it?
- stefncb 4y ago
  But what if I live somewhere remote without internet access? Such a simple thing as using the phone shouldn't be impossible.
  - neximo64 4y ago
    How does a phone work in a place without any reception/internet?
    - Zuiii 4y ago
      local wifi? local lte? The degree to which HN fails to consider most environments other than SF is appalling.
india_usa 4y ago
on a pure Pixel bought firectly from store and in Google Fi plan, I can toggle OEM unlocking, so this may be a ATT or verizon thing
BaculumMeumEst 4y ago
i was just considering switching to android after hitting “you’ve created too many apps in the last 7 days” and couldn’t build a project in xcode. glad to see that would be a waste of time and that everything sucks.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  Everything sucks, but not in the same amount.
- flexagoon 4y ago
  "everything sucks" as in "you have to connect your phone to the internet once"?
- bhelkey 4y ago
  So you are using an iOS device with a completely locked bootloader but a device phoning home before it unlocks the bootloader is unacceptable? You have an odd definition of "everything sucks" in android land.
Sierra7 4y ago
Basically this is done to ensure that the phone isn't locked by the carrier, meaning if you buy the device directly from google you can still unlock the device by connecting to the internet. Yeah, it sucks, yeah, you own your device less in a way, but im happy they still let you do it. I sent a support message a while back asking about it on the google store thing - and they said it was unlocked. I installed grapheneOS today on the pixel 7 actually, and was surprised to read that you had to connect it to the internet just to unlock it. Its strange. I enjoy grapheneOS so far though. Edit: if you get the phone through an upgrade with your providers plan it will most likely be locked. There are some threads on grapheneOS' forum about which ones do or dont lock the phone.
- rkagerer 4y ago
  So my choices are locked or locked? This is why I ordered my last phone from Hong Kong (and convinced the seller to take Bitcoin for it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25598831 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25598831).
  - Sierra7 4y ago
    > So my choices are locked or locked? Not really. Your choices are: - Locked by your carrier if they lock it, annoy support to get them to take it off - Bought directly from google, can be unlocked.
  - ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
    No, buy it from Google or at retail and it will be unlocked. Buy it from Verizon and it won't be.
- thescriptkiddie 4y ago
  carrier locking is a separate thing from bootloader locking
varelse 4y ago
[dead]
tortoise_in 4y ago
Atleast here we are getting option. What about Chinese oppo and Vivo and huawei? They give nothing.
zzzeek 4y ago
Shrugs I have a pixel 7, have never used this option, I put the phone in airplane mode and was able to flip the "enable OEM unlocking " switch without issue. Granted this phone has had intenet access for months so not sure if it already has decided it's "not a carrier-locked phone ".
- sundvor 4y ago
  The whole point about the article was the ability to unlock without ever having been online.
  - zzzeek 4y ago
    As I noted in my second sentence.
nfriedly 4y ago
This isn't great, but what they did with the Pixel 2 was far more egregious - they permanently looked the bootloaders of any phone that came back from a warranty repair. It really soured me on the Pixel line, I'm not sure I'll ever buy another one.
1101010010 4y ago
How else do you expect they get your device on a surveillance list? Or do people honestly believe that the 0.001% of mobile phone users that unlock their bootloader for custom operating systems are not subject to additional scrutiny by big brother? NSA flagged Linux Journal as an "extremist forum" and flagged readers for extra surveillance - and that was a decade ago.
- PhasmaFelis 4y ago
  I think at this point Big Brother has the processing power to scrutinize everyone all the time anyway. It's naive to think that you were in any way off their radar before you unlocked your phone.
  - 1101010010 4y ago
    Perhaps, but deviating from social norms and ubiquitous technologies multiplies scrutiny. Most efforts made to boost privacy actually often have the opposite effect, but this is a subtle nuance few will understand.
acyou 4y ago
I'm a little confused that people think they are free to use the software of their choice and that there is some built in right to use the software of your preference on a given hardware. Sure, if you're so smart, you can do it and it's up to you to try to dance around whatever the manufacturer wants to throw your way. Don't like it, don't buy it. Nothing says that any manufacturer is required to sell general purpose hardware. They can restrict it however they want, no?
- stolen_biscuit 4y ago
  >I'm a little confused that people think they are free to use the software of their choice and that there is some built in right to use the software of your preference on a given hardware I'm a little confused as to how you're confused? I bought it, I should be free to set up whatever software I please with it. It's mine.
- tga_d 4y ago
  Nobody is claiming there currently exists some inherent legal right to have general purpose hardware, they're complaining that they're being sold something intentionally designed to not behave the way a consumer would want. It's the same way people complain about any poorly designed product. If I bought some furniture and it used a custom screw head to incentivize repairs from the manufacturer, I would complain about that too, not because they did something illegal, but because it's a bad product.
- ketralnis 4y ago
  I mean, clearly it's the case that there is_ no legal right to use your own hardware as you see fit. The argument is that there is a moral right to use your own hardware as you see fit. It'd be nice if legalities and moralities were the same thing, and in the mean time we're allowed to be upset about it? I don't know what you're confused by.
- thescriptkiddie 4y ago
  The Free Software Foundation has been advocating for such a right for decades.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
funman7 4y ago
macOS installs now lean towards forcing you to connect to internet. Heh
dirtyid 4y ago
I remember Xiaomi had their 7-30 day wait to request boot unlock to prevent resellers from installing suspicious ROMs.
NKosmatos 4y ago
Oh come on now, it’s common knowledge that Pixel phones need to contact fonts.gstatic.com and download 137 MB of fonts in order for the bootloader unlocking option to be made available :-)
shultays 4y ago
Only Google knows precisely what all that data is and what it is used for. What data? It is a new phone, you don't have any data on it yet. Whatever data google is collecting is the data they put in it
- preisschild 4y ago
  Location data, Wi-Fi (B)SSIDs passwords, information about other devices in your LAN. The Wi-Fi BSSID alone is enough to pinpoint someone's exact location.
  - shultays 4y ago
    Sounds like something a public wifi or a vpn can solve. Then you can wrap your phone in a tinfoil if you wish. I am being a bit unfair to author. Is this a problem? yes. But then author is also stretching the definition of personal data
flangola7 4y ago
What is the physical mechanism that prevents the bootloader from being unlocked, and how does an internet connection have anything to do with it? I would hope there isn't a direct path for internet traffic to interact with the boot firmware...
Sophistifunk 4y ago
Seems likely they simply don't sell enough full-cost unsubsidised phones direct to consumers to warrant a separate firmware for that stream. Not surprising, phones are expensive these days, and almost everybody is on a contract for their SIM anyway, so why not get it from the carrier? I don't, but I know I'm the weirdo. The only other people I know who buy phones outright are my brother because he keeps dropping them and smashing them, and a mate who buys my old iPhones when I upgrade every 2 years or so because he knows I look after them.
EchoReflection 4y ago
i bought my pixel 7 pro direct from Google store and i have the option to unlock the bootloader...

