The Cat and Mouse Game Continues Between Magisk and Google SafteyNet

DroidModderX

Super Moderator
Staff member
Premium Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2011
Messages
5,782
Reaction score
2,134
magisk-1-jpg.77676

If you have rooted your Android device in the past several months you have probably used Magisk to root your phone. Last month google updated SafetyNet which made Magisk useless in terms of easily rooting your device. Magisk was able to publish a quick update which bypassed the new SafetyNet measures. Google struck back again with a new update once again shutting down Magisk root.

The cat and mouse will continue like this indefinitely until Google restructures the way checks are performed. This happens due to the fact that Magisk is running as root and SafteyNet checks are not. This also means that the Magisk community will continue to have the upper hand.

Magisk has just been updated to temporarily bypass Google SafetyNet measures, and a full Magisk update will arrive soon. Google will likely eventually restructure the way checks are performed in order to stop Magisk from being able to update to avoid their measures. For now you can still enjoy the benefits of Magisk. Grab the update from the link below.

via XDA
 

Attachments

  • Magisk-1.jpg
    Magisk-1.jpg
    72.2 KB · Views: 4,085
I think that by updating SafetyNet, Google is doing their job. By Migisk finding a work around, and updating it, they are doing their job.

The problem is that each job is in direct competition with each other, all in the name of Root.
 
I sit on the fence on the whole "who owns the software" issue, and I am not for or against rooting.
But I am certainly not for creating additional workload for the Google coders who may be able to put their time and effort into better things.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
I sit on the fence on the whole "who owns the software" issue, and I am not for or against rooting.
But I am certainly not for creating additional workload for the Google coders who may be able to put their time and effort into better things.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

generally I agree but in this case, it is about phones security. imo people tend to be lawsuit happy. if google did not do anything to keep their phones secured even if the phone was rooted or whatever, and the phone was compromised resulting in financial data being stolen, google could get sued for not providing proper protection. people have sued for less.
 
generally I agree but in this case, it is about phones security. imo people tend to be lawsuit happy. if google did not do anything to keep their phones secured even if the phone was rooted or whatever, and the phone was compromised resulting in financial data being stolen, google could get sued for not providing proper protection. people have sued for less.

And I'm the guy who'd love to sue for being denied administrative [root access] rights to a computer I purchased. No one would buy a PC if they were locked out of the admin functions. There is zero logical reason why the end user should be denied admin rights to a computer unless it is purchased by someone else (eg employers/parents) who does not want the person they are allowing to use the computer to have those rights.
 
And I'm the guy who'd love to sue for being denied administrative [root access] rights to a computer I purchased. No one would buy a PC if they were locked out of the admin functions. There is zero logical reason why the end user should be denied admin rights to a computer unless it is purchased by someone else (eg employers/parents) who does not want the person they are allowing to use the computer to have those rights.

major differences between smartphones and computers.

you say no logical reason, most users do not need admin rights on their mobile phones. over the years I have seen too many idiots who used their admin rights and totally messed things up, in some cases permanently. don't believe me, go to the xda forums and read all the posts asking for help because phones gotten bricked because of bypassing the protections in order to install something.

another logical reason is to protect the warranty. when you start bypassing security through hacks, rooting, roms or whatever you lose your warranty. phones are not cheap to fix.

this is all I will say about this.
 
major differences between smartphones and computers.

you say no logical reason, most users do not need admin rights on their mobile phones. over the years I have seen too many idiots who used their admin rights and totally messed things up, in some cases permanently. don't believe me, go to the xda forums and read all the posts asking for help because phones gotten bricked because of bypassing the protections in order to install something.

another logical reason is to protect the warranty. when you start bypassing security through hacks, rooting, roms or whatever you lose your warranty. phones are not cheap to fix.

this is all I will say about this.

Same could be said about computers. If you have administrative access to your computer, you could damage it by browsing sites that have compromising software attached to them. You could download software, that also contains malware. If you have administrative access, you can damage your computer and expose yourself to threats by doing stupid ish.

Same with phones. If you have root access, you bear the responsibility of maintaining your ish!

generally I agree but in this case, it is about phones security. imo people tend to be lawsuit happy. if google did not do anything to keep their phones secured even if the phone was rooted or whatever, and the phone was compromised resulting in financial data being stolen, google could get sued for not providing proper protection. people have sued for less.

If people want to use Android Pay on a rooted device, without a passcode, then it should be on me, not Google. I am the idiot that decided to use Android Pay on a rooted device. Before the user launches AP, they should get a message that says, "YOUR PHONE HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ROOTED. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK".
Speaking of Android Pay, I should be able to use it without a passcode on my phone. It would works best if there was a pin identified on the Android Pay app itself. I prefer my phone without a passcode or lock pattern, considering I don't have a fingerprint reader.
 
Unfortunately, akhenax, those of us who still believe in personal responsibility and Freedom (capitalization intentional) are quickly becoming a minority. More and more people think they need to be protected from every conceivable unpleasant thing that could possibly happen to them. When it does happen, it's never their fault, therefore someone else should foot the bill. It's truly shameful that we have to fight so hard for something as fundamentally basic as actual full ownership of property for which we've already paid.
 
I wasn't going to respond again this this thread but in this case, I am a liar :)

IMO, taking responsibility means taking responsibility NOT

1. looking for installs that will not trip knox or any other security features
2. reseting back to factory when having problems in order to hide your warranty voiding violation that could have caused the problem
3. if android pay is compromise, going to the credit card company and get the debt reverse. or going to your bank and get them to return funds.

if you do any of the above, you are NOT taking responsibility for your actions.

lets not forget, Google must play cat and mouse because if they did not, the credit card companies and banks will pull their cards from android pay. They are under contract to provide a secure platform for all transactions in order to prevent fraud.

and about the pc, if while online banking, your account is compromised, and you are not using the right brower and operating system, the bank do not have to refund anything to you. Most banks required specific operating systems and browers. it is somewhere in their tos or in one of the number of other documents you are supposed to read.

this is the last I will respond, doubt I will even return to this thread.

oh... and one more thing, I tend to agree with, not all, but a lot of what is said. after all, I am a linux user, a cord cutter and jailbroke my iphones a few years ago. just felt like posting from an opposing viewpoint :)
 
ROFL. "I agree with most of this but am posting from an opposing viewpoint."

How appropriate, then, that your avatar appears to be a troll.

jiFfM.jpg
 
Back
Top