FORUMS

Analysis & Opinion

Top Forum Discussions

[Q] XT1058 SIM lock mystery

13 posts
Thanks Meter: 1
 
By ChadFM, Junior Member on 18th May 2014, 02:41 PM
Post Reply Subscribe to Thread Email Thread
21st May 2014, 01:58 PM |#21  
KidJoe's Avatar
Recognized Contributor
Flag Thorndale/Romansville, PA
Thanks Meter: 1,522
 
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChadFM

I did last flash an AT&T XT1058 SBF.. so you're right, that supports that at least some of the fields are HW-based.

Maybe there's some international carrier that locks the XT1053, and it just happens to work on TMobile?

If there is, I'm not sure who.

Do you have access to someone else who could try their Non-T-mobile SIM in your phone?

Is it possible the network unlock pin is actually a PUK or PUC Code? see also -> http://www.att.com/esupport/article....id=R7O-u149SD_
 
 
21st May 2014, 02:09 PM |#22  
OP Junior Member
Thanks Meter: 1
 
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidJoe

Do you have access to someone else who could try their Non-T-mobile SIM in your phone?

Is it possible the network unlock pin is actually a PUK or PUC Code? see also -> http://www.att.com/esupport/article....id=R7O-u149SD_

I've tried a few SIMs. My own TMobile and SIMPLE Mobile SIMs work. I've tried one h2o SIM and two AT&T SIMs, which all asked for an unlock PIN. So, I don't think it's a PUK/PUC issue.
21st May 2014, 09:23 PM |#23  
Senior Member
Langley, BC
Thanks Meter: 328
 
More
There was an XT1053 from Mexico or something, but it wouldn't be locked to t-mobile. If anything I'd guess it was some sample phone sent to t-mobile for testing. The back cover may have been branded as such so someone swapped it out to hide that.
4th January 2015, 10:10 PM |#24  
Junior Member
Thanks Meter: 8
 
More
What is my Phone?
Sorry to bring back an old thread but..

I'm in UK, bought an XT1058 phone(so it says on back) with a broken screen. Replaced screen but found that the phone's IMEI: 0
I thought somebody may have flashed something wrong on it but not sure. It had AT&T stuff on it. I've just flashed AT&T Firmware on v 4.4.2 and it updated to 4.4.4 to hopefully restore its modem but still IMEI: 0
Everytime the phone starts up, even after a full recovery data wipe a CS (Comm Server) app starts on its own.
Just done a getvar all from fastboot and the results are below.

Can anyone pickout what this phone may be? With thanks.