565 points by pabs3 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

The title of the article is misleading. The author says the phone cannot be bootloader unlocked without first connecting to the Internet. Once they have connected they are able to unlock the bootloader.

croes 4y ago
[flagged]
- jffry 4y ago
  The very next text in the article after what you quoted (following the image) is: > I consider this a customer-hostile practice. I should not have to connect a piece of hardware to the Internet, even once, to use all of its features. If I hadn’t connected the Pixel 7 Pro to the Internet, then “OEM unlocking” would have stayed greyed out, thus I would not have been able to unlock the bootloader, thus I would not have been able to install GrapheneOS The author then describes connecting the phone to a networking sandbox and monitoring its traffic, all the way through where they were eventually able to unlock it after giving it internet access.
- stavros 4y ago
  Have you read that part? > If I hadn’t connected the Pixel 7 Pro to the Internet, then “OEM unlocking” would have stayed greyed out, thus I would not have been able to unlock the bootloader, thus I would not have been able to install GrapheneOS.
- sowbug 4y ago
  > Have you read that part? > >Google sold it to me with “OEM unlocking” greyed out. > So no unlocking even with internet access. Reading the whole article reveals that the option is enabled after providing internet access.
  - croes 4y ago
    Overread that, my bad.
jkaplowitz 4y ago
Possibly misleading indeed, but not wrong: the state that the phone is in at the moment ownership of the phone changes from Google to the customer has bootloader unlocking disabled.
- sundvor 4y ago
  I didn't find it misleading at all. In my mind, it implied that there's a solution - albeit not an ideal one.
quadrangle 4y ago
The title is precisely correct, but it is easy to infer wrongly "and you can't enable it".
- Johnny555 4y ago
  Which is what makes it misleading.
p1mrx 4y ago
The title actually is accurate for the Pixel 2. There are a bunch of those that nobody ever figured out how to unlock: https://jacobhall.net/2022/01/29/000177/ https://jacobhall.net/2022/01/29/000177/ https://support.google.com/pixelphone/thread/14920605/google-refurbished-pixel-2-is-always-defective-bootloader-unlock https://support.google.com/pixelphone/thread/14920605/google...
BLKNSLVR 4y ago
I understood the title, but only because I already knew that Pixel phones were able to have their bootloaders unlocked, so I assumed there was some kind of bar that had to be jumped. Support for LineageOS is a key issue for me in the purchase of a phone, so Pixels are desirable as a known quantity. I'm not too bothered about having to "do the thing" because so many other phone brands / models either can't be unlocked easily or aren't supported by LineageOS. Other comments about Pocophone F1 being compatible with PostmarketOS puts that on my watch list.

nelblu 4y ago

Yup, I am quite annoyed too with this practice. I have had 3 pixel phones and first thing i do is to unlock and flash calyxos or graphene. Since I always purchase used phones only, I just make it a practice to buy them in cash and unlock at a public WiFi.

glenstein 4y ago
I just got myself an old used Pixel phone as a daily driver, and I intend someday to flash it with a lineageOS. It already was somewhat tricky for me, at my skill level, to successfully do this on "ordinary" devices (Nexus 7 and Pixel C tablet), and it seems like getting the Pixel to truly unlock is going to be an added layer of complexity.
- ewoodrich 4y ago
  Not sure if there is an equivalent for LineageOS but GrapheneOS offers an almost completely automated flashing process in Chrome via WebUSB and gives instructions for the actions you need to take on the phone itself when necessary throughout the process (on my Pixel 4a I just needed to press volume up and power to unlock the bootloader when prompted by the installer). The whole process was amazingly easy when I did it and took less than 15 minutes.

