[Discussion] Magisk - The Age of Zygisk.

[m0han]

That 'rule' was previously insisted on by moderator @TNSMANI in September....

i once had to take up issue with him for removing one of my links

Spoiler: ot rant?

[commenting (sundry YT link removed)], but retaining a similar one in a post from another user with whom i was engaged in a 'conversation'.

his response: I agree that there are hundreds if not thousands of such posts spread all over the forum. But for 10 million users and hundreds of thousands of posts, there are hardly 50 Moderators. So I think that you will agree that it is like searching for a needle in a haystack.

 

[heinhuiz]

After this, Magisk is gonna be a hard pass for me. John's gotta do what's in his best interests and I hope he is successful with Google.
I'll be sticking with Version 23 until another root solution comes along. I am having trouble after trying to update and then downgrading.
As for apps that check root status, if Magisk Hide can't defeat that, I'll delete them. Those services that I need can be accessed through any web browser, so I'll replace the app with a shortcut to the website. It's none of their business what I do with my own cell phone.
I might detail my issues another day. It's late and I'm too tired to work on the phone much. I tried Riru and some safety net fix, but uninstalled them when I downgraded to Magisk 23.
There is a very good reason I do not update anything on my phone unless absolutely necessary, and this is it. Again, I have no hard feelings. I've gotten a lot of miles outta Magisk and am thankful for that.

Seems like I'm in exactly the same boat with you. I'm not skilled enough to work out a solution for myself, but hopefully one day someone else will do that.

In my opinion, all these root checking methods should be forbidden by law. It's just spying behaviour without any obvious reason. Even if it's for fraud prevention. It should be illegal to deny someone a service just because that one has tools that *could be* used for illegal activities. Although it's technically much easier to prevent fraud than to actually detect it, these methods breach people's privacy rights.

 

[heinhuiz]

i once had to take up issue with him for removing one of my links [commenting (sundry YT link removed)], but retaining a similar one in a post from another user with whom i was engaged in a 'conversation'.

his response: I agree that there are hundreds if not thousands of such posts spread all over the forum. But for 10 million users and hundreds of thousands of posts, there are hardly 50 Moderators. So I think that you will agree that it is like searching for a needle in a haystack.

Haha, those needles could be easily found if the search function actually worked

 

[Robbo.5000]

So had my banking app suddenly detect root a couple of weeks back after years of MagiskHide working fine.
Decided whilst trying to fix it that I may as well move to Magisk 24 and try and fix it at the same time.
Anyway, done everything necessary and got SafetyNet to pass.
However after hiding Magisk Manager and adding the banking app to the deny list, the app still detects root. So installed the Shamiko module and disabled the deny list, but still had no joy.
So searching around for more info on the Hide My Applist module I found this thread and specific post.

https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/...antander-root-detection.3837206/post-85988021

Gave it a try and it worked for me. Froze Magisk Manager, cleared data in the banking app and relaunched it and hey presto. No longer getting redirected to a root detected page, but the app fully launched successfully.

For those still having problems, give this a try.

For those that might be interested, the root detected landing page URL was a sub domain of the banks main site named app-shield, so I guess the bank app is using these guys for security

Mobile Application Security Solutions | VERIMATRIX

Verimatrix App Shield allows developers to quickly safeguard their intellectual property and customer data with proven solutions.

www.verimatrix.com

 

[pndwal]

Seems like I'm in exactly the same boat with you. I'm not skilled enough to work out a solution for myself, but hopefully one day someone else will do that.

In my opinion, all these root checking methods should be forbidden by law. It's just spying behaviour without any obvious reason. Even if it's for fraud prevention. It should be illegal to deny someone a service just because that one has tools that *could be* used for illegal activities. Although it's technically much easier to prevent fraud than to actually detect it, these methods breach people's privacy rights.

In reality, hardware backed attestation to TEE is becoming the norm for allowing developers of apps requiring a high degree of security to have assurance that their code is, in fact, running in a Trusted Execution Environment. Even SOCs / processors for pC etc now have the hardware required, and it seems that soon even your PC will rely on these attestations rather than traditional malware detection etc...

Examples of such code include Google's own Google Pay.

The issue is quite simple; bank app devs / corporations who could be sued / banks who now are faced with replacing more and more of your funds obtained by fraud to maintain good faith with customers (eg GPay partner banks when a customer's phone is lost or stolen and thieves are able to unlock the phone & use your GPay because you loaded TWRP, decrypted, left USB debugging on etc etc) want to know the platform is secured (read 'is a TEE') as thieves basically cannot get you data / money in that case, but it is often a trivial matter otherwise.

However, since Google have been taking their time to implement HKA properly, the banks are simply covering themselves by investing in their own methods of detection; they already view IOS as the preferred mobile OS for security as it is basically impenetrable while Google has NOT delivered... Google can't afford to let that continue either!

