Related
>>>> 22Jan2012: linboothkvc v1.0 source released in my linboothkvc thread. It works successfully on Omap3 and Omap4 based devices including NookTab. And with minimal changes/love can work with any rooted arm based linux device <<<<
>>>> 17Jan2012: Kernel module SUCCEEDS on NookTab to reboot into NIRVANA - NO NEED to BREAK the default SECURE BOOT CHAIN and NOTE THAT EVEN THIS CAN WORK ON ANY ROOTED DEVICE and not just NT, with minimal love so ENJOY <<<<
>>>> 16Jan2012: My kernel module based path (linboothkvc) to running custom kernels and roms is almost done, except for a __small part__ to get it running on NT now - IF ONLY PEOPLE HAD WAITED ...., we could have reaped the potential benefit in future, Why not !!!! why not ....WHY NOT !?!?. NOTE that it can allow one to run custom kernel/roms WITH OUT MODIFYING ANY CRITICAL PARTITIONS provided one sets it up properly/appropriately. Source for beta version available in my linboothkvc thread, for the interested developers/experimenters for now ... <<<<
>>>> I may not respond to the posts on this thread currently, because I am trying to get a alternate option called linboothkvc using kernel modules up and running (which will occupy my free time), which AVOIDS the NEED for this flaw in the first place for most of the people out there (i.e Custom ROMS with different kernels). However over the weekends, I will go thro all the posts on this thread <<<<
>>>> 14Jan2012: Initial pre-alpha version of kernel module path based source code uploaded to my linboothkvc thread for those still interested to experiment
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1427610
<<<<
Hi All,
If you have been following my posts over the last few days
NOTE: To people frustrated with UART requirement - I understand the restrictions of UART access, but a lot of ROMS can be done with 2ndihkvc or equivalent methods and with out needing a Custom kernel. If someone is talking about Custom/New kernel for Android 4.0 (ICS). Then do note my statement (in NOP BYPASS thread) on POWER of KERNEL MODULES in Linux, IT CAN BE USED TO ACHIEVE what you want to achieve, only that it requires bit more effort, which I or some one else has not put currently... thats all. AND THAT By holding off now, we can _potentially_(Risk is always there) reap the benifit with next years NEXT GEN Nook Tab+ or what ever they call it.
a) I have implemented 2ndihkvc, which follows the same fundamental concept as 2nd-init, but achieves it in a simpler way (Needed because some of the calls used in original 2nd-init doesn't work on NookTab, or have unnecessary dependencies (in this given context, otherwise they are good in them selves) which can be avoided with my simpler method)
b) I have provided the NOP Bypass method of running a modified Ramdisk and also 90% a modified kernel, provided UART access is there.
c) There is still the power of linux KERNEL MODULES to EXPLOIT. (Haven't had time on that yet).
If you ask me, this should cover all category of people. Be it people who want to run custom Roms, or people who want to experiment with Kernel and or other low level stuff for the fun of it.
There is a 4th method which will allow one to achieve (b) above with out requiring UART access or even uSD (potentially . If one reads between the lines from all my posts till date, the answer is hidden in there. Only that I haven't spelt it out directly or in the face. The reason is because It is a fundament flaw (rather there are potentially two at two different levels - one relatively simple and one relatively bit more involved - One I know for sure, another I have to dig bit more) in the way things are done currently in the secure boot chain on this device as well as potentially other devices with same or similar SOC (and or different SOC but with similar boot chain s/w components.
SHOULD WE BE WASTING i.e providing a solution which uses it, when there is already 2ndihkvc and NOP Bypass over UART and also the Linux KERNLE MODULE ROUTE to cater to most peoples needs.
Because if we do, then even the Device manufacturers and their partners will come to know about it and can easily fix it in their Newer/NextGen devices. While if we withhold it for now, we may be able to get access to it on their Next generation Devices with hopefully Arm A15 core or .... (NOTE: Depending on the boot sequence ROOT access may or may not be required for this).
The reason I am asking now is because, few people are asking my help on certain things and the reality is I know that the concept for which they want my inputs/guidance, can be applied at a more fundamental level here (or even at the same level), but that I have not ventured into it because of my delimma above.
