• Introducing XDA Computing: Discussion zones for Hardware, Software, and more!    Check it out!
  • Fill out your device list and let everyone know which phones you have!    Edit Your Device Inventory

Magisk General Support / Discussion

Search This thread

AndDiSa

Senior Member
Dec 2, 2009
3,493
4,650
Heidelberg
The latest Magisk Canary builds are buggy in my Sony Xperia Z5C phone, running a stock 7.1.1 ROM. TWRP shows all the installation stteps and all seems preety standard to me. Magisk Manager shows 'Installed: N/A', though, and root access is lost. Magisk Manager logs page is empty. By the way, it resides in the internal storage.

I'm back to the stable v20.4 release, where (almost) everthing works. A local banking app, after an update, now complains that it is not allowed to run in a modified device, although it is, obviously, activated in Magisk Hide list. That's why I tried the Canary builds. Logcat shows nothing of notice. Any thoughts?

Try to re-install the app. Most likely the last status of the checking is stored somewhere in the application data.

---------- Post added at 07:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:13 AM ----------

Yep I'm passing. Google Pixel 2 XL

Passing with a Pixel-3a, rooted with Magisk 20.4, too. I checked and checking type is BASIC only ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: warrencoakley

ounerkouks

Senior Member
Oct 21, 2013
247
32
hi all

Im basic hardware backed :)
my phone samsung s9 android Q


Is there anything I can do to correct it?
If I install a stock rom and I go back to a custom I will still be basic hardware backed?


thank you so much
 

yhogievo

Member
Jul 15, 2017
19
1
Redmi Note 9 Pro
so apparently, for now, there's no way you could spoof safetynet if it's hardware-backed? But is it possible though? I mean, if safetynet is contacting google to verify your device, why can't we make like... same response like google does, but from our own server?
 

InsaneNutter

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2010
174
111
Yorkshire
Is there anybody with stock (rooted) Android 10 and unlocked Bootloader who can pass SafetyNet CTS Profile?
If so, on which device?

I can on my OnePlus 5T.

Any device not using hardware attestation should be fine at the moment, that's not to say that won't get enabled on this device as the OnePlus 5T should in theory support it. The phone shipped with Android 7, which is when that became a requirement from what I gather.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20200701-084016.jpg
    Screenshot_20200701-084016.jpg
    195.8 KB · Views: 398
Last edited:

zgfg

Senior Member
Oct 10, 2016
5,487
2,822
I can on my OnePlus 5T.

Any device not using hardware attestation should be fine at the moment, that's not to say that won't get enabled on this device as the OnePlus 5T should in theory support it. The phone shipped with Android 7, which is when that became a requirement from what I gather.
Did you test on your phone with Canary Manager (if not using Hide Magisk Manager you can easily upgrade Manager ONLY) or a standalone SafetyNet checker (as discussed about during last days) to double-check if really passing and to see if using only Basic CTS

---------- Post added at 11:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 AM ----------

with Canary Magisk Manager 288, it's no more needed to analyze logcat whether CTS use Basic or Hardware attest- thanks
Is there any other SafetyNet checker at the moment, to show if CTS attest was forced via Hardware backed or not, isn't it?

Ofc, it can be tested by using SafetyNet Attest apk, but it requires using Logcat (hence generally requiring root) to read if using Basic or Hardware

Well, in Magisk Manager (Canary 288, where it shows Basic or Hardware), to get to the SafetyNet test you must go through Superuser menu, but Superuser menu cannot be opened if Magisk was not installed (reasonable)

Hence if Magisk is not installed, you cannot try SafetyNet test to read e.g. whether it uses Basic or Hardware.
But SafetyNet doesn't really require Magisk/root for testing, hence IMO it would be useful to reorganize Magisk Manager menus to make SafetyNet checking accessible no matter if Magisk was installed or not
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndDiSa

Didgeridoohan

Senior Moderator / Dev Committee / Dev Relations
Staff member
May 31, 2012
11,714
12,677
Gothenburg
Google Nexus 4
Nexus 6
Well, in Magisk Manager (Canary 288, where it shows Basic or Hardware), to get to the SafetyNet test you must go through Superuser menu, but Superuser menu cannot be opened if Magisk was not installed (reasonable)

Hence if Magisk is not installed, you cannot try SafetyNet test to read e.g. whether it uses Basic or Hardware.
But SafetyNet doesn't really require Magisk/root for testing, hence IMO it would be useful to reorganize Magisk Manager menus to make SafetyNet checking accessible no matter if Magisk was installed or not

If your goal is to see if basic or hardware is being used, you need root...

