[Q] newbie question about rom customization - Galaxy Tab 10.1 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting

I am using overcome rom, but I don't quite like the theming
Yes I've tried Vertumus's AOSP HC theme which is great and
I like it very much but I am a little frustrated with its b/o/b
w/o/w problems etc.
So I want to customize rom based on overcome myself for my own use.
The first thing I want to customize is SystemUI.apk
I successfully decompiled and rebuild SystemUI.apk but When I push
to /system/app, I got:
Code:
W/PackageManager( 2009): Signature mismatch for shared user : SharedUserSetting{4085ebd8 android.uid.system/1000}
E/PackageManager( 2009): Package com.android.systemui signatures do not match the previously installed version; ignoring!
I assume it's certificate problem since I sign the app with my own keystore,
there's no way that I can get the certificate of the overcome rom's author
to sign the apk, so what can I do?

Related

[Q] Is APK signature verification extra fields bug patched in older API versions?

Hi guys,
Sorry in advance if I posted this to the wrong place as I am not allowed to post into Android devs-only forum.
I am currently investigating the extra fields flaw in apk signature verification discovered in juli 2013 by trying to replicate it on the AVD.
First of all...this is research only as I am trying to understand my system's internals and especially permissions handling.
What i try to achieve is to root the AVD by using the elevated permissions of a apk signed with the platform key.
1. I have an apk signed with the platform key from my cyanogenmod 10.2 device and a classes.dex with size under 65k that will try to install SuperSU on my AVD
2. When creating a new apk I put the original classes.dex into the extras field of the corresponding ZIP entry and pad it to have a size of 65533
3. The rooting classes.dex goes into the data field of the ZIP entry and extra lengh is set to 65533 or -3 as seen by the buggy verifier. This classes.dex is also padded to have the exact size of the original classes.dex
4. My MainActivity tries to install the just assembled apk
Expected result: As the verifier is validating the original classes by jumping 3 backwards instead of 65533 forward the apk should be installed having elevated system privileges.
Actual result: AVD refuses installation of the apk with error code -103 as the "digest of classes.dex does not match those in the apk".
My thoughts on what may cause this:
A) I know that google merged the fix for this bug into HEAD but it still should work on AVD 2.3 and 4.1.
Or are all versions of AVD patched agains extras field expliotation? As I update my APIs everyday the fix is likely to be in my AVD.
Correct me if i am wrong.
B) As I use a cyanogenmod 10.2 apk as the base the platform keys may not match those of the AVD.
If so the error should be different to -103 but something like "system user signature does not match"
Please would someone point me into the right direction?

[Q] Galaxy Note II Camera Hack (Cyanogenmod)

Hi,
I own a note 2 device where I've installed Cyanogenmod (version 11-20140827-nightly-n7100). I've been trying to mod the original stock camera from samsungs firmware (4.4 kitkat) to run on cyanogenmod with some success but now I'm stuck witch a dependency problem I don't know how to resolve and not even why it is possible. So here is a list of what i did, yet:
- using apktool and smali/backsmali to create deodexed SamsungCamera.apk.
- adding the library dependencies mentioned in androidmanifest.xml in the apktool decompiled folder
- searched for LoadLibrary calls in the smali code to find out that seccamera_jni.so is loaded at runtime
problem: the dependency tree of seccamera_jni.so is incompatible with the libs installed on cyanogenmod -> missing symbols for the Camera(->crash) versus missing symbols for the system (bootloop)
sollution: take seccamera_jni.so and all other libs from the stock ROM it (recursively) depends on and rename the files and their internal dependencies to something like lsb**.so instead of lib**.so.
- write a c progam that implements this sollution
- install everything on the phone and fix the permissions
- run SamsungCamera
results: While the described method removes all library not found issues while retaining the original libs of cyanogenmod i still get one f*ing symbol not found error message:
"java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError: dlopen failed could not load "lsbnativehelper.so" needed by "libseccamera_jni.so"; caused by [..endless chain leading to libc.so] Missing Symbol __cxa_finalize in lsbdl.so needed by lsbc.so"
I've looked it up: libdl.so has no external dependencies and refers to __cxa_finalize which is implemented in libc.so which has libdl.so as its only dependency.
So my Questions are: How is this possible? I've checked the libc.so integrated in cyanogenmod and even this one has the same dependencies in libc.so but if this was a problem how could any app using libc work on that system? What is different on the stock room that it won't get the missing symbol even though it has the missing dependency? what am I overlooking?