NOTE: People who wanted my inputs/guidance wrt uSD, you all know who you are, I know the flaw to achieve what you want to achieve, but it is more powerful than what you all are currently thinking of doing/ ristricting yourselves to (You all have one input/... in there wrt devices . Unless let me think thro further and see if something can be done differently, with out exposing the flaw I have in mind to help you achieve what you want, otherwise i.e if there is nothing else I can come up with, and in turn if you people experiment further and are able to come up with the solution on your own, I would suggest that hold off on it for few days, think thro all the implications keeping what I have mentioned in this thread, and then take a call one way or the other.
Please provide your thoughts on this after thinking thro the options already available on NookTab (root access, kernel modules, UART UBoot access and inturn 2ndihkvc and NOP Bypass or equivalents)
Based on all the feedbacks as well as bit more thinking from my side, I will take a call on this.
Forum moderators I know this is the development portion of the forum, but I wanted feedback from Developers also that is the reason why I have posted here. But beyond that I leave it to you, whether you want this to continue here or move it out.
UART access is not sufficient, as it is required during every reboot of the device if we wanted to have a custom kernel and ROM. This is simply an unacceptable state of affairs. (Say, my tablet turns off while on holiday, or at the airport. What then am I to do? Let is sit and wait off until I can get back home to my UART equipment in order to reboot?
The idea that the UART work around is sufficient is a nice one, however it is wrong.
---
Oh also, it's just a matter of time before they patch the u-boot in the Nook Tablet anyways... so it's not like this UART method is going to stick around forever anyways.
cfoesch said:
UART access is not sufficient, as it is required during every reboot of the device if we wanted to have a custom kernel and ROM. This is simply an unacceptable state of affairs. (Say, my tablet turns off while on holiday, or at the airport. What then am I to do? Let is sit and wait off until I can get back home to my UART equipment in order to reboot?
The idea that the UART work around is sufficient is a nice one, however it is wrong.
---
Oh also, it's just a matter of time before they patch the u-boot in the Nook Tablet anyways... so it's not like this UART method is going to stick around forever anyways.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi
I understand the restrictions of UART access, but a lot of ROMS can be done with 2ndihkvc or equivalent methods and with out needing a Custom kernel. If someone is talking about Custom/New kernel for Android 4.0 (ICS). Then note my statement (in NOP BYPASS thread) on POWER of KERNEL MODULES in Linux, IT CAN BE USED TO ACHIEVE what you want to achieve, only that it requires bit more effort, which I or some one else has not put currently... thats all.
By holding off now, we can potentially reap the benifit with next years Nook Tab+ or what ever they call it.
Im not a Developer but I've got a few questions. NOP requires to open up your device, so I think probably 95% won't open their device for ICS and I think since the device had a dual core CPU we should get ICS roms. Now my actual question how does your 2init work or how do you install it on our device? But great work so far keep on.
Sent from my SGH-T989
Just out the flaw now. Someone else might reveal it and you won't get the credit.
Don't you want a Wikipedia entry saying that you found this flaw? lol.
PM me about the flaw, I'll see if we should have it outed yet or not (sorry guys, but if it's a decent exploitable flaw and we have other methods, I'm pretty sure I'm with hkvc on it.)
xdahgary said:
Just out the flaw now. Someone else might reveal it and you won't get the credit.
Don't you want a Wikipedia entry saying that you found this flaw? lol.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not worried for 2 reasons,
a) It doesn't bother if my name comes or not. I am exploring just for the fun of exploring.
AND MORE IMPORTANTLY,
b) Actually I have already revealed the flaw in my NOP Bypass thread, indirectly, if only, one reads carefully all my lines as well as between them. Only that I have just replaced one or two of the steps with a different steps thats all for now.
If someone else find the same flaw, he will realise the same, if he reads my posts once again with his new knowledge.
What an awesome idea, we can have a root for the Nook Tablet+ or whatever else in a years time!
...
So, um... what do I do now with my Nook Tablet? It's a piece of garbage now, I guess, so, I'll just return it since it's still within the Holiday return period? I suppose I'll just have to wait for the Nook Tablet+ to have a custom ROM running on my Nook... ("But you can UART hack it!" ... *sigh* I've already explain that that is not sufficient. The UART hack is a stop gap, and should only be stopped at if that is the absolute only option available.)