Nevermind... Had some bad luck while thinking. See my next post below.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AndDiSa

zgfg

Senior Member
Oct 10, 2016
5,487
2,822
If your goal is to see if basic or hardware is being used, you need root...
Are you sure that SafetyNet checker application cannot read from the response from Google Framework, what CTS attest was attempted?

For example, SafetyNet check application, screenshot attached, usefully prints all kinds of info from the SafetyNet response - and the app does not require root.
However, it's an older app, probably before Google introduced this new parameter to the game
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2020-07-01-12-47-15-003_de.guenthers.safetynet.jpg
    Screenshot_2020-07-01-12-47-15-003_de.guenthers.safetynet.jpg
    160.2 KB · Views: 595

bunklung

Senior Member
Mar 20, 2011
519
105
Would it be possible for Magisk/community to include like an Android VM container that could be used as a Magisk Hide environment? Could we then emulate like an older Pixel 1 that does not have a TPM module? What if we emulate our own TPM module in software to bypass the HW module?
 
Last edited:

Didgeridoohan

Senior Moderator / Dev Committee / Dev Relations
Staff member
May 31, 2012
11,714
12,677
Gothenburg
Google Nexus 4
Nexus 6
Are you sure that SafetyNet checker application cannot read from the response from Google Framework, what CTS attest was attempted?

No I'm not, and you're probably correct. I haven't looked at any of the code or the APIs for this, but it's very likely that it's something the app can read directly from the API.

If this is something you want changed, you do now that the place for feature requests is on GitHub, right?
 

zgfg

Senior Member
Oct 10, 2016
5,487
2,822
No I'm not, and you're probably correct. I haven't looked at any of the code or the APIs for this, but it's very likely that it's something the app can read directly from the API.

If this is something you want changed, you do now that the place for feature requests is on GitHub, right?
Ofc, I put to GitHub, actually under an existing Issue asking for the SafetyNet shortcut from Magisk Manager icon:
https://github.com/topjohnwu/Magisk/issues/2634
 

Displax

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2015
234
619
25
Kyiv
Is there any other SafetyNet checker at the moment, to show if CTS attest was forced via Hardware backed or not, isn't it?

Ofc, it can be tested by using SafetyNet Attest apk, but it requires using Logcat (hence generally requiring root) to read if using Basic or Hardware

Well, in Magisk Manager (Canary 288, where it shows Basic or Hardware), to get to the SafetyNet test you must go through Superuser menu, but Superuser menu cannot be opened if Magisk was not installed (reasonable)

Hence if Magisk is not installed, you cannot try SafetyNet test to read e.g. whether it uses Basic or Hardware.
But SafetyNet doesn't really require Magisk/root for testing, hence IMO it would be useful to reorganize Magisk Manager menus to make SafetyNet checking accessible no matter if Magisk was installed or not
For now you can use ADB for devices without ROOT.

Code:
adb logcat -s SafetyNetResponse
 

leviiis

Senior Member
Aug 5, 2013
71
7
I have also now safety-net error in cts Profil (hardware). My question, is this problem comes only on new firmwares with new security updates or a general problem from Google play service updates etc. ?

My problem, all was fine until I would hide Magisk manager (in settings), and now this. There is no fix I think?
 

HippoMan

Senior Member
May 5, 2009
1,723
559
Hippoland
Welcome to the new and improved fascist worldview of how security should work, courtesy of Google. Your choices are to be bootloader locked and be unrooted, or buy an iPhone. Sorry buddy, it's how they've decided they're going to treat us from here on out. You're a bad guy, and will be discriminated against, simply for having Magisk or using your phone as you want

Edit: Alternatively, wait for someone to make sense of this convoluted mess and establish some sort of "temporary solution", just don't count on it. These are "end days" (and have been since key attestation was introduced a few months back)

I'm wondering if software and maybe an "un-googled" phone from the "e.foundation" will get us away from this new-and-improved worldview:
https://e.foundation/

I'm going to investigate further and see whether SafetyNet and related issues might indeed become moot in the /e/ world. We would initially give up many of our favorite Google-compliant apps, but if /e/ catches on and grows, it might eventually be possible that we can get enough apps that run in this environment to satisfy the needs of at least some of us.
.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kimmoth

j4nn

Senior Member
Jan 4, 2012
1,227
2,391
just wondering if we could bypass hardware backed attestation by proxying all the attestation related TEE requests from an unlocked phone to a still locked one? effectively getting locked state signed by use of TEE from different (locked) phone, but having the right challenge from the unlocked one?
 

zgfg

Senior Member
Oct 10, 2016
5,487
2,822
just wondering if we could bypass hardware backed attestation by proxying all the attestation related TEE requests from an unlocked phone to a still locked one? effectively getting locked state signed by use of TEE from different (locked) phone, but having the right challenge from the unlocked one?
Response from the second phone will not match the challenge from the first.
The method is by far from being so primitive/easy to break ?
 
