Why you should (or shouldn’t) root (a.k.a hack) your Android device

<div class="content"> <span id="intelliTXT" name="intellitxt"><img alt="root" class="attachment-full wp-post-image" height="353" src="http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/root-640x353.jpg" width="640" /><div class="photo"> <div class="box2"> <br /></div> </div> Android is based on the Linux kernel, so right from the start, tinkerers and power users were interested in gaining root access to make changes and graft on new features. In the early days, this was a fairly simple procedure on most devices. There were several apps and tools that could root almost any <a href="http://www.extremetech.com/tag/android">Android</a> phone or tablet, and you’d be ready to truly master your device in mere minutes. As Android became more capable, the allure of rooting has diminished somewhat — and it’s also much harder than it used to be.<br /> So what are the advantages and risks of rooting these days, and why are some devices resistant to rooting? Let’s see if we can’t figure it out.<br /> <h3> <b>The advantages of rooting</b></h3> Gaining root access on Android is akin to running Windows as an administrator. You have full access to the system directory and can make changes to the way the OS operates. As part of rooting, you install usage manager (SuperSU is the main one right now). These tools are basically the gatekeeper of root access on your phone. When an app requests root, you have to approve it using the root manager.<br /> So what can you do with root specifically? Let’s say there’s a system app that you really don’t like seeing, but it can’t be disabled through the standard method. With root you can run an app like Titanium Backup to delete or permanently hide the app. Titanium can also be used to manually back up all the data for an app or game so you can restore it to another phone. Want to remotely access and control your phone? That’s another thing you need root to do. Ad-blocking software on Android also needs root access, as it modifies the Android hosts file to block known ad servers.<br /> <a href="http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/unnamed.png"><img alt="supersu" class="size-large wp-image-211316 aligncenter" height="480" src="http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/unnamed-640x480.png" width="640" /></a><br /> Then there’s the multi-headed beast known as the Xposed Framework. Root access is needed to deploy Xposed in the system, but from that point forward Xposed doesn’t need to ask for root to do things like modify the UI and add new system-level features. It took a little time to get Xposed working on Lollipop, but the developer has finally produced some mostly stable builds.<br /> <h3> <b>The risks of rooting</b></h3> Rooting your phone or tablet gives you complete control over the system, and that power can be misused if you’re not careful. Android is designed in such a way that it’s hard to break things with a limited user profile. A superuser, however, can really trash things by installing the wrong app or making changes to system files. The <a href="http://www.extremetech.com/tag/security">security</a> model of Android is also compromised to a certain degree, as root apps have much more access to your system. Again, you need to be careful what you install.<br /> <a href="http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/AndroidRedTriangle.jpeg"><img alt="AndroidRedTriangle" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-211318" height="264" src="http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/AndroidRedTriangle-300x264.jpeg" width="300" /></a>Root methods are sometimes messy and dangerous in their own right. You might brick your device simply trying to root it, and you’ve probably (technically) voided your warranty doing so. Depending on the company, you might still be able to get a device repaired if you damage it attempting a root, but that’s not a guarantee.<br /> As of Android 5.0 Lollipop, Nexus device system updates will only work on completely stock unrooted devices. This is because of a change to the way Android processes the OTA file. Updates now patch the entire system directory as a single blob, so any changes or extra files (i.e. root) will throw off the verification and the update will abort.<br /> On other phones and tablets, virtually every OTA update you get will wipe out root and block the method from working again. If having root access is really important to you, you might be left waiting on older buggy software while you beg for a new root method or a modded OS update.<br /> <h3> <b>Why is rooting so much harder than it used to be?</b></h3> If you’ve been using Android for a while, you’ve probably noticed gaining root access on most devices is much harder than it once was. There were exploits years back that could root almost any Android device in a few minutes, but that’s much less common now. The last essentially universal exploit was Towelroot in mid-2014, but Google patched that rather quickly.<br /> The reason these exploits are patched so quickly now is that having active exploits on your system is actually a bad thing for most users. These are security holes that can be utilized by malware to take over a device remotely and steal data. <a href="http://www.extremetech.com/tag/google">Google</a> and the device makers are being responsible when they shut down root methods after they are disclosed.<br /> <a href="http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/uaslrskq4tnmlg5sfxuj.jpg"><img alt="uaslrskq4tnmlg5sfxuj" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-211319" height="358" src="http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/uaslrskq4tnmlg5sfxuj.jpg" width="636" /></a><br /> Android is more secure, and it takes more work to break that security in a way that can grant root access. As a result of this cat-and-mouse game, root exploits are often pretty involved. You might have to push files to your device over USB, enter terminal commands, and flash modified files.<br /> The effort needed to find, test, and develop exploits of this nature is a big part of the reason some popular devices (like the Galaxy S6, for example) don’t even have root right now. That’s not to say there aren’t exploits in these devices, but they’re far too valuable to be given away freely to the community. If you peruse XDA, you might come across one of the many root bounty threads where users pledge thousands of dollars to anyone who can offer a working root method for a phone. This works sometimes, but it’s notoriously hard to collect on these bounties and a few thousand dollars isn’t actually terribly much for a solid exploit.<br /> Anyone who does security testing and research on Android will tell you there’s real demand for non-public exploits among security and forensics firms. A modder could make several times the theoretical value of a root bounty on XDA by selling an exploit to one of these companies. A universal exploit like we had back in the day could be worth tens of thousands easily. Most people just won’t give that away for a pittance.<br /> <h3> <b>So should you do it?</b></h3> If you’re primarily interested in Android because you want to tinker, you should figure that in when you choose a phone. Don’t get something hoping that root method will be released, because you might be waiting a long time for a messy exploit that gets patched right away. There are some devices that are relatively friendly to rooting like Nexus phones and tablets. They have unlockable bootloaders and can be rooted with almost no legwork. They also have system images that can be used to restore the device in case something goes wrong. The usual warning about using care installing apps still applies, though.<br /> If you’re not familiar with Android’s tools and how to fix issues with a command line, you might want to give this some thought. Root can be a lot of fun to play around with, but it can also lead to plenty of frustration as you try to fix errors caused by overzealous modding.</span></div>