[SOLVED] Installing WebView (rooted Stock ROM)

I am trying to install a clean Android System WebView (packagename: com.android.webview) onto stock LG G5 RS988 RS98821d Android 7.0 that is rooted.
I downloaded an arm64 WebView APK from the Bromite Releases GitHub page:
https://github.com/bromite/bromite/releases
I tried installing the Bromite WebView APK to "/system/app/webview/" (0644 permissions) and rebooted, but the WebView implementation could not be used.
There are instructions regarding installing Bromite System WebView available:
https://github.com/bromite/bromite/wiki/Installing-SystemWebView
From my reading of the installation instructions, "res/xml/config_webview_packages.xml" from "/system/framework/framework-res.apk" must contain the an entry for the package with the particular package name ("com.android.webview" in this case).
After examining the stock "config_webview_packages.xml" member file, it appears that a reference to "com.android.webview" is not present. The "config_webview_packages.xml" XML file also appears to not be easily readable in a text editor. My guess is that it has some kind of signing.
What must be done to get the system to allow the newly installed WebView? My impression is that the "config_webview_packages.xml" XML file must be edited, but it is not clear how to do so, given that it does not appear to be just plain text.
I have attached a copy of the "config_webview_packages.xml" XML member file and the original framework-res.apk file zipped into a ZIP 2.0 archive.
XML files inside apks are compressed, you should unpack the framework-res.apk using a tool for apk editing, not just a zip archiver program. On Android, you can use APK Editor Pro, for example.
By the way, have you already uninstalled Chrome? If Chrome is installed, it will be forced as the standard WebView provider.
tremalnaik said:
XML files inside apks are compressed, you should unpack the framework-res.apk using a tool for apk editing, not just a zip archiver program. On Android, you can use APK Editor Pro, for example.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It was my impression that the APK files were zip files with a particular signature block. I shall try a tool like APK Editor Pro and report back.
tremalnaik said:
have you already uninstalled Chrome? If Chrome is installed, it will be forced as the standard WebView provider.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have uninstalled/removed both Chrome and the Android System WebView (Google Apps version).
Ascii3 said:
It was my impression that the APK files were zip files with a particular signature block. I shall try a tool like APK Editor Pro and report back.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now I'm on PC and I remember the name of the tool I use sometimes on PC: APKChanger. It's very complete, although very heavy (about 650MB with my current configuration);
If you have platform tools installed on your pc, or the whole Android Studio, you can also use
Code:
aapt d xmltree framework-res.apk res/xml/config_webview_packages.xml
to see the list of allowed webview packages.
Ascii3 said:
I have uninstalled/removed both Chrome and the Android System WebView (Google Apps version).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So we can be sure the problem is not the system forcing Chrome as default WebView provider. So, as Bromite's wiki states, "Changing the package name does not make installation easier/possible;", so the only solution is to add com.android.webview to config_webview_packages.xml, or, if it is already there, remove the requirement for Google's signature on the webview package. EDIT: I checked, on your file com.android.webview is missing, you just need to add it:
Code:
E: webviewproviders (line=20)
E: webviewprovider (line=21)
A: description="Chrome Stable" (Raw: "Chrome Stable")
A: packageName="com.android.chrome" (Raw: "com.android.chrome")
A: availableByDefault=(type 0x12)0xffffffff (Raw: "true")
E: webviewprovider (line=24)
A: description="Google WebView" (Raw: "Google WebView")
A: packageName="com.google.android.webview" (Raw: "com.google.android.webview")
A: availableByDefault=(type 0x12)0xffffffff (Raw: "true")
A: isFallback=(type 0x12)0xffffffff (Raw: "true")
E: webviewprovider (line=27)
A: description="Chrome Beta" (Raw: "Chrome Beta")
A: packageName="com.chrome.beta" (Raw: "com.chrome.beta")