joecool1029 4y ago

> Request to Google: ungrey the “OEM unlocking” toggle in the factory, before shipping store.google.com devices to customers. Do not make your customers connect the device to the Internet before they are allowed to install the operating system they want. That won't happen. I can think of two big reasons off the top of my head: 1. Supply-chain attacks, someone gets a hold of the phone before it gets to you and unlocks the bootloader and then proceeds to modify or install another OS. 2. Warranty reasons, very likely they want to have it phone back and send a record that it was unlocked so they can deny warranty in cases where user damaged the device through software.

wldcordeiro 4y ago
I swear it's been a clause in their phones since they were called Nexus instead of Pixel where you breach the warranty when you unlock the bootloader. I never bother anymore but when I used to swap the Android versions myself I recall running into something saying as much.
- andrepew 4y ago
  I don’t think that clause would be enforceable because of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. They can’t deny warranty coverage because of a user modification unless they can prove the modification caused the damage?
- pbasista 4y ago
  > breach the warranty when you unlock the bootloader Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in the USA, activities such as unlocking the bootloader, launching a service menu, removing a sticker or opening a case cannot by themselves void a device's warranty. If I understand correctly, in order for the warranty to be voided, it is the manufacturer who has to prove that what you did to the device has indeed damaged it or made it otherwise unsuitable for further warranty service. Unlocking the bootloader is a reversible action. The phone might implement some one-way unlocking mechanisms though. For example, a fuse which needs to be blown. Or some encryption chip whose private key needs to be erased while a new valid private key can only be generated by the manufacturer. Then it would be a process that is irreversible for a regular customer. That being said, undertaking such activity would only result in some control mechanism being triggered and some software flag being set. It might be permanent, similar to you scratching the case of your phone. But that does not mean it makes the phone unfit for warranty service. The phone's functionality would remain unaffected. It would be on the manufacturer to prove that the presence of a flag indicating an open bootloader is in some way detrimental to the device's functionality. There might be similar laws elsewhere.

smnrchrds 4y ago

> I bought a Pixel 7 Pro from store.google.com (Canada) ... being sold “unlocked” by Google Carrier-locking is not permitted in Canada, so all the discussions about where the phone was bought and that the full price was paid are immaterial.

abeyer 4y ago
But carrier locking is irrelevant, as the article is about bootloader locking.
- public_defender 4y ago
  It is relevant because the excuse made for disabling bootloader unlocking is that unlocking the bootloader can defeat a carrier lock. They are interrelated.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  I thought so too, but in order to show that the device was sold as unlocked, the article has a footnote (#7) about carrier unlocking. > Keep in mind that I bought this phone full price6 from store.google.com, where it was advertised right in the FAQ as an “unlocked smartphone”7
rchaud 4y ago
Is that correct? Phones purchased via carrier are locked to the carrier. The customer has the right to unlock it after the purchase, but the default state of the phone is locked, is it not?
- smnrchrds 4y ago
  > (CRTC) today announced that as of December 1, 2017, all individual and small business wireless service customers will have the right to have their cellphones and other mobile devices unlocked free of charge upon request. In addition, all newly purchased devices must be provided unlocked from that day forward. https://www.canada.ca/en/radio-television-telecommunications/news/2017/06/crtc_puts_an_endtolockedcellphonesandunlockingfees.html https://www.canada.ca/en/radio-television-telecommunications... https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/crtc-wireless-code-cellphone-1.4161711 https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/crtc-wireless-code-cellphon...

quaintdev 4y ago

This does not make any sense. GrapheneOS supports all pixel phones. In fact, they support pixel phones only. I am thinking of buying pixel just for this.

Georgelemental 4y ago
Bootloader unlocking is disabled until you connect to the internet.
- theK 4y ago
  Just out of curiosity, is it "just" the Internet or "connect to the internet, log in to a foogle account"?
  - rfoo 4y ago
    Just the Internet. You have to click Skip when the phone prompts you to log in to a Google account though, as it does this by default.
Fire-Dragon-DoL 4y ago
What's special about GraphenrOS? It's the first time I'm hearing about it
- quaintdev 4y ago
  Make phone Google free. More features here https://grapheneos.org/features https://grapheneos.org/features
  - lostgame 4y ago
    So I’m guessing with this you’d use an alternative store like F-Droid instead of the Play Store? (Pardon my ignorance, I’m an iOS dev and have been for a decade; I don’t really know the Android landscape.)

lopkeny12ko 4y ago

This behavior is not new. This has been the case since at least Pixel 3.

damisanet 4y ago

"Magic hostname" mentioned in article (afwprovisioning-pa.googleapis.com) makes me believe this may be related to zero-touch enrollment of Android Enterprise/Android for Work (https://support.google.com/work/android/answer/7514005 https://support.google.com/work/android/answer/7514005). I'm sure devices sold to regular customers and enterprises are identical and nobody is going to unbox and pre-provision them before shipment, so unboxed phone needs to contact provisioning server at least once to verify that there is no pending zero-touch enrollment configuration prepared for it (which may prevent bootloader unlocking if device is enterprise-owned).