• 
• 
• 

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3

• Previous
• Next

Why you should (or shouldn’t) root (a.k.a hack) your Android device

Android is based on the Linux kernel, so right from the start, tinkerers and power users were interested in gaining root access to make changes and graft on new features. In the early days, this…

Read more »

Remote-control device releases drugs right into the brain

<div class="content"> <span id="intelliTXT" name="intellitxt"><img alt="Microfluidic device" class="attachment-full wp-post-image" height="353" src="http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Microfluidic-device-640x353.jpg" width="640" /></span><br /> <div class="photo"> <div class="box2"> <span id="intelliTXT" name="intellitxt"><br /></span></div> </div> <span id="intelliTXT" name="intellitxt"> Rarely has an invention with a subtext so directly from one of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldous_Huxley">Aldous Huxley</a>‘s dystopian futures appeared in the pages of an academic journal. In a study featured in the journal <i>Cell</i>, Washington University associate professor Dr. Michael R. Bruchas has led a team of researchers in developing a device for releasing drugs directly into the brain via remote control.<br /> For those not familiar with the epic science fiction <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World">Brave New World</a>,</i> it lays out a future in which the citizenry are kept in a state stupefied pleasure through a universally endorsed drug – soma. While the <i>Cell</i> article focuses on the therapeutic uses for the device, for instance in treating intractable depression, it isn’t difficult to imagine <i>Brave New World-</i>type scenarios in which giving people access to the pleasure and pain centers of their brains via remote control opens up a whole Pandora’s box of dystopian horrors.<br /> Before delving into these morally hazardous subplots, let’s look at the science behind the device. For years researchers have been struggling with an effective means for delivering drugs to the brain. One of the main issues is that the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood%E2%80%93brain_barrier">blood brain barrier</a> prevents most substances from ever reaching their targets within our gray matter. Another problem is in getting the dosage right. People metabolize drugs differently, so knowing exactly how much of a drug to administer to create the desired effect can be tricky. Creating a device the delivers drugs wirelessly to the brain via remote control has the potential to solve both issues at once.<br /> The effectiveness of the device was ascertained in an experiment on laboratory mice. The rodents in question had been trained to react to stimulation by secreting a dopamine-releasing protein whenever they were exposed to light. The researchers interfered with the animals’ light-sensitive reaction using a remote control to release a drug that counteracted the effects of the dopamine. If this sounds familiar, dopamine is the same neurotransmitter in humans that controls risk-taking behavior like gambling.<br /> <div class="wp-caption alignright" id="attachment_210654" style="width: 310px;"> <a href="http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/mouse_brainb.jpg"><img alt="Pictured is a mouse wearing the implantable device.Source: Jeong JW, McCall JG, et al. Wireless optofluidic systems for programmable in vivo pharmacology and optogenetics. Cell, published online July 16, 2015." class="size-medium wp-image-210654" height="166" src="http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/mouse_brainb-300x166.jpg" width="300" /></a><br /> <div class="wp-caption-text"> Pictured is a mouse wearing the implantable device.Source: Jeong JW, McCall JG, et al. Wireless optofluidic systems for programmable in vivo pharmacology and optogenetics. Cell, published online July 16, 2015.</div> </div> In another eerie sounding proof of principle, the laboratory mice were made to run in a circle by deploying a drug to one side of their brain using the wireless remote. That we may be approaching an era of remote-controlled pets is indicated by another technology which uses Bluetooth transmitters to <a href="https://backyardbrains.com/products/roboroach">steer cockroaches</a>.<br /> While the benefits this device will have in helping patients with intractable mental disease are real and formidable, to blithely ignore the potential moral ambiguities raised by turning animals into remote-controlled drones and handing people a device to dial down unwanted feeling at the push of a button could have lasting repercussions.<br /> There’s little doubt that most in the scientific community would pale at the idea of using this kind of technology for terrorist purposes or too keep a population subjugated. It’s harder to say if the likes of Kim Jung Un and other brutal dictators don’t get a twinkle in their eye when scientific papers like this come tumbling out of academic institutions free of charge.</span></div> <iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1zoUVjtBO1E" width="640"></iframe>