Last edited:

JudgeDread11

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2014
881
499
Ao Nang, Krabi
I'm wondering if software and maybe an "un-googled" phone from the "e.foundation" will get us away from this new-and-improved worldview:
https://e.foundation/

I'm going to investigate further and see whether SafetyNet and related issues might indeed become moot in the /e/ world. We would initially give up many of our favorite Google-compliant apps, but if /e/ catches on and grows, it might eventually be possible that we can get enough apps that run in this environment to satisfy the needs of at least some of us.
.​
That is a same 'solution' as what was mentioned before about microG
Us all so using Google and safety net all together will not help us to use apps that require safety net to pass. They will simply not run on such devices.

And the amount of Android users that root their phones is a minority. Not enough to influence Google or the companies making use of safety net to abandon it.
They would have to put an effort in to even notice the difference.
 

j4nn

Senior Member
Jan 4, 2012
1,227
2,391
Response from the second phone will not match the challenge from the first.
The method is by far from being so primitive/easy to break
@zgfg, what I had in mind was truly forwarding it - that is request on phone A with random challenge would be forwarded to phone B (instead of use of attestation api of phone A), then it would get signed in TEE of still locked phone B by hardware attestation confirming it's still locked state and then that response would get send back to phone A which would simply use it as response to google server for check of the hw backed attestation.
 

bunklung

Senior Member
Mar 20, 2011
519
105
Response from the second phone will not match the challenge from the first.
The method is by far from being so primitive/easy to break

Why not just emulate a phone which does not have a TPM? Then you could just run those apps within this VM environment and just bank on soft pass of Safety Net? In other words, Magisk Hide will now be a full blown VM.
 

Top Liked Posts

  • 2
    I just upgraded my Samsung Galaxy Note 10 from Android 10 to Android 11. After that, I have a problem with Magisk. The Magisk is not installed anymore.

    At Android 10 I had to boot with keys combination (power + volume up). This combination does not work anymore.

    What did I miss ? Help, please.

    View attachment 5375053
    Assuming you have installed Android to recovery again you will actually still have root, but will need to boot via recovery as before.

    You need recovery key combo and updated method.

    Key combo is likely Power + Bixby + Volume Up or similar, but update to One UI 3.0 additionally requires user to plug in a USB-C data cable connected to PC, or USB-C earphones. 😉

    Be sure to release keys immediately on vibration / splash screen as before.

    Many articles on this change, eg
    https://www.androidsage.com/2020/12...ode-on-samsungs-one-ui-3-0-android-11-update/

    🤠 PW
    2
    I just upgraded my Samsung Galaxy Note 10 from Android 10 to Android 11. After that, I have a problem with Magisk. The Magisk is not installed anymore.

    At Android 10 I had to boot with keys combination (power + volume up). This combination does not work anymore.

    What did I miss ? Help, please.

    View attachment 5375053
    You do not mention installing Magisk after "upgrading" to Android 11. Samsung probably replaced your boot and recovery partitions, so after the change to Android 11, there is no Magisk. Even if Samsung did not destroy your /data, so you still have a Magisk Manager app.

    You may need to unlock your bootloader again. You may have been "upgraded" to a bootloader that does not allow unsigned images (Samsung's lawyers have a creative interpretation of the phrase "unlocked bootloader".) If you install Magisk again, it may try to use the modules you had installed, and they may not work with Android 11.
    2
    Hmm, bootloader is still unlocked. I tried to installed Magisk again at Android 11, but nothing happened.

    How should I install Magisk again ? Can you describe or post a video, please.
    I'm guessing you must have flashed Magisk to recovery to root previously in accord with official Installation Instruction for Samsung devices.

    You should therefore understand that you can't update using OTA any longer, so you should have downloaded complete new ROM and followed the same instructions again with the following exceptions: Use images from the new ROM, and use HOME_CSC instead is CSC to avoid factory reset. (ie patch AP .tar then flash magisk_patched.tar as AP together with BL, CP, and HOME_CSC. (Make sure “Recovery Mode” is checked in options.)

    If that is in fact what you did / tried, you should already have root, but, of course on you device standard bootup doesn't use ramdisk and boots system without Magisk root. Booting with the amended use-recovery-to-boot-system-with-Magisk key combo and method for One UI 3.0 I mentioned above
    https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/magisk-general-support-discussion.3432382/post-85410347
    will boot rooted system again.

    If you didn't follow official Magisk Samsung SAR device "Upgrading the OS" section and flashed stock AP .tar file (un-patched), it seems you will need to do 'initial' Magisk install again, which requires a full data wipe.