dingledork69 4y ago
That just sounds like "you don't get to own your device"
- mlyle 4y ago
  You get to "own your device" after you connect it to the internet once, to make sure it's not pre-provisioned for enterprise use.
  - MereInterest 4y ago
    If the servers are running. If the servers deign to give permission to own the device you purchased. If they correctly recognize that this device is owned by the user. After I've purchased the device, the seller has no right to withhold ownership, and the existence of enterprise devices doesn't change that in the slightest.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      If the process doesn't work then return it as defective. Transfer of control isn't happening exactly at sale time but a few hours later isn't a big deal. Though of course that depends on it staying unlocked.
      - 4y ago

pbasista 4y ago

> connect the device to the Internet before they are allowed to install the operating system they want Phoning home before undertaking such an activity takes away the ownership rights from the customers. They do not actually own these devices even after they have purchased them. The reason is that an important part of their ownership rights, i.e. the freedom to use the software of their choice, has been withheld from them. With a promise that it will be given to them on request. Unless, of course, the manufacturer changes their mind. Unfortunately, there are cases when the manufacturer did not even make such a promise and disabled bootloader unlocking permanently with no way of enabling it again. On Pixel phones. This used to happen (and perhaps still happens) to some Pixel phones purchased in the USA from Verizon. They have been known [0] for disabling the bootloader unlocking and for giving their customers no way to enable it. Not even after phoning home. Some people claim [1] that they paid someone from China to unlock their Pixel 1 phone remotely using some shady approach. I assume that someone with inside information from Google has leaked some software and instructions for doing so. It is unclear whether later Pixel phones sold by Verizon with locked bootloaders could be unlocked in a similar way. As a result, it seems like the only way to have a chance at unlocking such Pixel phones, which have been made by a US company and purchased from a US carrier, is to pay someone in China and hope for the best. It has gotten that far. [0] https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/how-to-unlock-bootloader-on-verizon-pixel-xl.3796030/page-73 https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/how-to-unlock-bootloader-... [1] https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/how-to-unlock-bootloader-on-verizon-pixel-xl.3796030/page-73#post-88299591 https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/how-to-unlock-bootloader-...

ls65536 4y ago
> With a promise that it will be given to them on request. Unless, of course, the manufacturer changes their mind. Or if the manufacturer decides to simply shut down those servers after some time, at which point the effective default situation will almost certainly be a denied request. In this case, they may not necessarily even be actively changing their mind, but rather just trying to reduce some overhead for those devices they deem to be "no longer supported" but which are nevertheless still out there being used.
j1elo 4y ago
Xiaomi does the same (or at least did until my latest phone change i.e. around 3 years ago). You must unlock the bootloader before being able to install a custom recovery image such as TWRP, which itself is used to install custom ROMs. This unlock involves: creating a user account in the Xiaomi services website, logging into that account from your phone's system, then having the phone logged in for at least 7 days, then using a Windows software which sends a request for unlocking, which they will grant (at least in my experience). The most outrageous part of all this process (apart from the fact that it exists at all) is the 7 days of usage with the phone logged in. If you attempt an unlock earlier than that, the software will say: "You have to wait X days and Y hours before you can unlock this device." EDIT: This Reddit wiki page explains the process. I'm flabbergasted that it actually takes 720 hours aka 30 days: https://www.reddit.com/r/Xiaomi/wiki/bootloader/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Xiaomi/wiki/bootloader/

jesprenj 4y ago

I got a Samsung S21 FE 5G as an award on a programming competition. OEM unlocking wasn't even an option in the developer settings until I connected the phone to the internet and set the date to one month in the past (I assume this has something to do with the warranty -- you can't even unlock the bootloader right away). An internet connection was required before even using the phone on the Android initial setup screen. Apart from that, developer settings can't even be enabled before agreeing with Samsung EULA. Initial setup screen can be weirdly manipulated into opening settings (Accessibility, Additional apps, Live transcribe, Connectivity settings (only shows if there's no inet connection), back), but spamming the Build number does not enable developer settings. Granted that I did not buy the phone, but it's still disgusting that such devices are being sold.

m_kos 4y ago
One thing I find very annoying about Samsung is that it tries to get people to use Bixby (Samsung's "Google Assistant") by remapping their phone's power button to Bixby. Due to the nature of my current project, I talked to many Samsung owners in their 50s and 60s who don't know how to turn Bixby off and, consequently, don't know how to, e.g., shut down or reboot their phones.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Another way of looking at it is they had a bixby button and a power button, and decided to remove the power button.
- Xeamek 4y ago
  You can remap it back. Not to defend them, just FYI
zeagle 4y ago
I liked my Samsung phones but after the a couple of them went end of life despite being very usable I am never buying one of their devices again and sticking with Pixel. There should be an Android code of ethics or regulation to unlock bootloaders of these devices when discontinued to minimize eWaste.

nimbius 4y ago

I got sick of this malarkey years ago with HTC. Oneplus phones just unlock when told 'OEM unlock' over the adb. No big brother home to phone, no bullshit begging for the rights to my device. If I decide to unlock it the worst I get is a nagscreen at boot with a scary warning about security.

