yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] shoey63:
Same here. Installed, rebooted and passed basic and device integrity.

@osm0sis

Is there any more rigorous testing you would like to see?
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] osm0sis:
Nah, this is mostly a bugfix release, all the major stuff got added in v4 to 6. As long as it doesn't cause bootloops or intermittent failures like PIF v15.2 to 15.3 seems to be currently I think we're good. :p
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] osm0sis:
CI #128 (v7 Release Candidate) up to fix APatch support for replacing custom ROM spoof injector apps (Xiaomi.eu/EliteRoms) (y)

Fix ROM injection app replacement when using APatch · osm0sis/PlayIntegrityFork@198c2e5

Fix Play Integrity (and SafetyNet) verdicts, allowing custom fields and props - Fix ROM injection app replacement when using APatch · osm0sis/PlayIntegrityFork@198c2e5

github.com

And APatch has their new release out so that's one more thing resolved! https://github.com/bmax121/APatch/releases
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] kiwigi:
I have my old Samsung S7 TWRP backup. Is it possible to get/extract the fingerprint from such backup?
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] osm0sis:
If it includes the system, vendor and product partitions, yeah, you could extract from them like you would from Factory Images, but you could probably just as easily (if not moreso) go find an S7 ROM system build.prop, vendor build.prop and product build.prop uploaded somewhere. Fingerprints are unique to the ROM build, not the actual device unit.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] kiwigi:
Thanks a lot!

I still have the OEM's downloaded from 2017. So I should be able to find a script to extract the build.prop's.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] osm0sis:
Can ODIN download as well? If so, I guess, yeah. But you'd still need scripts/utilities to extract from the images. You'll have to Google that. I'd still recommend just Googling for the build.prop dumps you want instead of spending time on extracting though.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] fbirraque:
Updated smoothly and working flawlessly
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] rseiler:
Went from v5 to v7 without incident. Thanks.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] HippoMan:
v7 works fine for me.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] BillGoss:
So v7 is designed to last a VERY LONG time! 😄

versionCode=70000
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] osm0sis:
That's to work around the false update (back to chiteroman's from mine 😬) foolishness from Androidacy Module Manager: https://xdaforums.com/t/module-play-integrity-fix-safetynet-fix.4607985/page-483#post-89293759 😛
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] BillGoss:
What a lovely, sneaky solution!
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] Captain_Throwback:
Decided to move over and try APatch, and I'm happy to report that the module works as expected, along with the modded ZygiskNext. Thanks for keeping on top of things here.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] Fishawy:
Hey @osm0sis - can you check the main PIF thread?

Many reports of all custom fingerprints suddenly failing (including all of mine), using both fork v7 and the previous RCs.

I'm trying to troubleshoot, but not exaclty sure what's happening here.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] Octopus1348:
I had to use the getprop command and then run the script, but the fingerprint spoof doesn't pass the DEVICE verdict. The unrooted device is on Android 11 and the rooted one is on 14, the API Level and

DEVICE_INITIAL_SDK_INT are 30.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] BillGoss:
Well, I'm on v7 and my phone happily passes basic and device integrity using the same fingerprint I've been using since late Nov 2023.

So I don't buy that the issue is with v7.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] Fishawy:
I'm not confirming it's v7 issue (it was working for me until this afternoon), just highlighting a common observation. I also tested with v6, the release candidates, and some chiteroman releases. Nothing works all of a sudden for some of us.

What drives me insane is, someone sent me their working print and it fails on my end. I'm checking play services updates, play system updates, and everything else.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] simplepinoi177:
like I mentioned in the PIF thread....it's quite a coincidence that all of these are failing the day v7 is released (hours really); could be coincidence, yes, but still...the timing requires us to at least consider things....

I think a lot of it either is because of those on December January security update and/or having to do with Google postponing January update because it bricking devices...
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] Fishawy:
That might be one of the reasons. I got the January update about a week ago before it was pulled out, but the fact that it worked until today kind of eliminates that possibility for me (just guessing).
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] simplepinoi177:
Doh! I meant January.......

but yeah...as this is hitting a whole bunch of users at the same time/day....