And I mean no disrespect to xIndirect, but why should he be the lone gatekeeper of what exploits and hacks are out there for the Nook Tablet? I would rather see this exploit before making a decision as well, but I don't think it fair that someone should have privileged access to the exploit. Either release it to everyone or DON'T SAY ANYTHING IN THE FIRST PLACE.
cfoesch, I have no plans to be using the exploit shown for myself. I am not going to be the "lone gatekeeper" I just want to know what it is before I give my full opinion. Chill.
Motorola Defy was locked bootloader too, may be to try and run port Defy bootmenu for Nook Tablet?
source: github.com/CyanogenDefy/android_external_bootmenu
Indirect said:
cfoesch, I have no plans to be using the exploit shown for myself. I am not going to be the "lone gatekeeper" I just want to know what it is before I give my full opinion. Chill.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you buy a plot of land and the seller has accidentally left seeds there and isn't coming back for them, do you grow a garden on your current plot of land, or do you decide not to plant them and hope that the next time you buy a plot of land they might forget some seeds again?
I would rather tend the garden I own than hope for a better plot of land with seeds I may never have.
Cheers!
-M
XDA member since 2007
Sorry if my post is offtopic, I just want to help with development.
My SE Xperia x10 came worh a locked bootloader and devs figured out how to make a bootable recovery (xrecovery) based on CWM, may be with an adaptation for the NT we can get the world of custom roms, even with locked bootloader this crappy phone got cuatom kernels by bypassing the bootloader, hope this give little ligth to you guys the real Developers.
If this post is garbage mods please delate it.
Sent from my BNTV250 using xda premium
Hello, I beleive if there is a software way to get ICS + maybe overclocking it should be tried first as this IS what most people are waiting for. That's the big dream they got. If someone knows how to implement that, then please by all means do so ..
P.S. you said so much where to look for the flaw in your posts that if I was a programmer from B&N I'd know where to look like everybody else. Assuming they are not complete morons they can already figure it out too. Can they plug the hole or not? Is it oversight or permanent design flaw ? We'll see. Best way to keep a secret is to " keep it secret " , ie not talk about it at all. Especially if soft mod ICS, hw acceleration and overclocking already available.
Sent from my LG-P500 using Much Love
First of all hkvc +1 for your efforts.
I voted yes, the NT developers can read between the lines in your posts as well.
Whats life without risks once in a while
Hi All,
I understand very well that even BN devs will be looking and potentially can figure out and fix it. That is the risk, but at one level I don't mind taking the risk and see if it works out to my/our advantage (i.e the bug being still open in a new device (From BN or any other Vendor)) or disadvantage(the bug is either way fixed).
Also the flaw can affect ANY DEVICE (Not just NOOK TAB) using similar secure boot chain not just NookTab, that is also one reason why I am bit wary of releasing the info or a implementation which uses it just like that.
I will share my finding with few people on the forum/outside in few days time so that even If I loose interest in this, there will be few people with the required knowledge (i.e if they haven't already figured out on their own by then (and released something or not ...)).
Also I haven't taken a final call on this yet. I am in a delima, so getting all your opinions also before I decide.
Time permitting I will also attack/explore the KERNEL MODULE PATH in a few days time, so that people don't have to depend on this flaw in the first place, but use the wonderful world of Linux Kernel Modules to achieve what they want.
LexS007 said:
Motorola Defy was locked bootloader too, may be to try and run port Defy bootmenu for Nook Tablet?
source: github.com/CyanogenDefy/android_external_bootmenu
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
With my modified 2nd-init (2ndihkvc), you can run bootmenu or any other user space mechanisms already on NookTab
absolutely YES, we r all xdaers, right hehehe. Thanks all devs especially hkvc for the efforts
hkvc said:
Hi,
With my modified 2nd-init (2ndihkvc), you can run bootmenu or any other user space mechanisms already on NookTab
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's very good. Thanks!!!
First off, not a dev but read religiously.
2nd, release it if the people who would take advantage of it agree. The rest of us say "great,woohoo!" But I must admit, I can't take advantage of it. But I certainly don't want to make a hardware uart to boot custom roms.
That being said, if its more complicated to install with a different method, that's fine. As long as it doesn't include a soldering iron.
