8 ms·

Google Messages RCS is blocked on rooted, custom ROM Android phones

68 points by WaitWaitWha 3y ago

DinaCoder99 3y ago
Is Google Messages the only messaging app on android that allows RCS interactions? On the iPhone, iMessages is the only app that has direct access to SMS functionality, but I understand that this isn't the case on android. Is this true?
- charcircuit 3y ago
  No, there are some Samsung apps that can, but the RCS API is not able to used by 3rd party developers
- ajayyy 3y ago
  There is a whitelisted set of apps in the OS. Samsung's messenger also is allowed on Samsung devices. They talked about opening the API many years ago and then suddenly stopped talking about it. For most people, Google Messenger app now uses Google's RCS gateway anyway, so the carrier does not need to support RCS. I do not know of anyone trying to get carrier-based RCS working with a non Google app using a custom rom with a different whitelisted set of apps, but it sounds to like maybe that would be possible
  - jwells89 3y ago
    Additionally, only Google’s is capable of encrypted RCS as far as I’m aware (as the standard does not include that), so using other clients means giving up encryption.
- AAAAaccountAAAA 3y ago
  To my understanding, to use RCS on Android, you need to: - to be able to access Internet - to be able to read incoming SMS messages for identification - to implement a full RCS client stack of your own. There is an open source RCS client library in existence: https://github.com/Hirohumi/rust-rcs-core https://github.com/Hirohumi/rust-rcs-core I am not aware of anyone having been managed to connect it to Jibe servers, though. It is completely possible that Google is somehow actively blocking third party implementations, but I don't know for sure.
voidwtf 3y ago
I think this same expectation in the Apple ecosystem is why I've received single digit spam from their messaging services. I'm sure there's a better way, but I'm sure it's also a game of whack-a-mole and this is just the first whack. Freedom to root/jailbreak one's phone is not freedom to use a service, if they don't want rooted phones to use their RCS gateway I don't think they should be forced to allow it.
- saurik 3y ago
  iMessage runs on desktop Macs and can be easily automated there... in fact, how to do it is so trivial and so commonly known that I just asked ChatGPT how to do it and it told me without balking: it is just a handful of lines of AppleScript, as Apple doesn't even try to make it difficult (and arguably has gone out of their way to support it). I am thereby not sure what mechanism you are contemplating that ties the generation of spam to rooted and/or jailbroken devices?
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    Easily automated does not mean Apple’s servers won’t detect spamming patterns and block that device. If the software is not tied to that device- make up a new identity and keep going. But if it’s tied down with SafetyNet or Apple’s DeviceCheck… that gets expensive. Is it worth buying a Mac Mini if it’s easy to automate but will be blocked in hours?
    - saurik 3y ago
      And what does Apple's servers detecting spamming patterns have to do with rooted/jailbroken devices? iMessage fundamentally is used every day by people who can have as much root as they want on their desktop Mac, and so whatever mechanisms we are talking about that differentiate iMessage from whatever other services can't be cited as an argument to take away freedom to modify your software.
      - gjsman-1000 3y ago
        I am not certain, but at a minimum, I suspect that Apple knows a non-rooted device will be incapable of lying about, say, its serial number; whereas a rooted device might make one up and try repeatedly until it finds one that works. The ability to lie about such identifiers makes a device ban impossible to enforce.
COGlory 3y ago
Hasn't this been the case since RCS has existed? I've never seen anyone get it working on a custom ROM. RCS simply isn't a solution until it doesn't rely on Google.
- blackmanta 3y ago
  I have used Google messages with RCS on grapheneos.
- AAAAaccountAAAA 3y ago
  RCS existed long before Google monopolized it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services
k12sosse 3y ago
Roll your own distro.. provide your own RCS services. As lame as it may be sound, you wanted out of the Google ecosystem, right? Can't eat your cake too bros.
- ajayyy 3y ago
  It's not an open federation
- betaby 3y ago
  RCS servers are sitting in the mobile telco infra. I'm already paying them.
simula67 3y ago
It is unfortunate that the company that became incredibly successful, at least partly, because of the hackability of Linux and open source software is now actively working to suppress hackability. I recently had to unroot my phone since it was too much pain. Almost all apps were constantly fighting to not be allowed to run. After a while, I had a variety of root-hiding modules installed on Magisk, and every time I downloaded and installed a new app, the dread was there that it would not work because of root. War on General Computing[1] is here. For some reason, most people do not seem to care that they do not have full control of the devices that they bought with their own hard-earned money. It is one of those rare cases where 'your choices affect my choices' and therefore not meshing with the idea that maximum individual freedom is always a good thing. Therefore, I don't think this can be solved by market forces- we may need some regulation. I think it would be fair to ask the companies to allow the apps to run on a rooted device so long as the user takes responsibility for any resulting losses. Any service provider should still be responsible for securing their own systems though. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg
- charcircuit 3y ago
  Getting rid of rooting is not a "war on general computing." General computing means that you can write a wide variety of software for them instead of the computer being meant for a specific use case. The app platform on Android allows for such a variety of apps. Just because it's not possible for an app to record your microphone without asking the user for permission that doesn't mean that the phone isn't general purpose.
  - idiotsecant 3y ago
    If I own it, I should be able to make it do what I tell it to do. Its a simple concept, no need to water it down to please our corporate overlords.
  - aeroevan 3y ago
    If I don't have root on my device, is it really my device?
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
[dupe] Discussion over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39567226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39567226
tripdout 3y ago
Disgusting behavior by Google, and even more since it's essentially a shadow ban. First DRM-ed content, now messaging. Android should just say they don't allow bootloader unlocking outright anymore, then maybe we can move onto an actually free and open source operating system not ran by an advertising company.
x1ph0z 3y ago
If android and the play store are gonna be locked down, you might as well get an iPhone.
tripdout 3y ago
Remember when Google cared about the "open handset alliance"
arun-mani-j 3y ago
Can someone explain what "security mechanisms" an Android phone has built-in that are "destroyed" when a phone is rooted or custom ROM is installed such that banking apps, etc. deny to open up? If I understand right, rooting means getting administrative privileges like using sudo. But can't they be turned off even after flashing custom ROM? If yes, then why do those app deny to work if the phone uses custom ROM irrespective of rooting status. (I'm a newbie in custom ROMS concept, so my assumptions above could be massively wrong :) )
- mid-kid 3y ago
  Google's safetynet works by downloading a frequently updating and obfuscated binary from google and running it with the highest possible privileges (ARM trustzone on modern phones, bypasses the kernel), which then verifies the integrity of your system against a google-vetted list, preventing any sort of modification, root or not. This is going to become nigh-impossible to bypass in the future as the binary is encrypted and verifies its signature, and encrypts the response with device-specific keys only available in trustzone. The current bypasses involve spoofing the uavailability of trustzone.
- mike_hearn 3y ago
  Because: a. Being rooted or in other abnormal device states is (perceived to be?) associated with fraud against the service provider. That's because it's hard to tell the difference between a device in which only the legit user has control, and one that's been remotely rooted by malware (in theory this can be done by using remote attestation but this requires a non-rootable supervisor layer to do that protocol, so you end up going around in circles as root is then not really root). b. Users not having root means the service provider can (to some extent) reason about how the app will behave regardless of user wishes, which makes it easier to suppress abuse. As Google explain clearly in the article, this is done as an anti-spam measure. If the user doesn't have root then the OS can block automation of the app, protect signing keys, do remote attestations etc and that makes spamming much harder (you can't emulate the protocol). If the user has root then they can just inject code into the RCS app's address space and control it directly. Consider also why games consoles don't give you root. It's because gaming is a two or three or even four sided transaction (gamer, game developer, console developer who sells at a loss and makes it up on licensing fees, other gamers on multiplayer). If you privilege one party over all the others then the ecosystem fails, so every successful platform exercises tight control over the purchaser of the hardware to ensure the other parties involved have their needs also respected.
joshstrange 3y ago
Please, tell me more about how RCS is the savior and if only Apple would get off their butts and implement it we'd have a perfect utopia... RCS from almost the start has been heavily controlled by Google and even if it wasn't, it's a bad standard. The idea that we'd wanted to give the carriers control over anything or tie more to our phone numbers is laughable. The lack of encryption (and no, Google's own flavor of encryption doesn't count) is just the cherry on top of a shit sundae.
bobdvb 3y ago
RCS is irrelevant, I barely use SMS, everything I use is either WhatsApp or a little Telegram right now (I have Signal but that's also largely irrelevant).