I'm thinking they might've done something in preparation for dealing with that January debacle and/or were planning on something and decided to have it coincide with their announcement on the pullback....
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] Fishawy:
We're gonna have to wait and see. I hope it's not a complex one.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] sawdoctor:
Be great if we can find a connection with the banned prints, is it a particular firmware? I'm running latest qpr2 beta from Google and fingerprint from 1st Dec is still ok for now
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] Fishawy:
5 different brands, perfectly fine prints, none of them works (for me and others). I even got a working print from someone and it fails on my phone.

The whole thing is just bizarre.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] simplepinoi177:
Google giving us a full "shake down"....(n)😫
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] sawdoctor:
Location? If it's a server side update Google are pushing to ban the fingerprint exploit maybe they've started in the USA or something?
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] Fishawy:
Australia, basically outer space 🤦🏻‍♂️
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] sawdoctor:
Really is bizarre, just got to hope it's something osmoSis can spot/fix and not the PIG implementing a new block method

Edit

My play services version

Version 24.02.13 (190400-599553831)

com.google.android.gms
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] Fishawy:
Same version.

If it was just me I would've thought something was wrong at my end, but several people at the same time? Something is not right.

We'll see what osm0sis says.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] sawdoctor:
So at least we've taken that out of the equation i guess. It doesn't seem like a mass banning of prints as users with more than 1 device have the same print working on 1 device but not the other.

I believe both chiteroman and osmosis are both using Dobby to hook now, maybe try and earlier version of osmosis fork? He did a test build on the new shadow hook if i can find it i can send you the link
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] Fishawy:
Perhaps you mean the release candidate versions 127 & 128. I tried both to no avail.

But you might be on to something there. Hopefully osm0sis can confirm it.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] sawdoctor:
No the release candidates were Dobby this is a different one. Sent it via pm, not holding out much hope but worth a shot
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] Fishawy:
@osm0sis @sawdoctor false alarm. Turned out to be a kernel (who would've thought?!).

Check the main PIF thread.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] HippoMan:
If this indeed is related to the kernel, then it looks like the Googlefrinchian telephone sanitizers might be tightening the screws. Perhaps now it will be harder to run a non-stock kernel and possibly also even a non-stock ROM.

Let's see how this plays out.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] osm0sis:
Try lowering the INT and api_level entries to 25, and if that doesn't work then your print isn't any good and you'll have to Google for more build props. Fingerprints are for ROM builds, not physical device units.

Wow, looks like some stuff went down while I was asleep!

I'm on the same GMS version, but December security patch and January GPS update, and my age-old print is still passing.

I was going to suggest trying to roll back the downloaded DroidGuard VM build by deleting them from GMS's cache (/data/data/com.google.android.gms/app_dg_cache), since I do think they A-B test on us regularly, but sounds like you've solved it.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] Fishawy:
I'll wait for the dev to investigate. Hopefully that's a one-off mistake and not Google doing something.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] Fishawy:
Many thanks for your assistance as always. Glad this one is out of the way.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] HippoMan:
My fingers are crossed! ... except not right now at this moment, when I'm typing. :)
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] Captain_Throwback:
Something weird just happened...I was testing a new fingerprint to try and add to my stash, and it didn't work, so I switched back to my known working one, after killing gms.unstable, and this happened...

P. S. I just tested again after posting, and it's back to just Basic and Device. I wonder how that happened...
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] osm0sis:
If nothing major happens in the next couple weeks CI #170 is my PIFork v8 Release Candidate. Please test it out! 👍

Commit diff log:

Comparing v7...main · osm0sis/PlayIntegrityFork

Fix Play Integrity (and SafetyNet) verdicts, allowing custom fields and props - Comparing v7...main · osm0sis/PlayIntegrityFork

github.com

Build: https://github.com/osm0sis/PlayIntegrityFork/actions/runs/7931610610
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] fbirraque:
Already installed through Kitsune (27001) on Poco F3, MIUI14 (CN).