• 
• 

1. 1
2. 2

• Previous
• Next

Remote-control device releases drugs right into the brain

Rarely has an invention with a subtext so directly from one of Aldous Huxley‘s dystopian futures appeared in the pages of an academic journal. In a study featured in the journal Cell, Washington Uni…

Read more »

NASA has discovered the closest super-Earth exoplanet yet

<div class="content"> <span id="intelliTXT" name="intellitxt"><img alt="hd-219134b-illustration" class="attachment-full wp-post-image" height="360" src="http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/hd-219134b-illustration-640x360.jpg" width="640" /><div class="photo"> <div class="box2"> <br /></div> </div> Astronomers have found more than a thousand planets outside our solar system, but most of them are large compared to Earth. Of those thought to be small and rocky, they’ve all been incredibly far away, even by interstellar standards. Now <a href="http://www.extremetech.com/tag/nasa">NASA</a> is reporting the discovery of a new <a href="http://www.extremetech.com/tag/exoplanets">exoplanet</a> just several times larger than Earth (a so-called super Earth) that is only 21 light years away. This could make it a fantastic target for future study.<br /> The alien planet is called HD 219134b and was detected by NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope. The planet is roughly 4.5 times more massive than Earth, but only 1.6 times as wide. That means it’s most likely rocky. That’s what the “super Earth” distinction is based on, that it’s too small and dense to be a gas giant. We don’t know much else about the surface, though.<br /> HD 219134b was detected via the transit method of exoplanet detection, which is the technique also used by NASA’s crippled Kepler telescope that <a href="http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/196199-after-lengthy-hiatus-nasas-kepler-has-found-another-planet-a-super-earth">regularly spots dozens of potential exoplanets</a>. The transit method looks for small dips in the light output of a star, indicating that something is passing between it and our location on Earth. By watching for recurring dips, we can locate planets and partially characterize them.<br /> It didn’t take long for Spitzer to confirm the existence of HD 219134b. It whips around its parent star once every three days. It also obits extremely closely to the star. This is a smaller, cooler Type K orange star, but the surface of HD 219134b is still far too hot for life as we know it to exist.<br /> <a href="http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/black-spot-ttar.jpg"><img alt="transit" class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-211427" height="360" src="http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/black-spot-ttar-640x360.jpg" width="640" /></a><br /> There are three other planets in the HD 219134 system, but we don’t know as much about them yet. There is one that is <i>at least</i> 2.7 times as massive as Earth, but it could be much larger. Its orbital period is 6.8 days. There’s also a Neptune-sized planet that orbits once every 47 days, and a planet 62 times larger than Earth that orbits once every 1190 days.<br /> Astronomers are excited to find HD 219134b not only because it’s a super Earth, but because it’s the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasas-spitzer-confirms-closest-rocky-exoplanet">closest transiting world yet</a>. The closest exoplanet we know of is about 14 light years away, but it doesn’t transit its star. We can learn much more about the nature of an exoplanet when it passes in front of a star like this one does.<br /> The James Webb Space Telescope is currently scheduled to launch in 2018, and you can bet it’s going to be pointed at HD 219134b quickly. This instrument will be able to directly image some exoplanets and perform detailed spectroscopic analyses of their atmospheres.</span></div>

• 
• 

1. 1
2. 2

• Previous
• Next

NASA has discovered the closest super-Earth exoplanet yet

Astronomers have found more than a thousand planets outside our solar system, but most of them are large compared to Earth. Of those thought to be small and rocky, they’ve all been incredibly fa…

Read more »