    You have Magisk app installed. Click the GitHub 'OctoCat' cat symbol for Magisk Home page, then 'Installation Instruction'. Scroll down to 'Samsung (System-as-root)'.

    If you updated ROM without factory reset over previous Magisk installation (not uninstalled), modules will load again on booting with Magisk, and if any are incompatible with Android 11 you will likely get bootloop initially as a member told you above.

    In this case, search for Safe Mode key combo (nb. for One UI 3.0 it will likely be the same as before with additional requirement to connect PC or earphone to USB), boot to Safe Mode which will disable Magisk module, then boot immediately to system again using amended use-recovery-to-boot-system-with-Magisk key combo and method for One UI 3.0. After this you should have system with Magisk root; compatible modules can be enabled and others uninstalled.

    🤠 PW
    1
    Yes, thanks, for making it clear.

    Further, I am aware that a number of systemless GApps packages exist. I didn't mention these as they were not applicable to the member's issue.

    Users should be aware that there may be unexpected issues using such a systemless GApps package however.

    For example Magisk Hide means Magisk unmounts modules to hide them, so, if I understand it correctly, when, say, Google Play services is called (opened), the GApps module itself will simultaneously be unmounted and the 'app' crashes. PW
    Sorry all for some OT. ;)

    I was referring more to what is overlaid into system.
    mModule_sGapps [system] - GitHub - Link
    This is what a normal basic/core flashable GApps package installs into system.

    Since I was only using it to test GSI(s), I only trimmed it down as much as I had time for.
    Could be trimmed down a bit more. ;)

    ---

    I never ran into an issue when I was testing with mModule_sGapps active.
    I had a few things on deck to fix.
    I ran out of time to test GSI(s) and never looked into updating or fixing the small and big versions of mModule_sGapp. 🙃

    Found my post in MHPC thread. Post # 3,594

    The Caution note I added was to warn users about a mismatch and/or when the core is missing.
    This would be the same as updating a custom ROM (system) and GApps not being re-installed to system properly.
    The permissions are lost and/or the app (update) becomes a user-app instead of a system-app (different permissions).

    Some times you can get away with it (debloating) but, you have to be careful for the same reason.
    Bootloop and/or an infinite boot.

    Cheers. :cowboy:
    1
    Sorry all for some OT. ;)

    I was referring more to what is overlaid into system.
    mModule_sGapps [system] - GitHub - Link
    This is what a normal basic/core flashable GApps package installs into system.
    Yes, and I understood that (it demonstrates GApps setup well) / agree entirely / thank you for the extra clarity / insight! 😉

    And while you weren't recommending using these systemless GApps, my comment was just a general caution to any considering doing so; just in case!
    I never ran into an issue when I was testing with mModule_sGapps active.
    Out of interest, did Google Apps and any other apps calling SafetyNet API (w MagiskHide on) work fine with your systemless GApps?... Any special considerations to make it work with MagiskHide?
    I had a few things on deck to fix.
    I ran out of time to test GSI(s) and never looked into updating or fixing the small and big versions of mModule_sGapp. 🙃

    Found my post in MHPC thread. Post # 3,594

    The Caution note I added was to warn users about a mismatch and/or when the core is missing.
    This would be the same as updating a custom ROM (system) and GApps not being re-installed to system properly.​
    The permissions are lost and/or the app (update) becomes a user-app instead of a system-app (different permissions).

    Some times you can get away with it (debloating) but, you have to be careful for the same reason.
    Bootloop and/or an infinite boot.
    Yup, point taken too; core is in /system and may be corrupted / removed by a ROM update, debloating etc. Updated apps moved to /data and other data in /cache or /data may remain and cause issues if not manually / properly removed seperately.

    Nb. I understand that this was meant to illustrate GApps installation in case of confusion.

    It also demonstrates that original users problem caused by flashing Magisk-patched zip is NOT caused by such a corruption of core files or mismatch!
    https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/magisk-general-support-discussion.3432382/post-85405923

    I am assuming Magisk flash or settings (hide, etc) are the source of Play services access issue in this case, or somehow Play services data / cache got corruped (simply clearing these may have fixed installation).