(bootloader) version-bootloader: 30B7
(bootloader) version: 0.5
(bootloader) cpu: MSM8960 Pro CS
(bootloader) ram: 2048MB Hynix S4 SDRAM DIE=4Gb
(bootloader) emmc: 16GB Sandisk REV=06 PRV=07 TYPE=17
(bootloader) product: ghost
(bootloader) revision-hardware: 0x8300
(bootloader) radio: 0x1
(bootloader) secure: no
(bootloader) mid: 0000
(bootloader) serialno: (have it but removed from this listing)
(bootloader) qe: qe 0/0
(bootloader) unlocked: Not supported
(bootloader) iswarrantyvoid: Not supported
(bootloader) max-download-size: 805306368
(bootloader) uid: EB9600040C000100000000000000
(bootloader) imei: 000000000000000
(bootloader) meid:
(bootloader) sku: 000000000000000
(bootloader) cid: 0xdead
(bootloader) iccid:
(bootloader) date: 01-01-1970
(bootloader) cust_md5:
(bootloader) reason: Reboot to bootloader
(bootloader) ro.build.date: Wed Jun 25 00:10:28 PDT 2014
(bootloader) ro.build.id: KXA21.12-L1.26
(bootloader) ro.build.tags: bldacfg,release-keys
(bootloader) ro.build.type: user
(bootloader) ro.build.user: dbbuild
(bootloader) ro.build.version.codename: REL
(bootloader) ro.build.version.incremental: 26
(bootloader) ro.build.version.release: 4.4.4
(bootloader) ro.mot.build.customerid: att
(bootloader) ro.product.name: ghost_att
(bootloader) ro.build.fingerprint[0]: motorola/ghost_att/ghost:4.4.4/K
(bootloader) ro.build.fingerprint[1]: XA21.12-L1.26/26:user/bldacfg,re
(bootloader) ro.build.fingerprint[2]: lease-keys
(bootloader) ro.build.version.full[0]: Blur_Version.212.44.26.ghost_att
(bootloader) ro.build.version.full[1]: .ATT.en.US
(bootloader) kernel.version[0]: Linux version 3.4.42-gb444bf1-00
(bootloader) kernel.version[1]: 004-g6b785f7 (dbbuild@ca88lnxdro
(bootloader) kernel.version[2]: id14) (gcc version 4.7 (GCC) ) #
(bootloader) kernel.version[3]: 1 SMP PREEMPT Wed Jun 25 00:21:2
(bootloader) kernel.version[4]: 1 PDT 2014
5th January 2015, 12:57 PM |#25  
KidJoe's Avatar
Recognized Contributor
Flag Thorndale/Romansville, PA
Thanks Meter: 1,522
 
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewudz

...
Just done a getvar all from fastboot and the results are below.

Can anyone pickout what this phone may be? With thanks.

(bootloader) version-bootloader: 30B7
(bootloader) unlocked: Not supported
(bootloader) iswarrantyvoid: Not supported
(bootloader) cid: 0xdead

See the values I highlighted... Those are NOT normal.

take a look at -> http://forum.xda-developers.com/moto...t1058-t2963150

I'd love to know if you and @RafaySid got your devices from the same seller.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to KidJoe For This Useful Post: [ View ]
5th January 2015, 03:03 PM |#26  
Junior Member
Thanks Meter: 8
 
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidJoe

See the values I highlighted... Those are NOT normal.

take a look at -> http://forum.xda-developers.com/moto...t1058-t2963150

I'd love to know if you and @RafaySid got your devices from the same seller.

Cheers for the checkup. I'm going to try a few roms to see if imei picks up (brazil did nothing, rogers is downloading now, then will try chilie) then its time to talk to moto support and give its serial to see what they have to say what the phone is/was.

Will update. Thanks again.
5th January 2015, 06:26 PM |#27  
KidJoe's Avatar
Recognized Contributor
Flag Thorndale/Romansville, PA
Thanks Meter: 1,522
 
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewudz

Cheers for the checkup. I'm going to try a few roms to see if imei picks up (brazil did nothing, rogers is downloading now, then will try chilie) then its time to talk to moto support and give its serial to see what they have to say what the phone is/was.

Will update. Thanks again.

Just make sure you are flashing 4.4.4 roms, and nothing lower!!!!!
6th January 2015, 03:49 PM |#28  
Member
Flag Karachi
Thanks Meter: 4
 
More
@KidJoe, is it possible that both of us have Motorola's test phones which have been flashed with different ROMs, hence the abnormal values?

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk
Last edited by RafaySid; 6th January 2015 at 03:52 PM.
6th January 2015, 07:52 PM |#29  
KidJoe's Avatar
Recognized Contributor
Flag Thorndale/Romansville, PA
Thanks Meter: 1,522
 
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by RafaySid

@KidJoe, is it possible that both of us have Motorola's test phones which have been flashed with different ROMs, hence the abnormal values?

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk

I have no idea. But I doubt it.
6th January 2015, 08:40 PM |#30  
Member
Flag Karachi
Thanks Meter: 4
 
More
Or maybe it is just the case of improper flashing.

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk
Post Reply Subscribe to Thread
Previous Thread Next Thread
Thread Tools
Display Modes