yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] skennelly:
The flash counter keeps track of how many times unofficial firmware is flashed with Odin. My Gtabs have had the same thing. If you return the device they can see this stat.

*Sent from my Galaxy to yours through tapatalk
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] neyenlives:
Which I dont believe anyone has ever had an issue with outside of a direct Samsung warranty claim right?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] ooofest:
I've not heard it mentioned, but who knows?

It seems that there are per-device methods to reset the counter if one is concerned, which I found easy to Google - perhaps a method might come about for the Galaxy S III, as well.

Ugh, this new layout is too bright, with sickly contrasts and an artificially wide setting that forces horizontal scrolling, IMHO. I usually don't express myself like this, but it sucks ass in the current form.

- ooofest
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] ExodusC:
I see. Does unfreezing these apps return the splash screen to normal?

The very first initial splash screen. If it's anything like a Motorola device, I'd assume it has to do with the bootloader.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] dubge:
that would figure :eek:
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] papi92:
use manage applications to disable apps. it doesnt make the custom symbol come up
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] 1900mcm:
Custom on boot - Status Modified

I can confirm this morning the boot of the phone shows an unlocked lock icon and the word' Custom' below the Samsung.

I noticed the Settings -> About Device -> Status -> Device Status : Modified has existed since day 1 of using the great rooting method we have available.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] redbearde:
fwiw, I rooted using the great rooting method, but I did not flash CWM. My device status reads Normal.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] raisins:
Is there any bad impact of having the "custom" on the boot animation?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Budwise:
I didnt load CWM, just rooted, no "Custom" warning for me.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] shuura:
same here... I didn't load CWM.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Hilbe:
http://www.androidcentral.com/us-ce...alaxy-s-iiis?utm_source=ac&utm_medium=twitter

Now we wait to see if they are locked and if we can steal theirs...
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] ScottIsMyName:
How will that help? If the bootloader is locked, it won't allow us to flash theirs. Same reason why Sprint's bootloader doesn't work.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Hilbe:
I was under the impression that we can indeed flash bootloaders, but the Sprint one tested didn't work.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] suzook:
Its not that simple.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] aj8600:
you can flash whatever you want, but flashing any aboot is a good ol brick
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] tehh4ck3r:
you can flash whatever you want but it won't boot b/c of signature checks
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] skennelly:
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but if the devs find what and where the signature check occurs, would it be as simple as replacing that part of the system?

*Sent from my Galaxy to yours through tapatalk
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] tehh4ck3r:
Pretty much
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] cmg5461:
That part is in the bootloader. It's locked and possible encrypted.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] grin0048:
Something must also be checking the bootloader though--isn't that why replacing aboot bricks?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] cmg5461:
No, the bootloader initiates the boot of the phone. It loads the kernel and make sure the hash (whichever they use) matches the hash inside it.

We can't edit it because it's locked.

The brick is caused by the missmatch.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] s197:
I might be mistaken here but I think there's now a suspicion that ALL carriers have a signed bootloader. The difference is that none of the other aboot's do a signature check like Verizon so none of the other carriers really care about the bootloader. Our bootloader does a signature check on the boot.img.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Durthquake:
In the chat they said the other companies have the hash as well but didn't seem to be using it. So I would agree.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] cordell12:
What chat channel is everyone in ?

Thanks !
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] s197:
#verizons3 is general talk

#verizons3-dev is muted dev talk
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] newuser134:
I may not have understood this correctly, but from what I have read in this thread:

aboot ---> Checks for encrypted signature

boot.img ---> Signed and checked every boot

recovery.img ---> Signed and checked every boot

system.img ---> Unsigned

The reason this phone was rooted already is that a system.img (or "/system" partition) was flashed with odin, giving us rw permission and root, and once root was achieved, we could use su commands in adb to flash a custom recovery.img onto the recovery partition, so now we also have CWM recovery too, but something doesn't add up. If both boot.img and recovery.img are initially signed and checked by aboot during every boot, why is it that aboot does no longer check or notice the custom recovery image after flashing, and the phone will still boot (or get into custom recovery) even though the new recovery installed by us isn't signed? But if a new boot.img is flashed, even after root has been achieved, aboot still checks and does notice it and won't continue to boot? How did we stop the checking of the signed recovery.img?