    👍 PW
  • 9

    Latest @vvb2060 Magisk Alpha build (July 18, 2021) changelog:​

    Chinese Translated:

    alpha update log​

    Magisk (1eb83ad8-alpha-19)​

    • Based on 1eb83ad8, please refer to the upstream update log for related modifications
    • Properly process any data from magiskd
    • Support SharedUserId
    • Delete the backup file after restoring the boot image
    • Built-in current version update log
    • Use the local version when the stub cannot be downloaded, now Magisk can be used completely offline
    • Support bootimg v4 format
    • Support bootconfig
    • Detect /data/adb/magisk/ not updated and prompt to repair
    • Remove the disabled and pending deletion marks when upgrading the module, and it is not allowed to mark as pending deletion before restarting
    • Fix that it cannot be flashed in some TWRP
    • Modify the search order of the module sepolicy location and fix the problem that some devices do not load the module sepolicy
    • Listen to the PACKAGE_FULLY_REMOVED broadcast to remove completely uninstalled apps from magiskhide
    • Display a modal waiting pop-up window when hiding/restore the Magisk application
    Edit: The following are new commits:
    • App adapted to Android 12
    • Android 12+ super user hides the screen overlay when the window pops up
    https://github.com/vvb2060/Magisk/b...73bce50fe5e/app/src/main/res/raw/changelog.md

    My earlier notes:
    https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/magisk-general-support-discussion.3432382/post-85098469

    Current notes:

    magisk_files repo is now updated! Check 'earlier notes' for installation method / details.

    Alpha build users won't yet see Update button notice in Magisk App for this build as VersionCode has (again) NOT changed from 23001.

    I'm not sure if this behaviour will be addressed, but users will observe the 'Latest' version (1eb83ad8-alpha-19) now differs from 'Installed' (1eb83ad8-alpha).

    Package is now also uploaded to Telegram group.
    https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/magisk-general-support-discussion.3432382/post-85229385

    Interestingly, in Magisk Documentation, @vvb2060 has updated "Internal Details" and "Deployment" since John did.
    https://github.com/vvb2060/Magisk/tree/alpha/docs

    😛 PW
    8
    @pndwal and @ipdev

    I saw you guys did some testing on the mysterious reinstallation of an uninstalled Magisk app on a reboot. I present you with the changelog for Magisk v16.6:
    [Daemon] Check whether a valid Magisk Manager is installed on boot, if not, install stub APK embedded in magiskinit
    :p
    8
    reddit link shared by John Wu:
    reddit post

    Especially interesting a comment by the leader of the Android Security team:
    (I lead the Android Hardware-backed security team, so while this response isn't official, it's informed. Do keep in mind that I am a programmer, not a lawyer, and I have not consulted with legal, so don't rely on this as any sort of legal advice. Nor did I run this by PR, so if I put my foot in my mouth, it's totally on me. This is not an official Google communication, and I may get my hand slapped for it. Probably not, but it's happened to me in the past :) ).

    I know of no legal issues here. AFAIK, you're free to do what you like with your device. Doing these sorts of things may invalidate your warranty, depending on the details, but I'm guessing you already know that and have decided you're fine with it.

    What I do know is that if you've found a vulnerability, Google would not only like to hear about it, Google may pay you for it. If you're compromising the TEE or kernel on a Pixel device, the reward could be up to $250,000. If you're compromising the Titan M, up to $1,000,000. Even if your current exploit isn't on a Pixel device, if you can make it work on a Pixel you would qualify. Alternatively, your device manufacturer may have their own bug bounty program and you should look.

    Obviously, if you report the vuln, what we're going to do is to fix it, so you'll lose your SafetyNet bypass. The same will happen if you publish it for others to use. Vulnerabilities that allow SafetyNet bypass typically compromise far more than just SafetyNet, which is why Google is willing to pay so much money to identify and fix them. Also, we really believe that app developers should be able to find out if they're running on a "stock" device, with all of the security and functionality guarantees that implies, so fixing SafetyNet bypasses is important in and of itself.

    It's not that we don't like custom ROMs or rooting, in fact we find a lot of the innovation that takes place in the community very interesting and eagerly adopt good ideas we find there, but our primary focus is on protecting the 99.9% of Android users who run stock Android, and the developers who serve them. It's an unfortunate but unavoidable reality that this sometimes disadvantages ROM users. I, personally, have been holding regular meetings with various leaders in the modding community for seven years now, to get their feedback and to give them a heads up on security features we implement that might pose problems for them. My goals are to both serve the main Android userbase of some 3B people and to avoid harming the modding community. Sadly, sometimes those goals conflict, and the modders obviously lose in those cases.