But if it were easier to make a custom rom, or open up more capabilities of the kernal or whathaveyou, well that would attract more developers to make roms, etc. and so on and so forth.
Btw. Yes, exploit may exist if outedin a later tablet, but you found this one.... I have faith the next flaw will be found in the next one too.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Posted from my B&N Nook Tablet... rooted of course!
jotekman said:
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would say this summarizes everything I want to say on the topic.
I'm looking into building a custom android device to be embedded in a project I'm working on. I won't need GSM/cell service, so this would be more of a 'tablet' with wifi that's the size of a phone. The first version of this project used some lower level embedded controllers, but for a better user experience (capacitive touch screen, full featured app, etc), I'm looking into using an embedded android device and having a friend (who told me to post here about this) write an app to run on it for me. This project is starting to scale, so buying a cheap tablet and tearing it apart isn't really a good option; I'll need to build something from the ground up. My problem is that I'm more of a microprocessors guy, so I don't really know where to start with this kind of hardware.
I found this thread which was a good start, but the info is like 3 years old now.
Has anyone tried to do something like this? Should I be trying to find a manufacturer who already does this type of thing to work with? If so, how do I find someone like that? If I am going to do the design myself, what kind of processors can run an Android OS? Where's a good place for learning that type of info? Are there any reference designs out there I can use to get started? Is running Android on RaspberryPi a good starting spot, or is that simply not scalable?
Thanks for the help, I hope I'm in the right spot. Apologies if not!
Hi everyone,
I can't find a satisfactory answer on my favorite search engines, so I thought I'd come here and ask. Sorry if this question has already been put on the table, carved, sliced and gobbled, I couldn't find trace of it in the forum's search engine either.
My phone's a Leagoo T5c that will forever be stuck on Android 7.0, it seems, because the OEM has already lost interest, and because its SoC makes it difficult, if not downright impossible, to find a suitable custom ROM.
The latest ROM I could find and install on this phone goes back to August of 2018 (no-no, no typos), and its Security Update is even one month older (July 2018).
My question is in the title: Is it possible to install Security Updates without reinstalling/updating/upgrading the firmware itself, like you would in, say, Windows or any other OS, I presume?
UglyStuff said:
Hi everyone,
I can't find a satisfactory answer on my favorite search engines, so I thought I'd come here and ask. Sorry if this question has already been put on the table, carved, sliced and gobbled, I couldn't find trace of it in the forum's search engine either.
My phone's a Leagoo T5c that will forever be stuck on Android 7.0, it seems, because the OEM has already lost interest, and because its SoC makes it difficult, if not downright impossible, to find a suitable custom ROM.
The latest ROM I could find and install on this phone goes back to August of 2018 (no-no, no typos), and its Security Update is even one month older (July 2018).
My question is in the title: Is it possible to install Security Updates without reinstalling/updating/upgrading the firmware itself, like you would in, say, Windows or any other OS, I presume?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With android 10 were introduced Google play security updates that lets you received security updates (not all of them unfortunately, some requires to upgrade) without updating the full OS. You can't do it because you're stuck with the wrong Android version
Hopefully you won't have any issues with hacking but consider buying a new phone when you'll get a chance
Security updates get rolled out as OTA by OEM/Carrier if they consider it's necessary. You can't force it. Theoretically, all Android smartphones should get around two years of security updates. However, the reality is often very different.
The Leagoo T5c is a small-budget phone what was sold for 99 USD - so more or less a disposable item. You cannot expect OEM/Carrier to have any interest in providing updates for such a phone.
Thank you both for your explanations. I understand that Android works differently when it comes to updating itself, mostly because Google isn't the only party to have a voice in the chapter; still, it's unnerving to see that the end-user is more or less captive anyway.
It kinda defeats the very purpose of an open-source OS, to have to wait for an OEM to release (or not) an update, when you could install the patches yourself.
As for buying another phone, well, as soon as I've got the dough, I will, believe me. Not because I'm dissatisfied with this one, but because I don't like the idea of totting around with a phone that hasn't seen a security update in over two years.
I'm also seriously considering moving to Ubuntu Touch, though there again, my phone's exotic platform could be problematic. Custom ROMs seems to be as complicated an avenue as others, too.