Ok, separate issue now, if flashing a new aboot, be it from Sprint or engineering aboot or some other custom aboot, bricks the phone (unless you have jtag equipment) does this happen because of a software check or a hardware check? What I'm trying to get at, is that after reading the "qfuse" settings and information earlier in this thread, how do we know that the force_secure_boot or whatever it was called, wasn't burnt so the phone will never allow unsecure boot? Is it something in the bootloader that forces checking for a signed boot.img, or is it caused by hardware because that specific qfuse was burnt by Samsung or Verizon? Or is it simpler, maybe because the register value was set to 1 to check for signed boot.img? So this must be 2 separate issues, one checks for the correct bootloader, then the bootloader checks for a signed boot image. Which were they referring to as "secure boot" in the description of the qfuse? If they were referring to the boot.img check as "secure boot", would it help at all even if the bootloader were to be unlocked? Wouldn't the hardware chip still look for a signed boot image? If that isn't the case and the hardware chip looks for a Verizon bootloader when the qfuse is burnt or its register value is set to 1, to proceed with "secure boot", as long as the fuse isn't blown, couldn't someone physically set the mentioned pin to 0 or ground to allow for temporary unsecure boot, so a new bootloader can be flashed without bricking, which won't look for a signed boot.img? Again, unless the hardware fuse is permanently set to look for a secure aboot, couldn't we at that point change the register value to 0 so it would allow the phone to use a different bootloader with s-off, which will allow any boot.img? I'm not aware of all the details, but this is just the logic from what I've read and understood so far. If I'm missing anything, please feel free to add to this.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Schaweet:
Which means any hope of vzw unlocking this at some point is dead. Hopefully, development for it stays as strong as it has been. I just want to ditch the annoying toggles and the ongoing wifi junk. Everything is fine.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Cvballa3g0:
There's a guide on droid life on how to disable the ongoing Wi-Fi notification. you need root though

Sent from my locked Verizon Galaxy S III
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] 17akota:
http://www.droid-life.com/2012/07/10/samsung-to-offer-a-galaxy-s3-developer-edition-on-verizon-for-599-with-an-unlockable-bootloader/#more-75607

So could this be the key IF it ever comes out?

We know how well the Droid Razr Dev Edition went.....
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] morrowa2:
I really wish a developer would chime in on this issue. Seems like there's opposing views on this. Will the developer version help the masses unlock their devices or are we up a **** creek?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] 17akota:
I'm sure that if it doesn't help, the devs here will have a unlock/workaround working well enough. :)
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] papi92:
Okay this will help in certain ways. 1. We can compare hardware/software. 2. If those are identical we can use those files to flash to our devices. 3. If they aren't we can find the difference in software and possibly change low level software checks. 4. If they are far apart we can pass and figure something out. But overall this is helpful.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] droidstyle:
exactly! The dev version will be the exact same other than its unlocked...so I foresee a system dump of it and unlocked bootloaders we go!! :victory:
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] ooofest:
Comparing Samsung Developer edition configuration to Verizon's standard edition would seem one smart path to take, Adam's low-level hardware diagnosis will happen in the near future (presumably) and there's kexec (not ideal) with maybe other ideas still being worked by Devs at the moment.

So, all these exploratory paths could have at least one good outcome, or end up sharing experiences that add up to a desired result. Or, nothing might work well, but it seems that we at least have some beyond-root viability already, it's just making that ideal and unlocking the phone which we are hoping to gain.

- ooofest
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] leewongfei:
Please pardon my ignorance, i truly do not mean for this to sound rude. if your comment is correct, then what happened to the moto developer editions? Why arent those boot loaders unlocked?

Again, i mean no disrespect, i am honestly very confused on this.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] droidstyle:
comparing moto devices to samsung is the first issue... Not all images are signed on boot with the gs3, but one of the most important the kernel is...Im sure the dev device will do nothing but help us.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] s197:
Motorola uses a chipset encryption. The S3 encryption is software based.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] mustbepbs:
I think Samsung is offering us the key in parts. I feel like the doors they left open will definitely help once the Developer Edition is released. I think this is the only way they could unofficially do it without a leak. I don't know, wishful thinking?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Sniper_5:
#verizonsucks for OT discussion not directly related to the bootloader's and SGS3

Sent from my Droid X until I get my SGS3
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] rion_j:
I really hope your right on this assumption which I think sounds about right as well.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] GrainOsand:
Can you please post facts to back up this claim! Not trying to be prick but I'd like to believe you..
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] ckochinsky125:
I agree. It seems they just locked enough to make verizon happy but left enough open and now with this hopefully the devs can crack the code. This is not like moto bootloaders encryption.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] s197:
Post facts on which, the Moto encryption or the Samsung? You can ask any Motorola owner about the encrypted bootloaders. As for the SG3, it's an educated guess based on what we know so far.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] TheBiles:
Misleading article title is misleading!

Sent from my Galaxy S III
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] GrainOsand:
I am very familiar with moto chip set encryption. I was reffering to the gs3. You answered my question. I also feel the gs3 has a software based encryption set but I hadn't seen any proof as of yet. Just thought maybe you knew something I did not...
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Mean Sixteen:
Ok, so I know vzw reps are nother known for accuracy but I was told today by one that vzw was going to release an unlock tool.