Module, SafetyNet and Play Integrity Certifications flawlessly like previous build.

After installed still identified as Play Integrity Fork v7. I'll test it for a few days and report if found some issue.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] Wolfcity:
All good here too (as expected). Good job!

Looking forward for v8.(y)
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] AnotherM1m:
Hi, is it still possible to force a system installation with the latest version?
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] osm0sis:
Only if your ROM allows writing to system.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] osm0sis:
Updated my custom pif script!

- update for renamed verboseLogs Advanced Settings entry

- refactor and simplify output formatting

- deprecated entry for ro.vndk.version was in /vendor/default.prop on some devices when first launched, so also check there if needed

Example output using my Pixel 8 Pro .prop files and "advanced" argument:

system build.prop to custom.pif.json/.prop creator
by osm0sis @ xda-developers

- Using format: json (Advanced)

- Parsing build.prop(s) ...
google/husky/husky:14/UQ1A.231205.015/11084887:user/release-keys

- Parsing build UTC date ...
Fri Nov 10 23:10:00 UTC 2023

- Build date newer than March 2018, adding SECURITY_PATCH ...
2023-12-05

- Parsing build first API level ...
34

- First API level 33 or higher, resetting to 32 ...

- Writing new custom.pif.json ...
{
// Build Fields
"MANUFACTURER": "Google",
"MODEL": "Pixel 8 Pro",
"FINGERPRINT": "google/husky/husky:14/UQ1A.231205.015/11084887:user/release-keys",
"BRAND": "google",
"PRODUCT": "husky",
"DEVICE": "husky",
"RELEASE": "14",
"ID": "UQ1A.231205.015",
"INCREMENTAL": "11084887",
"TYPE": "user",
"TAGS": "release-keys",
"SECURITY_PATCH": "2023-12-05",
"DEVICE_INITIAL_SDK_INT": "32",

// System Properties
"*.build.id": "UQ1A.231205.015",
"*.security_patch": "2023-12-05",
"*api_level": "32",

// Advanced Settings
"verboseLogs": "0"
}
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] rmedure:
Howdy everyone. Does the "adb + fastboot installer" support adb root? (not as shell)

TIA
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] lmvuong1997:
I'm getting this error while using your latest script:

- Parsing build first API level ...

25

./gen_pif_custom.sh: line 173: syntax error near unexpected token `fi'

./gen_pif_custom.sh: line 173: ` fi;'

The previous version worked fine. Running on git bash Windows 11 23H2

Edit: adding ";" on line 170 solved problem

if [ -z "$VNDK_VERSION" ]; then
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] osm0sis:
Thanks! Missed that during testing.

Uploaded a fixed one. 🙌
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] osm0sis:
Woo 40,000 Likes/Reactions, thanks XDA! 🥳🤗😆
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] Usama-CW:
Congrats!!! ... now send me a kernel repacked with anykernel4 which passes strong integrity with unlocked bootloader 🔫
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] Wolfcity:
You didn't have one? 🙄 It's standard here! 🥴
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] TKruzze:
.

Congratulations! I remember when I had more than you... (10 years ago, I think 🤫).
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] osm0sis:
Feels like about time I get back to my other projects! Just a small update for now, but planning to get back to bigger things soon. ;)

I work on these projects in my limited time off, so if you like the progress I'm making, or enjoy anything else I've done on xda, please consider sponsoring my ongoing work using my GitHub Sponsors profile. For a one-time donation you can hit the donate link from my profile. Thanks for your support!

