[2017.10.01] suhide-lite v1.09 [EXPERIMENTAL/UNSUPPORTED]

Chainfire said:

Most apps that detect root fall into the payment, banking/investing, corporate security, or (anit cheating) gaming category.

While a lot of apps have their custom root detection routines, with the introduction of SafetyNet the situation for power users has become worse, as developers of those apps can now use a single API to check if the device is not obviously compromised.

SafetyNet is of course developed by Google, which means they can do some tricks that others may not be able to easily do, as they have better platform access and control. In its current incarnation, ultimately the detection routines still run as an unprivileged user and do not yet use information from expected-to-be-secure components such as the bootloader or TPM. In other words, even though they have slightly more access than a 3rd party app, they still have less access than a root app does.

Following from this is that as long as there is someone who is willing to put in the time and effort - and this can become very complex and time consuming very quickly - and SafetyNet keeps their detection routines in the same class, there will in theory always be a way to beat these detections.

While reading that may initially make some of you rejoice, this is in truth a bad thing. As an Android security engineer in Google's employ has stated, they need to "make sure that Android Pay is running on a device that has a well documented set of API’s and a well understood security model".

The problem is that with a rooted device, it is ultimately not possible to guarantee said security model with the current class of SafetyNet tamper detection routines. The cat and mouse game currently being played out - SafetyNet detecting root, someone bypassing it, SafetyNet detecting it again, repeat - only serves to emphasize this point. The more we push this, the more obvious this becomes to all players involved, and the quicker SafetyNet (and similar solutions) will grow beyond their current limitations.

Ultimately, information will be provided and verified by bootloaders/TrustZone/SecureBoot/TIMA/TEE/TPM etc. (Samsung is already doing this with their KNOX/TIMA solutions). Parts of the device we cannot easily reach or patch, and thus there will come a time when these detection bypasses may no longer viable. This will happen regardless of our efforts, as you can be sure malware authors are working on this as well. What we power-users do may well influence the time-frame, however. If a bypass attains critical mass, it will be patched quickly.

More security requires more locking down. Ultimately these security features are about money - unbelievably large amounts of money. This while our precious unlocked bootloaders and root solutions are more of a developer and enthusiast thing. While we're all generally fond of shaking our fists at the likes of Google, Samsung, HTC, etc, it should be noted that there are people in all these companies actively lobbying to keep unlocked/unlockable devices available for us to play with, with the only limitation being that some financial/corporate stuff may not work if we play too hard.

It would be much easier (and safer from their perspective) for all these parties to simply plug that hole and fully lock down the platform (beyond 3rd party apps using only the normal APIs). Bypassing root checks en masse is nothing less than poking the bear.

Nevertheless, users want to hide their roots (so do malware authors...) and at least this implementation of suhide is a simple one. I still think it's a bad idea to do it. Then again, I think it's a bad idea to do anything financial related on Android smartphone that isn't completely clean, but that's just me.

Note that I have intentionally left out any debate on whether SafetyNet/AndroidPay/etc need to be this perfectly secure (most people do their banking on virus ridden Windows installations after all), who should get to decide which risk is worth taking, or even if Google and cohorts would be able to design the systems more robustly so the main app processor would not need to be trusted at all. (the latter could be done for Android Pay, but wouldn't necessarily solve anything for Random Banking App). While those are very interesting discussion points, ultimately it is Google who decides how they want this system to work, regardless of our opinions on the matter - and they want to secure it.

Click to expand...

Click to collapse