All in all, Android isn't what they sold me: It's not secure, it's not "free", it's just another way to make you shell out bucks for new hardware every couple years.
Android is just iOS without the eye-candy, you ask me...
UglyStuff said:
Thank you both for your explanations. I understand that Android works differently when it comes to updating itself, mostly because Google isn't the only party to have a voice in the chapter; still, it's unnerving to see that the end-user is more or less captive anyway.
It kinda defeats the very purpose of an open-source OS, to have to wait for an OEM to release (or not) an update, when you could install the patches yourself.
As for buying another phone, well, as soon as I've got the dough, I will, believe me. Not because I'm dissatisfied with this one, but because I don't like the idea of totting around with a phone that hasn't seen a security update in over two years.
I'm also seriously considering moving to Ubuntu Touch, though there again, my phone's exotic platform could be problematic. Custom ROMs seems to be as complicated an avenue as others, too.
All in all, Android isn't what they sold me: It's not secure, it's not "free", it's just another way to make you shell out bucks for new hardware every couple years.
Android is just iOS without the eye-candy, you ask me...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android isn't iOS precisely because you can break free from your OEM by flashing a custom ROM. You can develop one for almost any device as long as the OEM releases the kernel source code. And most OEM do (expect for some very unknown phones).
Custom ROMs like GrapheneOS are made to free you from google Services and are truly privacy oriented. And all of that is possible because Android is open source.
Trust me, the Android community has always worked actively to counter aging of their devices (including me).
Just buy a phone with a solid community behind and you'll be able to keep it up to date a looong time
Raiz said:
Android isn't iOS precisely because you can break free from your OEM by flashing a custom ROM. You can develop one for almost any device as long as the OEM releases the kernel source code. And most OEM do (expect for some very unknown phones).
Custom ROMs like GrapheneOS are made to free you from google Services and are truly privacy oriented. And all of that is possible because Android is open source.
Trust me, the Android community has always worked actively to counter aging of their devices (including me).
Just buy a phone with a solid community behind and you'll be able to keep it up to date a looong time
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you in principle, but if I must take an example: I have this Early 2006 MacBook Pro with a Core Duo CPU that precludes me from even installing Mac OS X 10.7 "Lion" on it, because the CPU is 32-bit-only, and Lion requires a 64-bit CPU.
The machine itself works very well, albeit a bit slowly, but then it's got only 2 GB of RAM and a 120-GB SSD. When I got fed-up with OS X applications not updating/upgrading and Firefox addons not installing because my copy of Firefox was too old, I partitioned the SSD, installed rEFInd as boot manager, and installed Zorin 15.2 (now 15.3) Lite 32-bit.
I now spend more time on the Linux side of this Mac than on the OS X side, and updating/upgrading it is a breeze, either via the dedicated application or in Terminal. I know there'll be an end-of-the-line there too, someday, but at least I'll keep using this Mac until it truly dies on me, not when Apple tells me it's dead.
This, for me, is the very essence of open-source: Not just the fact that it's free, but that you can revive an old machine and keep it running long after Apple et al have decided that it had gone the way of the dinosaurs.
The same doesn't apply to Android, alas. Here, you must have a compatible SoC/chipset/what-have-you, a Treble-compatible device, you must have this, you must have that...
In the end, only a fraction of Android users really get to enjoy everything their device has to offer for as long as they choose; the others just pop into the nearest phone store, be it brick-and-mortar or cyber, and must produce their credit card.
My question was as much a challenge to myself as anything else. I would really like to learn how Android works, but the tutorials and articles I've found here and there are all a bit cryptic.
That's why I'm regularly prowling this forum, I guess.
"Hunting high and low", as the song goes... :laugh:
yep, good question but google & manufactures are in it for the moola not the users 2 yr old phone.
hiitsrudd said:
yep, good question but google & manufactures are in it for the moola not the users 2 yr old phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't I know it! It's true that even budget phones have decent specs nowadays, still, why dump a perfectly functioning phone simply because you can't update/upgrade the software?
I understand Google's rationale, of course: They invest tons of money year after year after year to keep the whole boat afloat, and they need a steady income. OK. Still, to not be able to keep your phone ***safe*** is a no-go for me.
I'm seriously beginning to think about installing Ubuntu Touch on the device. I think I'm going to try that next weekend.