E: signature (line=28)
C: "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"
E: webviewprovider (line=30)
A: description="Chrome Dev" (Raw: "Chrome Dev")
A: packageName="com.chrome.dev" (Raw: "com.chrome.dev")
E: signature (line=31)
C: "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"
E: webviewprovider (line=33)
A: description="Chrome Canary" (Raw: "Chrome Canary")
A: packageName="com.chrome.canary" (Raw: "com.chrome.canary")
E: signature (line=34)
C: "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"
E: webviewprovider (line=36)
A: description="Chrome Debug" (Raw: "Chrome Debug")
A: packageName="com.google.android.apps.chrome" (Raw: "com.google.android.apps.chrome")
On Android, I used APK Editor Pro 1.10.0 to modify res/xml/config_webview_packages.xml of /system/framework/framework-res.apk. A new APK with a generic signature was generated with the modification. I used the XML file editing option to select and modify the config_webview_packages.xml. The XML file editing functionality is given to be in beta and appears buggy.
I replaced the original /system/framework/framework-res.apk file with the patched one using the TWRP 3.2.3-0 file manager and attempted to boot to system. The system would start, but get stuck at the LG logo screen. I tried wiping data, and cache in recovery and booting again, but received the same result. I note that adb was available and usable after the boot process got stuck on the LG Logo screen.
My impression is that the patched framework-res.apk file is incompatible or defective. Perhaps APK Editor Pro 1.10.0 malformed the output APK (the XML editing feature appeared unfinished) or that the LG stock ROM expects framework-res.apk to have have a particular signature.
Perhaps a different APK editing tool should be tried. What could the problem be?
I have attached a ZIP archive containing the APK Editor Pro 1.10.0 modified framework-res.apk.
EDIT: Attachment has been removed; the file was defective and should not be used. Attachment is no longer necessary.
I have now patched framewor-res.apk successfully, and Bromite System WebView is working.
Did you use again APk Editor Pro or a PC tool?
The tools I used were Windows tools (and with a Java dependency in the case of Apktool) and were: Apktool 2.3.1 and WinRAR 5.6.1. I found that it is best to avoid newer versions of the tool unless trying to manipulate Android 9 Pie or newer resources.
Ascii3 said:
I have now patched framewor-res.apk successfully, and Bromite System WebView is working.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know this is an old post, but how did you get it to boot?
I'm using apktool 2.5 and seems to be stuck on the boot screen as you were
burny02 said:
I know this is an old post, but how did you get it to boot?
I'm using apktool 2.5 and seems to be stuck on the boot screen as you were
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From somewhere else it seems that you are now using Apktool 2.3.1.
After comparing my notes, my impression on what you are missing and some related notes:
The modified framework-res.apk should use the unmodified APK file's "AndroidManifest.xml" root file and META-INF directory contents. It is not sufficient for any of the content to be the same after decompiling.
Copy "AndroidManifest.xml" and META-INF directory from original framework-res.apk to modified framework-res.apk using zip program, if contents are different.
v2 APK signing scheme (which includes the APK file itself in validation), if present, would be broken, but the scheme's enforcement is not enforced on /system; v1 APK signing scheme (on APK contents ("AndroidManifest.xml" file and META-INF directory contents)) is still enforced.
I zipaligned output/modified framework-res.apk prior to transferring original "AndroidManifest.xml" file and META-INF directory contents, but I do not believe it matters for the purposes of getting a functional framework-res.apk.
EDIT: Some added things to keep in mind:
Sometimes clearing system cache and the runtimes cache is also necessary before system will boot after framework-res.apk replacement. Also make sure that the permissions of the replaced framework-res.apk file are at minimum whatever the original file permissions were. Depending on what software you use to replace the framework-res.apk file, the permissions set may be different.
I really appreciate the help, still does not work unfortunately.