    I also want to address the comments about John Wu joining Google. He is perfectly capable of communicating his own intentions and goals so I won't try to do that. I'll just say that I have no interest in shutting down Magisk. To the degree that it enables people to bypass Android security guarantees, that just shows that we have work to do, indeed it helps us to identify where we need to do that work. It's not like Magisk can somehow create vulnerabilities (it's not magic). If vulns exist, they're certain to be found and exploited by people with nefarious goals, so it's better for everyone if there's a healthy "white hat" community focused on finding problems and reporting or publishing them. I see the Magisk community as part of that white hat community, and John as a valuable contributor to Android security even before he started working for Google.
    7
    Tried using https://raw.githubusercontent.com/topjohnwu/magisk_files/canary/app-debug.apk after it was already rooted with Magisk, but adb said [INSTALL_FAILED_VERSION_DOWNGRADE]
    Just use Magisk/Canary button on Magisk GitHub home page to get app. Opens
    This is latest 23001

    Nb. Your link (where did you get that??) is to latest Canary in old archived magisk_files repo (note '_', not '-') so it's fetching 22003, ie. you would be trying to downgrade from 23000, and to downgrade you need to uninstall 23000 first, as with any app downgrade. 😜

    Nb. Regular app installation from device should work fine, then Direct install to update (or downgrade) Magisk should be available / work.
    Well golly, the whole reason I was trying to use canary was to file a bug report, but if nobody is maintaining it, then there's no point. Thanks for letting me know!
    Wouldn't say no point however.

    Magisk contributors (there are 201) like @osmosis (especially) and @vvb2060 are still distilling / fixing issues, and responding to many issues, as are other informed / experienced users. Many workarounds / non-integrated solutions have been supplied.

    Further, as has been noted, many fixes from topjohnwu Magisk Issues have been incorporated in vvb2060's Alpha builds (seems these go back at least to Dec 2018. Archived builds from Dec 2020 are available on his GitHub & Telegram) before merging in John Wu's.

    I doubt this will change, and vvb2060 has produced several builds since John's last ones already! This is the beauty of such an open source project. Links, latest etc:
    https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/magisk-general-support-discussion.3432382/post-85226785

    It would be a misunderstanding to say only John is supplying fixes for Magisk Issues, just as he is not (any longer at least) its sole developer!
    https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/magisk-general-support-discussion.3432382/post-85127113

    Nb. John already pretty much turned over current App design / fixes to @diareuse so he could concentrate on Magisk Mask itself:
    https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/magisk-general-support-discussion.3432382/post-83637567

    https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/magisk-general-support-discussion.3432382/post-83771409

    Clearly the issue of official builds continuing (in present form or other) is up-in-the-air atm, but a healthy / active / interested community still exists. 🙂 PW
    7

    Early Notice:​

    Latest @vvb2060 Magisk Alpha build (July 23, 2021) changelog:​

    Skipped a few due to rapid-fire! (This guy's a bit like Jorrit!)

    Chinese Translated:

    alpha update log​

    Magisk (1eb83ad8-alpha-23)​

    • Based on 1eb83ad8, please refer to the upstream update log for related modifications
    • Properly process any data from magiskd
    • Support SharedUserId
    • Delete the backup file after restoring the boot image
    • Built-in current version update log
    • Use the local version when the stub cannot be downloaded, now Magisk can be used completely offline
    • Support bootimg v4 format
    • Support bootconfig
    • Detect /data/adb/magisk/ not updated and prompt to repair
    • Remove the disabled and pending deletion marks when upgrading the module, and it is not allowed to mark as pending deletion before restarting
    • Fix that it cannot be flashed in some TWRP
    • Modify the search order of the module sepolicy location and fix the problem that some devices do not load the module sepolicy
    • Listen to the PACKAGE_FULLY_REMOVED broadcast to remove completely uninstalled apps from magiskhide
    • Display the modal waiting pop-up window when hiding/restore the Magisk application
    • App adapted to Android 12
    • Android 12+ super user hides the screen overlay when the window pops up
    Edit: New changes since 1eb83ad8-alpha-19
    • For devices supported by the kernel, MagiskSU uses proprietary devpts to bypass some application detection
    • Rewrite MagiskSU's pty opening logic, no additional sepolicy rules are needed
    • Fix incorrect signal sending in MagiskHide
    • Add untrusted_app_30
    https://github.com/vvb2060/Magisk/b...e147e578c92/app/src/main/res/raw/changelog.md

    My earlier notes:
    https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/magisk-general-support-discussion.3432382/post-85098469

    Current notes:

    Check 'earlier notes' for installation method / details.

    Alpha build users won't yet see Update button notice in Magisk App for this build as VersionCode has (again) NOT changed from 23001.

    I'm not sure if this behaviour will be addressed, but users will observe the 'Latest' and 'Installed' version suffix now differs.

    This build has not been uploaded at the time of this post. Watch this space!