I'll probably come back here with my eyes red, asking for help in unbricking my phone, though.
Stay tuned! :good:
A followup, if you are mindful of your own security it's conceivable to get more usage of that android. I don't use a banking app, but if need be use a good browser( thats updated of course) And update all often used apps via playstore. I'm still running Oreo on my phone. FYI you iOS ppl need to do critical updates asap
Hi,
When I read the questions and guides, it seems the Surface Duo can be unlocked and rooted pretty easily.
So I was wondering why there is no custom ROM for this device which is, by all means, not perfect (it has a lot of flaws) but that I consider as at least a refreshing attempt to dig out of the "one glass rectangle touch screen" that we're now used to for years.
Is it beacause there's no love for the device ?
Or is it because Microsoft released absolutely no sources for the internal hardware ?
If there's anyone willing to try, I can offer build server to do it...
And contacts in a community to help iron out problems...
Regards.
Microsoft has indeed released the sources of the internal hardware, or, at the very least, some of it. I don't really know how to determine whether or not all of the drivers are included with the kernel source code. But they do have this kernel source code hosted on GitHub, under a combination of MIT, Apache, and GPL licensing, as well as full instructions on how to build the kernel. The instructions are located at microsoft/surface-duo-oss, and the scripts end up downloading from other microsoft/surface-duo-oss-* repositories. I've not actually tried to build this myself, and I'm not sure what you actually end up with afterwards, whether it is just a kernel, or if it also includes AOSP, and whether or not this can be included in the process of generating another distribution such as Lineage. But, I think this should at least be some information that can be used to at least start the process assuming anyone with existing experience is interested in starting this.
I have seen it expressed elsewhere that one reason people have not created a custom ROM is that android 10 does not have native support for multiscreen devices, while android 11 does. Meanwhile, Microsoft has only released android 10 for the device, and this includes the surface-duo-oss scripts as well, but that there is plans here soon (late September) by Microsoft release android 11 for the Surface Duo.
Fingers crossed! Looking forward to a robust desktop mode and multiple external monitor support like the regular Surface Pro does
Basically a phone that acts like a Surface PC when you dock at home or at work so you can actually work from the device like a normal Surface laptop and then fold and put it in our pockets when we're done working
I know this is an older post but I sure wish someone would go ahead and give me the dummy guide to flash their custom rom!! If anyone needs a duo that thinks they can make it happen I have a spare one..... The left screen is glitching in and out tho.
So, I've got the Blackview BV9900Pro which as you probably know if you are reading this, is a wonderfully well priced, rugged phone with the Lepton FLIR camera built in. Being a Treble device, it is possible to install most GSI ROMs to it, however there is currently no build of TWRP, and thus far, nobody seems to have been able to get the FLIR working on the GSIs. This presents two problems. First, recovery is a wonderfully useful tool to have, and the stock recovery leaves a lot to be desired, Second, the FLIR is the main reason for buying the pro model of this phone, rendering custom ROMs virtually useless.
That being said, I love this phone, and want to start to work on both. This will be a major learning curve as a) I'm not a developer by trade (I'm a marine engineer and environmental officer on a cruise line) and b) My job takes 10+ hours a day, 7 days a week when I am on board leaving me with limited time to put into it. I've built Linux from scratch (LFS back a number of years ago) which gave me good experience with the build environment and with compiling code / troubleshooting issues so I am confident I can pull it off, but I'm intersted in gauging if there is interest in publishing my work for others ot use.
If you have the 9900Pro phone, and are intersted in either TWRP and/or custom ROMs that support the FLIR, drop me a reply here and let me know. If you have any experience with modifying custom ROMs to work with vendor hardware, I would LOVE to hear about it - it will perhaps help guide me in my efforts. One of my biggest peeves with the phone is the lack of support for basic features (ie, SIP calling is not natively supported in the vendor's ROM) and the bugginess of the OS (apps being closed int he background, widgets not loading on boot etc). The GSI I am running now (Lineage) solves these issues, but the lack of IR camera really devalues the phone, so I'm hopeful that I can resolve the issue, and make this phone worth having.
Also, if anyone knows how to go about adding a new device to the forum tree, please chime in. I'm completely new to this whole developer support thing but comitted to making it work!
Cheers everyone!