Here is what I do:
adb pull framework-res.apk
apktool d framework-res.apk (tried most versions, mainly now 2.3.1)
Edit framework-res/res/xml/config-webview-packages.xml to:
Code:
<webviewproviders>
<webviewprovider description="Bromite WebView" packageName="com.android.webview" availableByDefault="true" isFallback="true" />
</webviewproviders>
Removing other dev versions with signatures etc
apktool b framework-res
zipalign -v 4 framework-res.apk framework-res-new.apk
Move META-INF and AndroidManifest.xml from the 1st original framework-res.apk > framework-res-new.apk (Have also tried moving res & resources from the new to the original...7Zip, WinRAR, CLI - Linux)
adb push framework-res-new.apk /system/framwork-res.apk
Modify permissions in TWRP > 0644
Move framework-res.apk from /system/ to /system/framework/framwork-res.apk (I read somewhere this is better than pushing directly. Neither worked)
Clear Davlik & Cache
Reboot
Hangs on boot screen
Any ideas if I am missing something important?
@burny02 - Please clarify whether the framework-res.apk you are trying to modify is for LG G5 stock ROM Android Nougat.
I note that you are using the "isFallback="true"" flag with the webviewprovider tag. The purpose of the isFallback attribute set to true (its default is false) is to specify that the WebView provider should be disabled by deault and should only become available when allow other WebView providers are disabled. Using the attribute with the true value with only a single WebView provider seems improper. I do not know if boot should fail if the attribute is present in the way that it is, but in both scenarios I would recommend its omission.
It has also been a while since I used Apktool versions and do not exactly remember the command lines. Do not take my not pointing to an issue with it as there necessarily not being an issue. One thing I would mention is that one typically first install a frameworks before decompiling and building. For the LG G5 RS988 Android Nougat, I believe installing the framework-res.apk as a framework was sufficient. You would specify on command line "apktool if framework-res.apk" and any tags you wish to explicitly specify, if any.
The moving of framework-res.apk to /system/ before /system/framework/ is oftentimes done by people to try to install a modified framework-res.apk with proper permissions and on a live system before the system crashes and reboots. Once framework-res.apk is copied to /system , but does not replace the framework-res.apk file, proper permissions can be set prior to using that file to replace the live framework-res.apk. It is still important to note that some software disregards permissions set when a file is relocated or copied, so this could be an issue if framework-res.apk is replaced with more restrictive permissions than the original framework-res.apk (less restrictive permissions should not usually be a problem for the app to be used). I particularity do not like the idea of the system crashing and prefer to make such changes offline (such as via the aid of a custom recovery).
Sorted. Got it working. Really appreciate the help, Ascii3
For anyone looking at this in the future, the isFallback back seems to stop booting, regardless of whether it is the only entry or not.
The procedure then works as above:
adb pull framework-res.apk
apktool d framework-res.apk (2.3.4 worked for me - SDK 24 Android 7.1 (LGG5))
Edit framework-res/res/xml/config-webview-packages.xml to:
Code:
<webviewproviders>
<webviewprovider description="Bromite WebView" packageName="com.android.webview" availableByDefault="true" />
</webviewproviders>
apktool b framework-res
Move META-INF and AndroidManifest.xml from the 1st original framework-res.apk > new framework-res-new.apk (Used 7Zip drag & drop)
adb push framework-res-new.apk /system/framework/framwork-res.apk
Modify permissions in TWRP > 0644
Clear Davlik & Cache
Reboot
I found the following unnecessary :
Installing framework (apktool if)
Zip-aligning
Moving to /system prior to /system/framework/ (Using TWRP, live system; it might be necessary)
burny02 said:
Sorted. Got it working. Really appreciate the help, Ascii3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure.
burny02 said:
For anyone looking at this in the future, the isFallback back seems to stop booting, regardless of whether it is the only entry or not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The isFallback attribute is supposed to only be set to true for no more than one webviewprovider. Explicitly setting it to false (its default) should not be problematic (but does result in a larger config-webview-packages.xml file generated). Setting isFallback to true on the only webviewprovider item is not an intended use and apparently results in no boot.
burny02 said:
I found the following unnecessary :
Zip-aligning
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do not think zip-aligning apps is necessary generally . My understanding around the reason to do so is to try to optimize the packaged data to be more efficiently fetched in the manner which Android fetches the data.
@Ascii3 @burny02
Hello guys, sorry to exhume this post but I'm struggling and all other threads are maybe ten years old...
So I'm struggling to replicate what you did! I'm no expert but I can follow basic instructions.
So I do as you say, decompile framework-res.apk, modify the xml file (I just add the line). This step seems okay since I did some errors while editing the file and apktool would not recompile properly. Now this goes fine.
Then I got my freshly recompiled framework-res.apk, but 7zip on linux won't let me insert META-INF and AndroidManifest.xml. So I had to rename the extension .zip, do it, then rename in apk. Could this be an issue? It looks dirty.
Anyway, after this you didn't had to resign the apk? I read everywhere you had to, so I did. I did not zipaligned it since I used a resign tool I found on xda and I could not tell if I had to do it before or after resigning, but since you said you didn't zipalign it I thought whatever.
The problem is the following: after replacing framework-res.apk in /system/framework, the phone won't start, I get stuck on the starting screen and I could extract the following from logging:
01-24 04:15:17.470 +0000 4042 4042 I PackageManager: /system/framework/framework-res.apk changed; collecting certs
01-24 04:15:17.749 +0000 4042 4042 W PackageManager: Failed to scan /system/framework/framework-res.apk: Failed to collect certificates from /system/framework/framework-res.apk
Have you got any ideas of what I did wrong? It's my fourth soft-brick today, I'm getting a bit annoyed.
Thanks in advance
@LeSplendide did you ever get this working? Not sure if I'm having the same trouble, but I followed burny's instructions and my phone fails to boot. I checked logcat but I don't see anything relating to framework-res. I'm using magisk to overlay it because if I touch the /system partition for real, VoLTE stops working on my phone (known issue for this phone). I'm successfully overlaying stuff in /system/app and /system/priv-app so I do have overlaying generally working, though this is the first apk in the framework directory I've tried to overlay. Boy do I want to get this working. I've extensively degoogled and debloated this phone and the only glaring thing that remains is chrome handling webview.
TheShanMan said:
@LeSplendide did you ever get this working? Not sure if I'm having the same trouble, but I followed burny's instructions and my phone fails to boot. I checked logcat but I don't see anything relating to framework-res. I'm using magisk to overlay it because if I touch the /system partition for real, VoLTE stops working on my phone (known issue for this phone). I'm successfully overlaying stuff in /system/app and /system/priv-app so I do have overlaying generally working, though this is the first apk in the framework directory I've tried to overlay. Boy do I want to get this working. I've extensively degoogled and debloated this phone and the only glaring thing that remains is chrome handling webview.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sorry I have no idea, rn Webview Implementation says I have Android System Webvew 102.0.5005 so I assume this is chrome webview? But I have no clue what I did or not but I know for sure I fixed my problem which was that Webview would crash when trying to sign in a google account on my MicroG'd LEAOS. Now this works so I guess I did make it work. All I found that could be a clue is a update.zip containing instructions and the webview in question. Iirc, the issue was that the zip needed to be signed so that twrp could flash it, so I think I just signed my zip and it worked but can"t tell for sure.