hexagonwin 4y ago

I have a much older Google phone, a Verizon sold Pixel 2 which is not unlockable even after connecting to the internet. I got the phone second hand hoping to run LineageOS but I couldn't, so I just left it on my drawer. They really need to put an end to this ewaste generating policy. I should be able to do what I want with my device.

bravoteam5 4y ago

[dead]

distantsounds 4y ago

not only is the title misleading and click-baity (connecting to wifi is the only pre-requisite) the format of the blog doesn't format correctly (text and media is cut off on the right) . maybe spend less time writing misleading articles and more time fixing its viewability?

prettyStandard 4y ago

Does this help prevent supply chain attacks... at all?

taco9999 4y ago
Probably not, since there will be a warning screen displayed on boot if the bootloader is unlocked.
- prettyStandard 4y ago
  And wouldn't I see that warning?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jacooper 4y ago

Honestly be glad that google still allows bootloader unlocking. And the WiFi requirement is very small, and the article is overblowing it.

JeremyNT 4y ago
Yeah, the state of affairs with Google is better than any other mainstream vendor. It seems lame that you have to phone home to unlock a new device, but it's nothing compared to what they could be doing.
- opan 4y ago
  OnePlus has no such restrictions that I've seen, from the One to the 8T. I haven't heard of them locking down newer ones either. You just run the usual command to unlock the bootloader, no funny business. I've run a custom ROM on all of them that I've owned.
  - JeremyNT 4y ago
    One plus actually required an account to unlock the boot loader on one of the devices I owned. You had to log in and submit a request for unlocking. Perhaps they aren't all this onerous, but that really put me off of them.
  - izacus 4y ago
    OnePlus also doesn't allow enrollment of custom signing keys like Pixels do so they're objectively worse for your ownership even if they don't phone home. Their security patch and update support for hardware is also abysmal.
- ehsankia 4y ago
  > It seems lame that you have to phone home to unlock a new device, but it's nothing compared to what they could be doing. My guess is that it's protection against stolen hardware? They can basically ban S/N of stolen phones, and the thieves can't unlock the bootloader and resell the device. But yeah, it seems like a reasonable thing. Out of all the vendors, Pixel phones are by far the easiest to unlcok, seems like a weird thing to complain about.

r00tanon 4y ago

ELI5 - everything about a phone only works when the carrier allows it to connect to the network. So, the way this is done is to, well, connect to the network and allow the phone to be unlocked - which according to the article is what happened? So the real complaint is that the Pixel can't be loaded with a customized Android OS (or Linux, etc.) without being connected to the internet first and this is bad because the vendor might put bloatware, spyware, etc. on the phone, which, once you install your OS will be gone anyway? OK, well then other than the underlying hardware needing to still be recognized on the carrier's network, which pretty much means you still have to be connected. The point is you aren't going to be stealthy using the carrier network on a phone, so at the EOD you have a pretty expensive device you can really only use on WIFI using your own VPN without the Vendor's software. So what's the advantage over a small tablet based on OTS SOC hardware that you have full control over? IOW why buy the phone in the first place?

justsomehnguy 4y ago
> this is bad because the vendor might Because the vendor can anytime say 'fuck you' and disable/remove the process which allows unlocking the bootloader. Edit: already happened with Pixel 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35854552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35854552
- r00tanon 4y ago
  So anyone who has already unlocked their Pixel 2 is good to go right? Getting the latest Pixel unlocked requires an internet connection, but once done it's done. So the complaint is that in the far future the vendor might not support that on a six year old phone (by that time)? But, it is supported now, so what's the beef? My old Pixel 2 only works now plugged into power and on WIFI because the battery is dead. I can get super-pissed off at Google for not supporting battery replacement on the Pixel 2, but it's a 6 year old phone. How long should I expect them to support it knowing at the time about the sealed battery. I can't get that pissed seeing as I bought it knowing the facts at the time :)
  - saagarjha 4y ago

ShadowBanThis01 4y ago

Disgusting. Google has taken the fraud of Android to a new level. The great "open-source" OS that was supposed to free us all from vendor and telco tyranny has spectacularly failed to do so, and to cripple fully-owned hardware in this manner just adds further insult. Say what you want about "socialist" countries in Europe, but I don't think this kind of bullshit would stand in France. Based on laws they've passed over the last decade or two, Europeans seem to protect consumers; while the U.S. government abets corporations in ripping them off. Google apologists busily downvoting...

flexagoon 4y ago
> I don't think this kind of bullshit would stand in France France allows carrier locking, just like every other European country.
- ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
  Indeed, but from Wikipedia: "In France, SIM locks are not prohibited. However, the mobile operator must inform the consumer of the existence of a SIM lock, and the subscriber has the right to request that the lock be removed at any time. No later than three months after the subscription of the contract, the mobile operator must "systematically and free of charge" provide the subscriber with a procedure to deactivate the SIM lock. Proposal to shorten the time that operators may charge a fee for removing the SIM lock prior from six-month to the three-month deadline." The stupid thing, at least in the U.S. is that carriers lock phones if the user is UNDER CONTRACT. This is backward; who cares if the user takes the phone to another network, when he has to continue paying the contract? This actually benefits the original carrier.