Mozilla blasts Microsoft for overriding user choice in Windows 10

<div class="content"> <span id="intelliTXT" name="intellitxt"><img alt="Mozilla-vs-IE" class="attachment-full wp-post-image" height="353" src="http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Mozilla-vs-IE-640x353.jpg" width="640" /><div class="photo"> <div class="box2"> <br /></div> </div> Windows 10 dropped this week with a promise of a free upgrade for anyone using Windows 7 or 8, but it turns out there’s a fly in that ointment. If you previously used Chrome or Firefox as your browser of choice, that choice is wiped away with the Windows 10 upgrade. Instead of new versions of Chrome or Firefox, you get Microsoft Edge as your default selection. This is the kind of maneuver that could land Microsoft in hot water with the EU, which has previously mandated that the Redmond-based company must offer a selection of alternative browsers to its own Internet Explorer when users first set up a Windows machine.<br /> Mozilla has taken exception to this new policy and issued <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/07/30/an-open-letter-to-microsofts-ceo-dont-roll-back-the-clock-on-choice-and-control/">an open letter</a> to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, as well as a new tutorial on how to restore your original browser preferences using Windows 10. According to Mozilla’s CEO, Chris Beard, the non-profit foundation has known about Microsoft’s personal preference overrides for months and has previously attempted to work with the company to reach some sort of solution. His letter states that this conversation “didn’t result in any meaningful progress.” Mozilla also claims that it now takes more than twice the number of mouse clicks and additional technical sophistication to change default settings in Windows 10 as compared to Windows 7.<br /> <div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_211439" style="width: 650px;"> <a href="http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/W10-System.jpg"><img alt="W10-System" class="wp-image-211439 size-large" height="535" src="http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/W10-System-640x535.jpg" width="640" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text"> Microsoft’s new Settings menu and the default app selection screen.</div> </div> As far as measuring the clicks required to change applications after you’ve set up the operating system, Beard is wrong. By our count it takes six actions to change your web browser in the new Settings menu, in the older Control Panel (Windows 10) and in the Control Panel that shipped with Windows 7. Ars Technica points out, however, that Beard has a point when it comes to Microsoft’s initial Windows 10 upgrade screens. While it’s technically possible to change your app selection, you must first click on Customize Settings, then click on a small, low-context text field several pages later in order to avoid installing Microsoft’s application choices by default. All in all, it’s not the best solution.<br /> <h3> The hole in Microsoft’s defense</h3> Beard claims that Microsoft’s new approach to default settings with no notification that defaults have been changed is “purposefully designed to throw away the choices its customers have made about the Internet experience they want, and replace it with the Internet experience Microsoft wants them to have.” There’s good evidence he’s right — and ironically, it comes from Microsoft itself.<br /> Microsoft’s <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-10-specifications">Windows 10 specification page</a> states that the upgrade assistant will scan your system and determine if your installed software is compatible with the new operating system. It then states:<br /> <div style="padding-left: 30px;"> <em>“For antimalware applications, Windows will check to see if your antimalware subscription is current (not expired) and compatible during the upgrade.”</em></div> <div style="padding-left: 30px;"> <em>“If the antimalware application is compatible and current, your application will be preserved during the upgrade to Windows 10. If the antimalware application is incompatible, Windows will uninstall your application while preserving your settings. After upgrade is complete, if your antimalware provider has informed Microsoft that it has made a compatible version available for your active subscription, Windows will notify you to install the latest version available with the settings that were set prior to upgrade.”</em></div> <div style="padding-left: 30px;"> <em>“If your antimalware subscription is not current (expired), Windows will uninstall your application and enable Windows Defender.”</em></div> In other words, when it comes to something as critical as malware protection, Microsoft can scan your application, uninstall it if it isn’t compatible, notify you when a compatible version is available, and import your up-to-date AV license from your old OS install directly to the new one. But when it comes to your browser choice, well, that’s just not possible.<br /> <h3> The power of defaults</h3> Psychologists and sociologists have long known that default options have a profound effect on user behavior. The majority of people <em>never</em> change a default setting. An extensive survey from Firefox a few years back found that the highest rate of default change for users who had agreed to test pre-release Firefox nightly builds was just over 11%. That means that 89% of testers, who were presumably both passionate about Firefox and more likely to know how to crawl under the hood, simply never changed the default options.<br /> A different example, albeit one that still involves Mozilla, is the deal the browser developer cut with Yahoo late last year to make Yahoo the default search engine. VentureBeat reported in April that Yahoo’s share of search results had improved by 2.8% to 13% total in just five months. Considering that Mozilla is just one browser and that not everyone upgrades immediately and would not have received the Yahoo default update, that’s impressive growth. Defaults work.<br /> And Microsoft knows it. This new trend of overriding user preference fits neatly in the general pattern of <a href="http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/211208-windows-10s-default-privacy-settings-and-controls-leave-much-to-be-desired">using Windows 10 to gather more data on end-users</a> than any previous version of the operating system.</span></div>

• 
• 

1. 1
2. 2

• Previous
• Next

Mozilla blasts Microsoft for overriding user choice in Windows 10

Windows 10 dropped this week with a promise of a free upgrade for anyone using Windows 7 or 8, but it turns out there’s a fly in that ointment. If you previously used Chrome or Firefox as your b…

Read more »