68 points by WaitWaitWha 3y ago

Is Google Messages the only messaging app on android that allows RCS interactions? On the iPhone, iMessages is the only app that has direct access to SMS functionality, but I understand that this isn't the case on android. Is this true?

charcircuit 3y ago
No, there are some Samsung apps that can, but the RCS API is not able to used by 3rd party developers
ajayyy 3y ago
There is a whitelisted set of apps in the OS. Samsung's messenger also is allowed on Samsung devices. They talked about opening the API many years ago and then suddenly stopped talking about it. For most people, Google Messenger app now uses Google's RCS gateway anyway, so the carrier does not need to support RCS. I do not know of anyone trying to get carrier-based RCS working with a non Google app using a custom rom with a different whitelisted set of apps, but it sounds to like maybe that would be possible
- jwells89 3y ago
  Additionally, only Google’s is capable of encrypted RCS as far as I’m aware (as the standard does not include that), so using other clients means giving up encryption.
AAAAaccountAAAA 3y ago
To my understanding, to use RCS on Android, you need to: - to be able to access Internet - to be able to read incoming SMS messages for identification - to implement a full RCS client stack of your own. There is an open source RCS client library in existence: https://github.com/Hirohumi/rust-rcs-core https://github.com/Hirohumi/rust-rcs-core I am not aware of anyone having been managed to connect it to Jibe servers, though. It is completely possible that Google is somehow actively blocking third party implementations, but I don't know for sure.

voidwtf 3y ago

I think this same expectation in the Apple ecosystem is why I've received single digit spam from their messaging services. I'm sure there's a better way, but I'm sure it's also a game of whack-a-mole and this is just the first whack. Freedom to root/jailbreak one's phone is not freedom to use a service, if they don't want rooted phones to use their RCS gateway I don't think they should be forced to allow it.

saurik 3y ago
iMessage runs on desktop Macs and can be easily automated there... in fact, how to do it is so trivial and so commonly known that I just asked ChatGPT how to do it and it told me without balking: it is just a handful of lines of AppleScript, as Apple doesn't even try to make it difficult (and arguably has gone out of their way to support it). I am thereby not sure what mechanism you are contemplating that ties the generation of spam to rooted and/or jailbroken devices?
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  Easily automated does not mean Apple’s servers won’t detect spamming patterns and block that device. If the software is not tied to that device- make up a new identity and keep going. But if it’s tied down with SafetyNet or Apple’s DeviceCheck… that gets expensive. Is it worth buying a Mac Mini if it’s easy to automate but will be blocked in hours?
  - saurik 3y ago
    And what does Apple's servers detecting spamming patterns have to do with rooted/jailbroken devices? iMessage fundamentally is used every day by people who can have as much root as they want on their desktop Mac, and so whatever mechanisms we are talking about that differentiate iMessage from whatever other services can't be cited as an argument to take away freedom to modify your software.
    - gjsman-1000 3y ago
      I am not certain, but at a minimum, I suspect that Apple knows a non-rooted device will be incapable of lying about, say, its serial number; whereas a rooted device might make one up and try repeatedly until it finds one that works. The ability to lie about such identifiers makes a device ban impossible to enforce.

COGlory 3y ago

Hasn't this been the case since RCS has existed? I've never seen anyone get it working on a custom ROM. RCS simply isn't a solution until it doesn't rely on Google.

blackmanta 3y ago
I have used Google messages with RCS on grapheneos.
AAAAaccountAAAA 3y ago
RCS existed long before Google monopolized it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services

k12sosse 3y ago

Roll your own distro.. provide your own RCS services. As lame as it may be sound, you wanted out of the Google ecosystem, right? Can't eat your cake too bros.

ajayyy 3y ago
It's not an open federation
betaby 3y ago
RCS servers are sitting in the mobile telco infra. I'm already paying them.