While we can, Google is allowing us to 'subvert their security model' quite knowingly, but only because they view the Magisk / modding / custom development community as largely 'White Hat' rather than nefarious as they've said... But there are nefarious hackers etc out there, increasing in number by the minute...

So you are thinking only in terms of your privacy... What about your right to know stuff? What about the banks right to know their code is secure?... Really, by manipulating signals (spoofing CTS profile match etc) that legitimately attest to TEE, say to hide the fact that a chain of trust is broken (read device no longer has Verified Boot (AVB) ie. bootloader is unlocked), you are effectively misrepresenting these details (read lying)... You are verifying what has not been verified, attesting to the trustworthyness of what cannot be trusted...
What should really be illegal?...

Of course there'll be no litigation over this either way, but If they were forced to let you run their code in unsecure (non-Trusted Execution Environments) banks would simply stop viewing Android as a safe / viable platform for their apps and cease to produce them, so you'll loose the ability to bank unless you get an IPhone in any case, and Android would slowly become untenable...

It doesn't take a genius to work out which way this'll go... PW

 

[heinhuiz]

In reality, hardware backed attestation to TEE is becoming the norm for allowing developers of apps requiring a high degree of security to have assurance that their code is, in fact, running in a Trusted Execution Environment. Even SOCs / processors for pC etc now have the hardware required, and it seems that soon even your PC will rely on these attestations rather than traditional malware detection etc...

Examples of such code include Google's own Google Pay.

The issue is quite simple; bank app devs / corporations who could be sued / banks who now are faced with replacing more and more of your funds obtained by fraud to maintain good faith with customers (eg GPay partner banks when a customer's phone is lost or stolen and thieves are able to unlock the phone & use your GPay because you loaded TWRP, decrypted, left USB debugging on etc etc) want to know the platform is secured (read 'is a TEE') as thieves basically cannot get you data / money in that case, but it is often a trivial matter otherwise.

However, since Google have been taking their time to implement HKA properly, the banks are simply covering themselves by investing in their own methods of detection; they already view IOS as the preferred mobile OS for security as it is basically impenetrable while Google has NOT delivered... Google can't afford to let that continue either!

While we can, Google is allowing us to 'subvert their security model' quite knowingly, but only because they view the Magisk / modding / custom development community as largely 'White Hat' rather than nefarious as they've said... But there are nefarious hackers etc out there, increasing in number by the minute...

So you are thinking only in terms of your privacy... What about your right to know stuff? What about the banks right to know their code is secure?... Really, by manipulating signals (spoofing CTS profile match etc) that legitimately attest to TEE, say to hide the fact that a chain of trust is broken (read device no longer has Verified Boot (AVB) ie. bootloader is unlocked), you are effectively misrepresenting these details (read lying)... You are verifying what has not been verified, attesting to the trustworthyness of what cannot be trusted...
What should really be illegal?...

Of course there'll be no litigation over this either way, but If they were forced to let you run their code in unsecure (non-Trusted Execution Environments) banks would simply stop viewing Android as a safe / viable platform for their apps and cease to produce them, so you'll loose the ability to bank unless you get an IPhone in any case, and Android would slowly become untenable...

It doesn't take a genius to work out which way this'll go... PW

The right to know stuff? That does not even exist. Nobody has any right to know what I do with my personal belongings, and that includes my bank and even the government. I am entitled to do whatever I want with my phone, as long as I don't break any laws.

This genius is already considering to buy a PinePhone and work from a browser.

 

[lm089]

Sorry for a silly remark / question: as I no longer have a repo in Magisk 24+ I guess it's a good idea to do one last d/l of TWRP A/B retention script module before upgrading? I made it a habit to simply delete the module after use then d/l it again after the next OTA. Anything else that changed in Magisk in regards to OTA behaviour for A/B devices?

 

[lm089]

The right to know stuff? That does not even exist. Nobody has any right to know what I do with my personal belongings, and that includes my bank and even the government. I am entitled to do whatever I want with my phone, as long as I don't break any laws.

This genius is already considering to buy a PinePhone and work from a browser.

Honestly I never liked the idea to have sensible stuff like a banking app on a device I'm carrying with me everyday, that I can lose, have it stolen or whatever. Esp. since banks started bringing all their services back into a single app after they found that using true 2FA was too expensive.
So I dedicated one of my older phones running LOS 17.1/A10 to be my sole banking device. It's unrooted now so no hassle with root detection etc. As long as the banking apps support A10 devices I'm more than happy with that solution

 

[pndwal]

The right to know stuff? That does not even exist.

Google believes app Devs have that right...

Nobody has any right to know what I do with my personal belongings, and that includes my bank and even the government.

The bank has the right to do what they want with their intellectual property (code), including offering it with conditions...

Or not at all.