UPDATE-nano.Terminal.Editor.v7.2-signed.zip;

UPDATE-mtd-utils.Installer.v2.1.6-signed.zip:

- hide stderr on arm64 binary test to improve potential slowdown during arm installs in an ash shell

UPDATE-ZipSigner.Installer.v3.0-13-signed.zip:

- add workaround to use Termux dalvikvm wrapper since their root prompt doesn't use real PATH

- hide stderr on arm64 binary test to improve potential slowdown during arm installs in an ash shell

Happy hacking! 🤘
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] zeadzezo:
Hello ser how to use flash all command manually in ADB fastboot ndk without using flash all .bat cuz I don't have pc
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] BillGoss:
If you have two phones, then use one of them in place of a PC. Install adb on the "PC" one.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] osm0sis:
I've always mentioned there were likely more "generic" values (from vendors using GSIs, etc.) that need to cause it to use others, just like I do for the product ones, but nobody ever confirmed if true and where the fallbacks should come from to pass.

What's in /product/build.prop on these devices you mention? Are those all from tadi?
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] zgfg:
Good question about /product/build.prop

I amalyzed for the couple of my Lisa stock ROMs (two years ago, before PIF, I was just curious when I bought and found how t had two sets of fingerprints, product, models, etc props), and only in vendor/build.prop there were the real lisa props

Now I'm actually processing from dedyn collection, it has only build.prop and vendor-build.prop files Folders poco, qti, redmi and xiaomi

But here and there also for some ROMs in the other folders. IMO, things can be merged, trigger should be if processing from build.prop (product-build.prop) finds:

DEVICE=missi

or

DEVICE=qssi

Ie,

FINGERPRINT=*/missi/*

or

FINGERPRINT=*/qssi/*

BRAND is not that trustful, sometimes BRAND is Redmi but DEVICE is qssi.

PRDUCT usually starts with qssi or missi, but looking to DEVICE is no miss.

Also, MANUFACTURER is sometimes qti (Qualcomm Techmologies, Inc), but mot always. MODEL varies, sometimes something sh... BTW, MODEL cam be usually omitted from JSON

Then to switch taking the props from vendor-build.prop instead
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] osm0sis:
Cool I'll check into that then! I think dedyn was all from tadi, and also isn't it gone now?

https://pif.dedyn.io 👀
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] zgfg:
Btw, for qssi, look at

你不一定看过的Android高版本P/Q/R源码编译指南

为了更加方便的读者阅读文章，通过导读思维图的形式将本文的关键点列举出来，从而方便读者取舍和阅读！ 时代在进步，Android的版本也是快速的进行着迭代着，从我们以前最常见的Android 4.4一直发展到了今天的Andro…

zhuanlan.zhihu.com

but use Translate😁

Citing:

QSSI is the abbreviation of Qualcomm Single System Image, and Qualcomm platform supports it starting from Android Q. Qualcomm's official documentation explains that the concept of QSSI was introduced to solve the problem of Android fragmentation and further split system.img and vendor.img.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] zgfg:
Oops, my mistake MSSI is Mediatek Single (or Split?) System Image

How Android updates work: A peek behind the curtains from an insider

Updates on Android were always a topic of discussion in the tech communities. Even though they are a crazily complicated topic and very few…

medium.com

"Both Qualcomm and MediaTek implemented the idea (as “Qualcomm Single System Image”QSSI” and “MediaTek Single System Image”MSSI”)..."

PS, but those in the 'generic' prints from build.prop are missi, not mssi, and MANUFACTURER is often qti (Qualcomm Technologies, Inc) as for the qssi prints
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] zgfg:
Not entirely. Five or six still there but they are covered by 287.

However, I found one more (not qssi/missi)
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] osm0sis:
https://xdaforums.com/t/tool-androi...k-win-android-linux-mac.2073775/post-89460729 ... 👀
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] zgfg:
I've processed all poco, redmi, qssi, xiaomi prints from dedyn and tested the pif.vendor.json created by my pif-gen-vendor-json-files.sh and gen_pif_vendor.sh script (observe that I slightly updated the gen_pif_vendor.sh script) and the method pays off

I have obtained three completely new pif.vendor.json prints passing PI Device Integrity:

- two (from the same device but different stock ROMs) where custom.pif.json extracted from build.prop provides qssi (Qualcomm Split System Image) 'generic' prints that fail already on SN CTS