    Latest in GitHub magisk_files repo is 1eb83ad8-alpha-20

    Latest available from Telegram group is
    1eb83ad8-alpha-22
    https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/magisk-general-support-discussion.3432382/post-85229385

    Interestingly, in Magisk Documentation, @vvb2060 has updated "Internal Details" and "Deployment" since John did.
    https://github.com/vvb2060/Magisk/tree/alpha/docs

    🤠 PW
  • 1056
    This is the place for general support and discussion regarding "Public Releases", which includes both stable and beta releases.
    All information, including troubleshoot guides and notes, are in the Announcement Thread
    156
    Hello, I haven't given much support on XDA lately. It can be resulted from
    • University started and I have limited free time. In fact, I mostly develop during midnight
    • I live in Taiwan, which has large time zone differences between my European/American contributors/testers, which usually forces me to stay up late at night to discuss/test stuffs.
    • The new version is about to come, I don't want to spend effort on supporting old releases
    The planned update is delayed again and again, to some point I think I'll shed some light about what has been happening lately, also along with some announcements.

    New Forum!
    As you might have already discovered, Magisk got its own subforum on XDA! Many thanks to all the support you gave me, and much more information/features/support is about to come!
    **For developers supporting all the devices that are not using standard Android boot format, feel free to create threads in this section (actually, PLEASE do so) for your favorite devices after v7 is out. As I currently know, Asus devices require signing the boot image before flashing, and is model dependant; Sony devices seems to use ELF kernel that is unpatchable, or some has two ramdisks (inner + outer), both requires different workarounds; LG bootloader locked devices has to manually "BUMP" the boot image after flashing Magisk..... and there may be lots of other crazy boot image formats that haven't come up to my attention yet.
    It is impossible for me to support all these non-standard boot images, and I hope the community can collaborate to make Magisk running across all the devices. Overall, community collaboration is what XDA about :D

    The Pixel Phone
    Some of you might already know this news, that the next Pixel Phone right around the corner seems like it does not have ramdisk in boot image, which pretty much wrecked Magisk in all ways. However, it pretty much doomed root itself too. Kernel modifications is inevitable IMO, so I'll try to migrate my scripts to C programs that could possibly be included into the kernel itself. Note that I'm not familiar with linux kernel, I'm not even sure if my idea and concept is correct or not. But once the device is available, I think developers will find a way to bypass all the difficulties, and I'll do my best to learn things ;)

    Current Progress
    In the past month, I've spent quite some time learning SELinux, so that I can avoid using SuperSU's sepolicy patches. Thanks to the helps and tips from @phhusson and @Chainfire, I finally have a much clearer understanding of how SELinux works. The Magisk core parts (the scripts, boot image patches, new features, more supports) are actually done some time ago. What is causing all the delays is the Magisk Manager.
    To be completely honest, although I can code in Java without much issues, Magisk Manager is actually my first Android application, I had to reach out for assistance, and fortunately awesome developers like @DVDandroid and @digitalhigh contributed a lot, which makes the current Manager awesome.
    After the repo system and module management is mostly done, I was about to do some adjustments and release, but what we really done is decided to add another feature: auto-unroot with per-app settings. I decided to wait for it to be finished, and then do my adjustments. Due to reasons that'll be mentioned later, this feature will likely not be available for the next release (should come in future updates)

    Safety Net Disaster
    Those who are using Magisk for Safety Net bypass purposes must have known that Google recently updated the detection method of my Systemless Xposed. I still have no idea what Safety Net is detecting, so currently I cannot fix it on my side (also because I'm busy working on the next update). However, suhide developed by @Chainfire is able to hide Xposed and worked fine.
    However, only my Systemless Xposed v86.2, which is based on SuperSU's su.d, is supported using that method. v86.2 and v86.5 (latest, Magisk based) have nearly identical binaries, and the only difference is the path where the binaries are stored.
    I'm still not sure what's the real issue for it not being supported, I just hope it is not done intentionally.

    Conclusion
    Due to the fact that my Safety Net bypass is not 100% perfect now, I do not want to spend any more time waiting for auto-unroot to be polished. What I'm doing now is finishing up all the things I'd like to change in Magisk Manager (it has been a while since I last contributed to Manager, my fellow developers are doing all the heavy job), which might take a little more time, after that, packed with tons of information to be announced in Magisk Section, I'll release the long awaited update.

    Hope this lengthy post gives you the idea of the whole situation, and again thanks for all your support!!
    121
    Ah, some Chainfire bashing, I hope it is not too late for me to exercise additional villainy.

    First, let me make clear I have nothing against @topjohnwu, nor against Magisk. Magisk is an interesting project and it certainly displays @topjohnwu ingenuity and persistence. I don't doubt we will see more interesting things from his hands.

    -------------------------

    What has happened here is not all that dark and complicated, from either end. I returned from holidays, and someone pointed me at Magisk. My first thought: interesting!