I was *****ing about the locked bootloader and we talked a little and then he told me that.

Just sharing.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] aj8600:
Breaking news: verizon plans to answer the question of our existence next, stay tuned.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Quize:
From what I understand it looks like someone at samsung left us a tiny bit of an out in the hardware not checking for a signed recovery.img and system.img. Or it could be the MSM8XXX chipset does not have that option in the secureboot feature (unsure on this one, but I'd like to hope it was samsungs way of telling verizon to piss off and leaving the devs an opening).

I believe it is a hardware control that does this check, otherwise you would just be able to flash over the pbl and call it good. During a cold boot procedure (power off state) the chipset itself is checking for the presence of the signed key, but the procedure for a warm boot is different.

1.2.1.1 Warm boot procedure

During a power collapse, the RAM containing the ARM9 and ARM11 code base remains powered up to eliminate the need to reload and authenticate the secure code base as is done in a cold boot. As a result, PBL warm boot performs the minimal RAM configuration necessary to transfer execution to the code retained in the RAM. Warm boot functionality consists of:

■ Reading the memory configuration from the modem power management (MPM)always-on register files

■ Setting up access to the RAM using the configuration read from the MPM registerfiles

■ Branching execution to the warm boot handler located in the RAMDuring normal operation, portions of the device might be powered down to save power.This may be the whole chip, except for a small always-on domain that is never powered down.

I think that this is the reason that kinit works even with the signed bootloader, since the device is not powered off does not set the flag to re-authenticate the bootloader. Since the bootloader is already authenticated you can inject whatever you want wherever you can and the chip set will not attempt to authenticate the code. If the procedure is the same as in MSM7XXX chipset, as long as the Power_Collapse_Bit=1 and the Watchdog_timer_expired=0 flags are set I don't think the chipset will ever try and authenticate even if you really are executing a cold boot. So if there were a way to inject that state into the chipset then that would solve the bootloader problem (I think). I'm haven't looked into what JTAG can do, but another option would be hoping that someone at qualcomm got lazy and left the certificate check wide open so someone could intercept/eavesdrop on the exchange taking place.

Like I said earlier though, I'm not a phone developer/engineer so all of what I posted is based off of my understanding of how the whole exchange procedure works.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] skennelly:
I really hope this is the case. If so, it's almost Samsung's way of saying F U vzw, we're not going to screw our customers.

*Sent from my Galaxy to yours through tapatalk
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] aj8600:
This would be the best surprise ever
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] grin0048:
If this were the case, VZW could simply say good luck getting those activated on our network.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] msnglink:
hope it happens but not holding my breath. they screwed us by not telling us it would be locked. then they are letting unlocked boot loadeder phones from samsung to be on the network. so we know that the unlocked phones do not mess with the system,
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] neyenlives:
not if Samsung didn't give up the MEID numbers.....unless Verizon doesn't allow any unknown devices on their network
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] papi92:
Hey anyone ever try flashing a modified bootloader yet?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] inm8num2:
Yea I doubt Verizon allows an unlock tool for the encrypted version.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] aj8600:
Yes both a modified version and a sprint bootloader. Both caused bricks
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Cruiserdude:
I wonder how effective it would be to make this backfire directly on them. Presumably, they locked the bootloader out of some mistaken belief that it would cut back on people rooting the phone and having problems that they would take to Verizon's service department. Never mind that that only makes the process of restoring more difficult and less reliable, as an unlocked bootloader would prevent the kinds of hard brick situations that we could not easily recover from. So for one, in this case, I see nothing wrong with getting a warranty replacement if you brick your device and are unable to recover specifically because of the locked bootloader. Normally, that's a complete no-no, as it paints the development community in a bad light and costs them money. But here the only fraud I see is being kept in the dark about having a key feature disabled, and see nothing wrong with relying on Verizon to fix issues that we would have been able to fix ourselves if they had not taken this ability away from us.

Regardless, that's beside the point, as I expect we'll figure out a way to do what we want with little potential for a brick. The real issue is support staff resources that they think they're saving. Considering the unsecured bootloader is a feature of ALL other SGS3 variants, and we were told this was the same, this device could be considered defective. So what if large numbers of us were to call Tech Support as often as possible specifically complaining about the locked bootloader, and demanding replacements that aren't "defective". I doubt that many reps would be naive enough to actually replace the device, but if enough of us did it we would take a significant amount of their time and resources dealing with us. Doing so would waste man hours, and likely frustrate enough employees that they'd start bombarding sups with complaints. If Verizon is truly not evil, but simply making calculated decisions as several have said, then they would see that locking the bootloader costs them alot in Tech Support as well, and may reconsider unlocking it. At the very least, it would send another middle finger their way, since that's what they love to do to us. Anyone think this could have an impact?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] c4v3man:
The best way to force Verizon's hand is through the FCC. If the FCC starts putting the heat on Verizon, they may simply unlock the device rather than face fines.