williamDafoe 4y ago

Google has a console called panopticon where they can see every Chromebook in the world. This monitoring facility is used to measure bug / crash prevalence in e.g. 802.11 driver software and to determine how much of each fleet is running the latest ChromeOS security patches. They can do this because Unlike Microsoft Google ports ChromeOS onto new laptops and tests the crap out of them (including the verification that the manufacturer meets about 25 min performance requirement standards for Chrome hardware like LCD viewing angles and speaker volume). They also test the laptops by giving them to employees and then demand hardware improvements of the manufacturers to get the Chrome branding logo. I bet the have a similar system for for their HTC phones. So your Pixel is probably registering with a panopticon type system because 99.9% of customers are gonna use the stock OS. They do this so their users perceive and experience higher hardware reliability. So it may sound creepy but the goal (100% fleet registration) is hard to meet without forcing 1 internet connection at the 1st boot. It will be hard to meet your freedom goals and google's reliability goals at the same time ..

martius 4y ago
Source for this? There is a well known tool named Panopticon (abbreviated pcon) internally and this is not at all what you describe. (I work at Google)
- williamDafoe 4y ago
  I was in the chrome dogfooding program at Google, testing pre release hardware and I used panopticon. They locked it down a short while later. I could see all the acer Chromebooks in the wild before the lockdown. I imagine they renamed it and/or came up with a new tool named panopticon since it's a common term for a special type of prison where from one location you can observe every prisoner at once.
  - jle17 4y ago
    > it's a common term for a special type of prison where from one location you can observe every prisoner at once. Which is kinda unsettling. At least it makes it clear how they view their users.

azalemeth 4y ago

If I wanted to buy a new phone that I could root, install a custom ROM on, and use without voiding the warranty, what's the current best bet? One Plus used to be pretty good, but they've gone down in freedoms and up in price. Samsung are an obvious no. The entire design of the iPhone is specifically aimed at keeping the user out of it. Linux phones aren't usable yet. The shop on the /e/ foundation website seems to be selling flashed Samsung devices. Is there an alternative?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dleslie 4y ago
Pinephone Plus is a decent option, but you will be underwhelmed by the camera.
- seti0Cha 4y ago
  Are you using it as a daily driver? Seems like every time I look into Linux phones, there's always been some fundamental bit of functionality that wasn't working yet, like waking from sleep for phone calls. Are we beyond that now?
  - fsflover 4y ago
    I'm using Librem 5 as a daily driver. Calls, texts work fine. The battery life is just about 10-12 hours, since suspend is still experimental. But it is progressing: https://forums.puri.sm/t/status-of-suspend-for-librem-5 https://forums.puri.sm/t/status-of-suspend-for-librem-5.
userbinator 4y ago
Generic Chinese Androids might fit. There's still many with features that mainstream manufacturers have started removing like expandable storage, removable battery, and a headphone jack. Of course there's no voiding the warranty, because there isn't one to begin with.
4y ago

chenxiaolong 4y ago

In case anyone is curious which Android components are responsible for this: * There are 3 boolean states: 1. whether the bootloader is unlocked 2. whether the bootloader unlocking ability is enabled by the user ("OEM unlocking" toggle) 3. whether the bootloader unlocking ability is allowed to be enabled (carrier restriction) * The Android Settings app grays out the "OEM unlocking" toggle if `isOemUnlockAllowedByCarrier()` returns false [1]. * The state of `isOemUnlockAllowedByCarrier()` is changed by a call to `setOemUnlockAllowedByCarrier(boolean allowed, @Nullable byte[] signature)`, which is done by the `android.apps.work.oobconfig` package (/product/priv-app/OTAConfigNoZeroTouchPrebuilt/OTAConfigNoZeroTouchPrebuilt.apk) on the Pixel's stock firmware. This is the same package that handles the Android Enterprise zero-touch provisioning. It's not obfuscated and can be trivially reverse engineered. Prior to the December 2022 update, it was actually possible to bypass the check just by disabling this package via `pm` [2]. This is now blocked both by [3] and also the bootloader's requirement of a signed blob to lift the carrier restriction. This package is also responsible for preventing the removal of the carrier restriction (for the bootloader) when the SIM is locked. * The Android framework talks to `android.apps.work.oobconfig` at all because the stock firmware ships an overlay (/product/overlay/framework-res__auto_generated_rro_product.apk) that contains `<string name="config_deviceProvisioningPackage">com.google.android.apps.work.oobconfig</string>`. * The communication with the bootloader is done via the `oemlock` HAL: /vendor/lib64/android.hardware.oemlock@1.0-impl.nos.so. Its implementation of `setOemUnlockAllowedByCarrier()` seems to require a signed blob from Google (passed in from `android.apps.work.oobconfig`) before the state of the setting can be changed (see: `carrierUnlockFromSignature()`). Once unlocking is allowed, the setting is persisted by the bootloader unless something calls `setOemUnlockAllowedByCarrier()` again to disable it. Without the carrier restriction, the bootloader allows the user to freely toggle the "OEM unlocking" state. I don't know for sure since I haven't tested, but I believe even SIM-unlocked Pixels purchased from the Google Store use this "carrier" restriction mechanism. It's just that when the device asks Google's servers for the signed blob to lift the carrier restriction, it's always granted. (EDIT: Though there are reports that refurbished devices from warranty claims for bootloader-unlockable devices may sometimes have a carrier restriction that Google's servers don't allow removing.) [1] https://cs.android.com/android/platform/superproject/+/android-13.0.0_r42:packages/apps/Settings/src/com/android/settings/development/OemUnlockPreferenceController.java;l=221 https://cs.android.com/android/platform/superproject/+/andro... [2] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-20611 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-20611 [3] https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/base/+/3ac6aa1e4daeb646bdb40813e988d1013d72150c%5E%21/ https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/base/+/...