simula67 3y ago

It is unfortunate that the company that became incredibly successful, at least partly, because of the hackability of Linux and open source software is now actively working to suppress hackability. I recently had to unroot my phone since it was too much pain. Almost all apps were constantly fighting to not be allowed to run. After a while, I had a variety of root-hiding modules installed on Magisk, and every time I downloaded and installed a new app, the dread was there that it would not work because of root. War on General Computing[1] is here. For some reason, most people do not seem to care that they do not have full control of the devices that they bought with their own hard-earned money. It is one of those rare cases where 'your choices affect my choices' and therefore not meshing with the idea that maximum individual freedom is always a good thing. Therefore, I don't think this can be solved by market forces- we may need some regulation. I think it would be fair to ask the companies to allow the apps to run on a rooted device so long as the user takes responsibility for any resulting losses. Any service provider should still be responsible for securing their own systems though. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg

charcircuit 3y ago
Getting rid of rooting is not a "war on general computing." General computing means that you can write a wide variety of software for them instead of the computer being meant for a specific use case. The app platform on Android allows for such a variety of apps. Just because it's not possible for an app to record your microphone without asking the user for permission that doesn't mean that the phone isn't general purpose.
- idiotsecant 3y ago
  If I own it, I should be able to make it do what I tell it to do. Its a simple concept, no need to water it down to please our corporate overlords.
- aeroevan 3y ago
  If I don't have root on my device, is it really my device?

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

[dupe] Discussion over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39567226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39567226

tripdout 3y ago

Disgusting behavior by Google, and even more since it's essentially a shadow ban. First DRM-ed content, now messaging. Android should just say they don't allow bootloader unlocking outright anymore, then maybe we can move onto an actually free and open source operating system not ran by an advertising company.

x1ph0z 3y ago

If android and the play store are gonna be locked down, you might as well get an iPhone.

tripdout 3y ago

Remember when Google cared about the "open handset alliance"

arun-mani-j 3y ago

Can someone explain what "security mechanisms" an Android phone has built-in that are "destroyed" when a phone is rooted or custom ROM is installed such that banking apps, etc. deny to open up? If I understand right, rooting means getting administrative privileges like using sudo. But can't they be turned off even after flashing custom ROM? If yes, then why do those app deny to work if the phone uses custom ROM irrespective of rooting status. (I'm a newbie in custom ROMS concept, so my assumptions above could be massively wrong :) )

mid-kid 3y ago
Google's safetynet works by downloading a frequently updating and obfuscated binary from google and running it with the highest possible privileges (ARM trustzone on modern phones, bypasses the kernel), which then verifies the integrity of your system against a google-vetted list, preventing any sort of modification, root or not. This is going to become nigh-impossible to bypass in the future as the binary is encrypted and verifies its signature, and encrypts the response with device-specific keys only available in trustzone. The current bypasses involve spoofing the uavailability of trustzone.
mike_hearn 3y ago
Because: a. Being rooted or in other abnormal device states is (perceived to be?) associated with fraud against the service provider. That's because it's hard to tell the difference between a device in which only the legit user has control, and one that's been remotely rooted by malware (in theory this can be done by using remote attestation but this requires a non-rootable supervisor layer to do that protocol, so you end up going around in circles as root is then not really root). b. Users not having root means the service provider can (to some extent) reason about how the app will behave regardless of user wishes, which makes it easier to suppress abuse. As Google explain clearly in the article, this is done as an anti-spam measure. If the user doesn't have root then the OS can block automation of the app, protect signing keys, do remote attestations etc and that makes spamming much harder (you can't emulate the protocol). If the user has root then they can just inject code into the RCS app's address space and control it directly. Consider also why games consoles don't give you root. It's because gaming is a two or three or even four sided transaction (gamer, game developer, console developer who sells at a loss and makes it up on licensing fees, other gamers on multiplayer). If you privilege one party over all the others then the ecosystem fails, so every successful platform exercises tight control over the purchaser of the hardware to ensure the other parties involved have their needs also respected.

joshstrange 3y ago

Please, tell me more about how RCS is the savior and if only Apple would get off their butts and implement it we'd have a perfect utopia... RCS from almost the start has been heavily controlled by Google and even if it wasn't, it's a bad standard. The idea that we'd wanted to give the carriers control over anything or tie more to our phone numbers is laughable. The lack of encryption (and no, Google's own flavor of encryption doesn't count) is just the cherry on top of a shit sundae.

bobdvb 3y ago

RCS is irrelevant, I barely use SMS, everything I use is either WhatsApp or a little Telegram right now (I have Signal but that's also largely irrelevant).