I'm pretty hopeful the bootloader will be cracked anyways. Obviously the encryption won't be cracked, but I'm sure there will be some way to bypass it... there are some pretty good developers working on it now.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] ZachPA:
Don't count on this ever happening. While I agree it's probably the avenue with the most teeth, the tables are decidedly tilted in favor of Big Red, Big Blue, Big Yellow and Big Magenta. Sure, the FCC came down hard against AT&T's planned merger with T-Mo, but there are many other issues the FCC has ruled on that have trampled the consumer in favor of Big Telecoms.

In this case, they will rule that since Verizon is the ultimate reseller of the devices, they have a right to lock the bootloaders of said devices. Verizon is not advertising a completely unlocked solution. Verizon has never said consumers will be able to customize the SGS3. And if you look really hard, most of Samsung's advertising will have a disclaimer that says the SGS3 may or may not be similar to the one pictured.

You could probably trace lessons learned back to the days of the original Motorola RAZR. Lots of folks were unhappy with the fact that Verizon locked down the RAZR and similar devices that were advertised as capable of playing mp3s, loading apps and creating custom ringtones. Lawsuits and FCC rulings later, Verizon was licking its wounds, and the entire wireless industry took note.

The bottom line is that we could chap our lips on the arse of the FCC all day and get nothing but a nasty breeze blown in our faces. Their solution to this issue would be to select an SGS3 from a different carrier, one who has not locked the bootloader of their device; or, since it's not illegal to do so, reverse engineer the bootloader and have your way with your SGS3 thereafter.

And while rallying the troops against Verizon and calling them incessantly about defective devices sounds like a great plan, remember that by wasting their time, we are wasting our own time. "Don't hurt them if it hurts us, too" seems to be a key ideal when considering vengeance against a business or other entity. Besides, have you ever tried to rally even half a dozen strangers against a common enemy who actually does deliver on a service better than most? I'm glad I wasn't the kid in school who rallied the whole class to turn their desks around before the teacher got back to class, only to realize I was the only one.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] c4v3man:
Yes, however in the time it took you to write this post, you could have filed a complaint with the FCC. If enough people bang on their drums who knows? It's one thing to claim exemption due to securing your network. It's another to allow the exact same device without the same restrictions onto your network, thereby ignoring your previous claims that it was needed to maintain network integrity.

EDIT: And yes, I agree that the odds are stacked against us. However, much like voting and choosing between a few political candidates that don't care about you, it's still your responsibility to do so.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] skennelly:
If the release of this phone is just a key to unlocking all phones, then it wouldn't matter.

*Sent from my Galaxy to yours through tapatalk
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] flamus:
As much as I would like this to be the case, unless Sammy pulled a fast on on VZW; I bet this red hering by VZW. Granted until we know more about the phone -- its all just a guess.

If its just the sprint version with VZW radios, then its a moot point to use it to break the VZW one (considering that has been attempted already.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] NegativeOne:
You think flashing the unlocked bootloader will work? I'm skeptical. VZW has techs too - they aren't idiots. Assholes maybe, but not idiots.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] jarnow94:
I think it would get you a nice brick, but I hope I'm wrong about that.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] NegativeOne:
I'm skeptical, but I don't have the background in low level stuff that you do. I'd love to hear your rationale if you have a moment to sum it up for me.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] OldManJames:
Just flashing the bootloader from the developer device is very unlikely to work. If it does work its a gift from Samsung to make up for the lock down.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] NegativeOne:
Can you elaborate?:)
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] OldManJames:
What's the point of a developer device if we can just take the bootloader and turn every device into a dev device. Its silly and Samsung and vzw are smarter than that. Its likely it uses different signing keys.

Hopefully its that easy but I'm not optimistic

Sent from my SCH-I535
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] flamus:
I doubt this is the VZW (just unlocked) ... I sure wish it was and we could pull the bootloader and be done with this mess. But, why would VZW allow this? Honestly, not sure if Sammy completely cares about it either way. If VZW wanted the bootloaders to be the same (or interchangeable), then they would have added a unlocked option on-line somewhere. I bet you there was a hardware change (maybe software as well) with the phone making them no compatible. Hell, maybe its even a different build device (GNex has for different devices -- looking at the builds).

Of course, whenever this gets released, it will start to cause confusions all over the place due to the differences in the phones.

---------- Post added at 09:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 AM ----------

+1 my thoughts as well. This is like pre-k phone hacking if they did this. Oh, and who's to say they are not reading all these threads and knowing what we are up to as well. LOL :D