1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago

"Here is the rest of the network activity, all of which is TLS-encrypted by keys buried in the stock Google operating system, and thus not controlled by the device purchaser: Hostname Downloaded to phone Uploaded from phone storage.googleapis.com 383 MiB 8 MiB fonts.gstatic.com 137 MiB 3 MiB afwprovisioning-pa.googleapis.com 18 MiB 1 MiB www.gstatic.com 8 MiB 287 kiB googlehosted.l.googleusercontent.com 8 MiB 345 kiB ota-cache1.googlezip.net 3 MiB 175 kiB dl.google.com 3 MiB 86 kiB instantmessaging-pa.googleapis.com 1 MiB 300 kiB www.google.com 46 kiB 24 kiB ssl.gstatic.com 25 kiB 3 kiB ota.googlezip.net 17 kiB 6 kiB digitalassetlinks.googleapis.com 17 kiB 4 kiB clients.l.google.com 14 kiB 7 kiB gstatic.com 13 kiB 3 kiB mobile-gtalk.l.google.com 8 kiB 1 kiB mobile.l.google.com 5 kiB 1 kiB lpa.ds.gsma.com 5 kiB 4 kiB connectivitycheck.gstatic.com 3 kiB 3 kiB app-measurement.com 1 kiB 0 bytes time.android.com 180 bytes 180 bytes Only Google knows precisely what all that data is and what it is used for." Why should the owner of the computer be allowed to see what is being sent to Google? (Maybe the strange folks at Google cannot think of any reasons.) Who pays for transport of the data to Google? (Is there any reason Google should not pay?) Putting the data sent aside, there is the question of whether the computer owner should have a choice in whether they want to send it, and there is the fact that these unauthorised connections are all pings to the mothership. Using NetGuard, it's possible to block all these connections without rooting or installing GrapheneOS. It's also possible to log all the DNS lookups and attempted connections, without rooting or installing GrapheneOS. The log will indicate which software is making the connection attempts. One can also create PCAP files showing the patterns of network activity, again without rooting or installing GrapheneOS. It's relatively easy to determine what connections are actually necessary for the computer to work as desired. After installing GrapheneOS, I wonder if it is possible to selectively stop connections to GrapheneOS servers. There are probably some connections to Graphene servers enabled by default. Would be fun to compare PCAP files from a device running NetGuard versus one running GrapheneOS.

cubesnooper 4y ago
> After installing GrapheneOS, I wonder if it is possible to selectively stop connections to GrapheneOS servers. There are probably some connections to Graphene servers enabled by default. This is actually extensively covered in the GrapheneOS FAQ: https://grapheneos.org/faq#default-connections https://grapheneos.org/faq#default-connections

neximo64 4y ago

I im honest I don't see the big deal with this practice. a) You can unlock the device b) You can connect via WiFi, why is the device 'phoning home' such a big deal when its brand new and has no data on it?

stefncb 4y ago
But what if I live somewhere remote without internet access? Such a simple thing as using the phone shouldn't be impossible.
- neximo64 4y ago
  How does a phone work in a place without any reception/internet?
  - Zuiii 4y ago
    local wifi? local lte? The degree to which HN fails to consider most environments other than SF is appalling.

india_usa 4y ago

on a pure Pixel bought firectly from store and in Google Fi plan, I can toggle OEM unlocking, so this may be a ATT or verizon thing

BaculumMeumEst 4y ago

i was just considering switching to android after hitting “you’ve created too many apps in the last 7 days” and couldn’t build a project in xcode. glad to see that would be a waste of time and that everything sucks.

marcosdumay 4y ago
Everything sucks, but not in the same amount.
flexagoon 4y ago
"everything sucks" as in "you have to connect your phone to the internet once"?
bhelkey 4y ago
So you are using an iOS device with a completely locked bootloader but a device phoning home before it unlocks the bootloader is unacceptable? You have an odd definition of "everything sucks" in android land.