I am entitled to do whatever I want with my phone, as long as I don't break any laws.

That's beside the point.

But you'd like to see laws to limit what banks are entitled to do with their code.

This genius is already considering to buy a PinePhone and work from a browser.

And you're quite entitled to do that too... PW

 

[jhedfors]

Sorry for a silly remark / question: as I no longer have a repo in Magisk 24+ I guess it's a good idea to do one last d/l of TWRP A/B retention script module before upgrading? I made it a habit to simply delete the module after use then d/l it again after the next OTA. Anything else that changed in Magisk in regards to OTA behaviour for A/B devices?

Fox's Magisk Module Manager in the OP (post #5 actually).

 

[heinhuiz]

Google believes app Devs have that right...

There are more things Google (and Apple) consider their right while is is actually wrong.

The bank has the right to do what they want with their intellectual property (code), including offering it with conditions...

Up to where they start breaking the law. And I would really like to hear an expert's opinion on that. Especially a lawyer with knowledge of the European GDPR.

 

[lm089]

Fox's Magisk Module Manager in the OP (post #5 actually).

Yep, I've seen that. Guess I asked the wrong question : as far as I understand I can still load modules that are stored on my device, correct? Since the retention script is the only module I ever really used I hope I can get away without installing Fox that way. Or is that a wrong conclusion?

 

[jhedfors]

Yep, I've seen that. Guess I asked the wrong question : as far as I understand I can still load modules that are stored on my device, correct? Since the retention script is the only module I ever really used I hope I can get away without installing Fox that way. Or is that a wrong conclusion?

Yes, you can install any module manually, by selecting "install from storage".

 

[pndwal]

There are more things Google (and Apple) consider their right while is is actually wrong.

The whole computing industry is going that way as I said... They all must be wrong, including all the soc / processor makers, and wasted a decade of r&d and $billions more in manufacturing chips w/ HKA support...

Up to where they start breaking the law. And I would really like to hear an expert's opinion on that. Especially a lawyer with knowledge of the European GDPR.

@ipdev?... PW

 

[ldeveraux]

The whole computing industry is going that way as I said... They all must be wrong, including all the soc / processor makers, and wasted a decade of r&d and $billions more in manufacturing chips w/ HKA support...

@ipdev?... PW

Man, wake up and smell the coffee. Google and Apple assert their dominance as far as they possibly can without breaking the law. They also go over the line occasionally and have to pay for that. They only "go that way" because it's the direction that makes them the most money. Every other motive is ancillary.

 

[heinhuiz]

The whole computing industry is going that way as I said... They all must be wrong, including all the soc / processor makers, and wasted a decade of r&d and $billions more in manufacturing chips w/ HKA support...

That's beside the point

@ipdev?... PW

@ipdev should remove all our posts on this subject for being grossly off-topic.

 

[_mysiak_]

Anyone with Xiaomi phone who has been able to successfully pass Safetynet? I tried probably all the combinations (Magisk hide, Shamiko, Magisk hide props,..), but the best result I achieved is to switch from HW to basic Safetynet attestation and that's it. Everything fails, I can't even hide unlocked bootloader. I am using stock Xiaomi Mi 10T lite, had to rollback to Magisk v23, where everything works without any hiccups.

 

[zgfg]

Anyone with Xiaomi phone who has been able to successfully pass Safetynet? I tried probably all the combinations (Magisk hide, Shamiko, Magisk hide props,..), but the best result I achieved is to switch from HW to basic Safetynet attestation and that's it. Everything fails, I can't even hide unlocked bootloader. I am using stock Xiaomi Mi 10T lite, had to rollback to Magisk v23, where everything works without any hiccups.

Xiaomi Mi 9T, MIUI 12.5, A11 - passing always

 

[_mysiak_]

Xiaomi Mi 9T, MIUI 12.5, A11 - passing always

What combination of settings and modules do you use please?

I did these steps:
1. update magisk from 23 to 24
2. enable zygisk, enable magisk denylist, added gms + gms.unstable + gms.snet (+mamo and banking apps)
3. reboot, safetynet doesn't pass anything
4. install zygisk version of universal safetynet fix, reboot, HW attestation changed, but still not passing
5. install Shamiko, disable magisk denylist, reboot, no difference
6. install Magisk Hideprops, tried some random fingerprint, no difference

Mamo reports unlocked bootloader and detected magisk, zygisk,...

 

[digger16309]

Questions on upgrading....I'd like to avoid bootloops and such...

Pixel 5, Android 11, Magisk Stable 23, running Riru and LSPosed. Magisk app NOT hidden. NO safetynet. EX Kernel.

Can I safely update to stable 24.1 in the app and then deal with the riru/zygisk changes thereafter? Do I need to re-patch the bootloader with the new version before applying the custom kernel or will my kernel remain unaffected?