    Among other things, the thread lists some issues with SuperSU, which in combination with the phrase The developer also requests users to not bug Chainfire with compatibility requests for SuperSU with Magisk from the portal article, raised my left eyebrow by nigh half an inch. The popular systemless xposed mod is apparently now based on it, and apparently it now no longer works with SuperSU, and apparently I'm not supposed to fix that, nor any of the other found issues. I found that a bit weird. So yes, I have told @topjohnwu that I was a bit surprised he was posting about issues with SuperSU without notifying me about them (I can't fix or help fix issues I'm not aware of, after all).

    He's also spreading a modified version of the SuperSU package, which is not all that uncommon, nor necessarily a problem. I have not looked into what he modified, I only ran a few quick tests on one of my devices, and found some commonly used commands run as root to be broken. I have informed him of this as well.

    It appears the tool of choice for Magisk is phh's Superuser, because of some of the mentioned issues with SuperSU. That's fine by itself, but fixing issues in that superuser by incorporating SuperSU's binaries into it is a somewhat questionable practise. After all, SuperSU is a commercial closed-source package that helps pay for my dinner, and superuser is a direct competitor. I have informed him that I was surprised he did this without asking for permission. I have expressed similar surprise on him spreading a modified version of LiveBoot (which helps pay for a snack now and then).
    @topjohnwu has also stated that Magisk's scripts are largely influenced by mine (I have not checked). Scripts based on mine are used all over the place on XDA, some people have crafted amazing things based on them, I have never made an issue of this (otherwise I would have just made them binaries). But yes, I have also stated to him that I don't think it's very nice to base something on one program, and then using that to (almost exclusively) push something directly competing with that program.

    tl;dr Towards @topjohnwu, I have:
    - expressed surprise he has issues getting Magisk to work with SuperSU, and has chosen not to inform me about those
    - expressed surprise he is using SuperSU binaries in a competing superuser without permission
    - expressed surprise he is posting a modified LiveBoot without permission
    - informed him of issues with the modified SuperSU he has posted
    - let him know I thought it wasn't very nice to be applying my scripts to benefit seemingly exclusively that same competing superuser

    To be crystal clear:
    - I have not asked for an apology
    - I have not asked for Magisk to be abandoned, neither the root hiding nor systemless module parts, and certainly not systemless xposed
    - I have not made an issue of any of this anywhere, until this post
    - I have not even specifically asked for anything to be taken down (though obviously in my opinion the other superuser package mixed with SuperSU's binaries, as well as the LiveBoot package, should go)
    - I have not reported this thread to XDA moderators for copyright violations or otherwise

    While my conversation with @topjohnwu may not win any awards for being friendly (though it may win some for brevity), I think all things considered my response has been rather mild. To be perfectly honest, until the apology post, I thought this was over with already. I think the apology post was triggered because I haven't replied to his last PM for a while - I was in the zone, it happens.

    To emphasize again, I have nothing against @topjohnwu, Magisk, or systemless xposed, and it is certainly not my goal to see any of them go. If it can be made to work together with SuperSU, great.

    I get it though: you think of something, you want to see if you can make it work, you finally get it to work, you publish it, it takes off - enthusiasm gets the better of you. Maybe in the rush some mistakes are made. That doesn't mean you have to just drop it and run. None of my stuff would make it past 0.1 if I stopped at the first big mistake :)

    Aside from said being in the zone coding, I usually regret actually responding to these sort of things the day after, which has made me hesitant to reply. Surprise me.
    76
    Thread temporarily closed so everyone sees this.

    The flood of "SafetyNet isn't working for me either!" posts are not helpful, at all. Please refrain from posting further, it will be looked into. Please do not forget that not passing SafetyNet is 100% NORMAL AND INTENDED when you have an unlocked booloader or running custom firmware. These are workarounds and they will be worked around in turn.

    The Flash
    Forum Moderator

    EDIT: Thread is reopened... I will be cleaning any SafetyNet posts for a while to keep the thread clean for real issues.
    75
    Hello everyone!

    I am aware that Google has updated Safety Net that makes Magisk itself a no go for Android Pay. In fact, I witnessed the change live while I am developing the new magiskhide, which should hide all Magisk modules and Magisk installed root.

    Google is serious about Safety Net now, clearly hunting down all possibility to run Xposed with Safety Net passed. I spend quite some time examining the new security measures last midnight, and fortunately it seems that it is possible to run Magisk and root along with Safety Net if no Xposed is running. I'm glad I removed the old root toggle at the right time lol, that is no longer feasible with the latest detection.

    So stay tuned for the next update, it will come with bug fixes, along with the new magiskhide to bypass that Safety Net.

    Google, how will a few systemless mods do any harm :p:p