Sierra7 4y ago

Basically this is done to ensure that the phone isn't locked by the carrier, meaning if you buy the device directly from google you can still unlock the device by connecting to the internet. Yeah, it sucks, yeah, you own your device less in a way, but im happy they still let you do it. I sent a support message a while back asking about it on the google store thing - and they said it was unlocked. I installed grapheneOS today on the pixel 7 actually, and was surprised to read that you had to connect it to the internet just to unlock it. Its strange. I enjoy grapheneOS so far though. Edit: if you get the phone through an upgrade with your providers plan it will most likely be locked. There are some threads on grapheneOS' forum about which ones do or dont lock the phone.

rkagerer 4y ago
So my choices are locked or locked? This is why I ordered my last phone from Hong Kong (and convinced the seller to take Bitcoin for it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25598831 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25598831).
- Sierra7 4y ago
  > So my choices are locked or locked? Not really. Your choices are: - Locked by your carrier if they lock it, annoy support to get them to take it off - Bought directly from google, can be unlocked.
- ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
  No, buy it from Google or at retail and it will be unlocked. Buy it from Verizon and it won't be.
thescriptkiddie 4y ago
carrier locking is a separate thing from bootloader locking

varelse 4y ago

[dead]

tortoise_in 4y ago

Atleast here we are getting option. What about Chinese oppo and Vivo and huawei? They give nothing.

zzzeek 4y ago

Shrugs I have a pixel 7, have never used this option, I put the phone in airplane mode and was able to flip the "enable OEM unlocking " switch without issue. Granted this phone has had intenet access for months so not sure if it already has decided it's "not a carrier-locked phone ".

sundvor 4y ago
The whole point about the article was the ability to unlock without ever having been online.
- zzzeek 4y ago
  As I noted in my second sentence.

nfriedly 4y ago

This isn't great, but what they did with the Pixel 2 was far more egregious - they permanently looked the bootloaders of any phone that came back from a warranty repair. It really soured me on the Pixel line, I'm not sure I'll ever buy another one.

1101010010 4y ago

How else do you expect they get your device on a surveillance list? Or do people honestly believe that the 0.001% of mobile phone users that unlock their bootloader for custom operating systems are not subject to additional scrutiny by big brother? NSA flagged Linux Journal as an "extremist forum" and flagged readers for extra surveillance - and that was a decade ago.

PhasmaFelis 4y ago
I think at this point Big Brother has the processing power to scrutinize everyone all the time anyway. It's naive to think that you were in any way off their radar before you unlocked your phone.
- 1101010010 4y ago
  Perhaps, but deviating from social norms and ubiquitous technologies multiplies scrutiny. Most efforts made to boost privacy actually often have the opposite effect, but this is a subtle nuance few will understand.

acyou 4y ago

I'm a little confused that people think they are free to use the software of their choice and that there is some built in right to use the software of your preference on a given hardware. Sure, if you're so smart, you can do it and it's up to you to try to dance around whatever the manufacturer wants to throw your way. Don't like it, don't buy it. Nothing says that any manufacturer is required to sell general purpose hardware. They can restrict it however they want, no?

stolen_biscuit 4y ago
>I'm a little confused that people think they are free to use the software of their choice and that there is some built in right to use the software of your preference on a given hardware I'm a little confused as to how you're confused? I bought it, I should be free to set up whatever software I please with it. It's mine.
tga_d 4y ago
Nobody is claiming there currently exists some inherent legal right to have general purpose hardware, they're complaining that they're being sold something intentionally designed to not behave the way a consumer would want. It's the same way people complain about any poorly designed product. If I bought some furniture and it used a custom screw head to incentivize repairs from the manufacturer, I would complain about that too, not because they did something illegal, but because it's a bad product.
ketralnis 4y ago
I mean, clearly it's the case that there is_ no legal right to use your own hardware as you see fit. The argument is that there is a moral right to use your own hardware as you see fit. It'd be nice if legalities and moralities were the same thing, and in the mean time we're allowed to be upset about it? I don't know what you're confused by.
thescriptkiddie 4y ago
The Free Software Foundation has been advocating for such a right for decades.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

funman7 4y ago

macOS installs now lean towards forcing you to connect to internet. Heh

dirtyid 4y ago

I remember Xiaomi had their 7-30 day wait to request boot unlock to prevent resellers from installing suspicious ROMs.

NKosmatos 4y ago

Oh come on now, it’s common knowledge that Pixel phones need to contact fonts.gstatic.com and download 137 MB of fonts in order for the bootloader unlocking option to be made available :-)

shultays 4y ago

Only Google knows precisely what all that data is and what it is used for. What data? It is a new phone, you don't have any data on it yet. Whatever data google is collecting is the data they put in it

preisschild 4y ago
Location data, Wi-Fi (B)SSIDs passwords, information about other devices in your LAN. The Wi-Fi BSSID alone is enough to pinpoint someone's exact location.
- shultays 4y ago
  Sounds like something a public wifi or a vpn can solve. Then you can wrap your phone in a tinfoil if you wish. I am being a bit unfair to author. Is this a problem? yes. But then author is also stretching the definition of personal data

flangola7 4y ago

What is the physical mechanism that prevents the bootloader from being unlocked, and how does an internet connection have anything to do with it? I would hope there isn't a direct path for internet traffic to interact with the boot firmware...

Sophistifunk 4y ago

Seems likely they simply don't sell enough full-cost unsubsidised phones direct to consumers to warrant a separate firmware for that stream. Not surprising, phones are expensive these days, and almost everybody is on a contract for their SIM anyway, so why not get it from the carrier? I don't, but I know I'm the weirdo. The only other people I know who buy phones outright are my brother because he keeps dropping them and smashing them, and a mate who buys my old iPhones when I upgrade every 2 years or so because he knows I look after them.

EchoReflection 4y ago

i bought my pixel 7 pro direct from Google store and i have the option to unlock the bootloader...