how to force install an unsigned apk?

Given that I have root and custom ROM/recovery?
There is an apk from the different ROM thus different signatures, and the phone's package installer doesn't want to install this apk, same as "adb install" command.
adb: failed to install samsung_service_mode_10.apk: Failure [INSTALL_FAILED_SHARED_USER_INCOMPATIBLE: Reconciliation failed...: Reconcile failed: Package com.sec.android.app.servicemodeapp has no signatures that match those in shared user android.uid.system; ignoring!]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Will I brick my phone if I simply rename this .apk to .zip and flash it with TWRP?
Why not to sign the APK using the apksigner tool by yourself?
because it requires downloading thousands of megabytes of Android SDK and learning how to use it.
I would prefer a simpler way like "adb install --force", if possible.
The err msg " INSTALL_FAILED_SHARED_USER_INCOMPATIBLE" triggered by ADB really has NOTHING to with fact whether APK is signed or not.
> dat laughing smiley
I'm glad that you have an optic fibre with unlimited 1Gbps connection at home, however some people on our planet still reside on slow Internet connections with limited traffic, and downloading
android-studio-ide-202.7486908-linux.tar.gz 950 MiB
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
with
Google Maven dependencies 2724 MB
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
will take many hours and $$$s in traffic cost.
jwoegerbauer said:
The err msg " INSTALL_FAILED_SHARED_USER_INCOMPATIBLE" triggered by ADB really has NOTHING to with fact whether APK is signed or not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks for pointing that out! I've googled for the second part of the error - "has no signatures that match those in shared user android.uid.system" instead of the first part, and that lead me to the wrong conclusions.
So the fix was relatively simple - download apktool.jar and signapk.jar (no need to download full 3 GBs of Studio stuff), decompile the app with apktool, delete the "android.uid.system" part from the manifest file, compile app back and sign it with signapk.jar using the stock AOSP platform keys.
However in my particular case that did not work because an app requires Samsung libs absent on my device:
adb: failed to install samsung_service_mode_10_EDIT_signed.apk: Failure [INSTALL_FAILED_MISSING_SHARED_LIBRARY: Reconciliation failed...: Reconcile failed: Package com.sec.android.app.servicemodeapp requires unavailable shared library sec_platform_library; failing!]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
P.S. few links for the future self:
apktool.jar:
Apktool - A tool for reverse engineering 3rd party, closed, binary Android apps.
Apktool - A tool for reverse engineering 3rd party, closed, binary Android apps. It can decode resources to nearly original form and rebuild them after making some modifications
ibotpeaches.github.io
signapk.jar: (NOTE: use Java 8!)
SignApk/signapk.jar at master · techexpertize/SignApk
SignApk is used to sign the apk file after repack. The easiest way ever. - SignApk/signapk.jar at master · techexpertize/SignApk
github.com
AOSP stock keys:
platform_build/shared.x509.pem at master · aosp-mirror/platform_build
Contribute to aosp-mirror/platform_build development by creating an account on GitHub.
github.com
platform_build/shared.pk8 at master · aosp-mirror/platform_build
Contribute to aosp-mirror/platform_build development by creating an account on GitHub.
github.com

[Q] How can I edit APK's library files (.so files)?

I want to install 2 different versions of an app. I researched a little and found that I need to change APK's package name with APK Editor. I decompiled the APK with APK Editor and changed everything related with package name. For example The app's package name was
Code:
com.oldapk.filee
, I changed to
Code:
com.newapk.file
. Then I compiled it again and installed new apk file. But I was unable to launch the new APK file, I enabled USB Debugging on my phone and started to looking crash logs. I saw that the package name was mentioned as
Code:
com.oldapk.filee
, I started thinking about what could It be wrong, I used
Code:
ack
on linux to check which files has
Code:
com.oldapk.filee
string and saw that 2 libraries (.so files) was including the old package name. I changed them in NotePad++ (Hex Editor Addon) to new package name but this time when the app launches, I was able to see starting screen but it was crashing in 0.5 seconds after I launched it. I checked the crash logs again and then I saw that the package name was still old. Maybe the changes that I made didn't effect. How can I edit these files?

Categories

Resources