- one where the custom.pif.json extracted from build.prop provides missi 'generic' prints that also fail on SN CTS

Obviously, I shall not disclose Device names neither the corresponding FINGERPRINTs (again, from vendor-build.prop, not the qssi/missi 'generic' FPs from build.prop) 😬

Btw, besides the qssi prints, there are many missi prints (they are not mssi as I wrongly commented earlier) and that missi prints (from build.prop files) are also from Qualcomm (not Mediatek) based devices

Eg. for Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G NE (DEVICE lisa, aka MODEL 2109119DG) with Qualcomm Snapdragon SM7325 778G:

Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE - Full phone specifications

www.gsmarena.com

build.prop gives Qualcomm (qti = Qualcomm Technologies, Inc) missi prints:

pif.custom.json =
{
"MANUFACTURER": "QUALCOMM",
"MODEL": "missi system image for arm64",
"FINGERPRINT": "qti/missi_phone_global/missi:13/TKQ1.220829.002/V14.0.6.0.TKOMIXM:user/release-keys",
"BRAND": "qti",
"PRODUCT": "missi",
"DEVICE": "missi",
"SECURITY_PATCH": "2023-09-01",
"FIRST_API_LEVEL": "30"
}

SN Basic: Pass, CTS BASIC: Fail

while the vendor-build.prop provides 'real' MIUI 14/A13 Global prints:

pif.vendor.json =
{
"MANUFACTURER": "Xiaomi",
"MODEL": "2109119DG",
"FINGERPRINT": "Xiaomi/lisa_global/lisa:13/RKQ1.211001.001/V14.0.6.0.TKOMIXM:user/release-keys",
"BRAND": "Xiaomi",
"PRODUCT": "lisa_global",
"DEVICE": "lisa",
"SECURITY_PATCH": "2023-09-01",
"DEVICE_INITIAL_SDK_INT": "30"
}

SN Basic: Pass, CTS BASIC: Pass
PI MEETS_BASIC_INTEGRITY

Actually, I've got several correct pif.vendor.json prints that look like being 'banned' as the above from Lisa, where the corresponding pif.custom.json 'generic' qssi/missi prints also fail on SN

Testing also confirmed about a dozen good prints that I had from earlier (with those three new as above, now I'm at 291 'private' prints 👍) - and there I was able to extract the same from build.prop and/or from vendor-build.prop.(although, in few cases, SECURITY_PATCH was missing in vendor-build.prop)
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] osm0sis:
Old backup you had of dedyn or is there a new URL?
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] zgfg:
I have old dedyn local backup - now I started to crawl through other folders, eg for asus there are also qssi prints (folders) and I also found mssi (and missi)

Btw, tadphone has moved to GitLab, he has new commits but it seems that Premium account is needed to download
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] badabing2003:
Tadi has always been Gitlab

you have an example of what has moved to premium tier?
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] zgfg:
No, @Vision tried to download with his GitLab acc and got an error telling me (PM convo) that Premium account was needed

But new commits can be seen, like on the screenshot and I just successfully downloaded manually that /vendor/build.prop.

But maybe not working for all
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] badabing2003:
Exactly, you can still download.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] Vision:
For you the mass download in zip or tar.gz work? Or only one by one only?
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] badabing2003:
Unless you can clone the repo, you'd have to scrape.
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] Vision:
Yeah, more easy download into a single zip, that's what he says @zgfg , now only one by one, but at least this works, I don't understand why this feature need premium , at least the zip must free and the other like tar.gr etc premium
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] osm0sis:
Thanks for continuing to look into these OEM GSI ROMs. I've already got missi and qssi support in my local unreleased updated gen_pif_custom.sh but I'll add essi and mssi as well.

I did already update migrate.sh to have a force override option to take values from fingerprint despite any previous values: https://github.com/osm0sis/PlayIntegrityFork/blob/main/module/migrate.sh#L88
[Android Software/Hacking General [Developers Only]] osm0sis:
Are there actual cases where ro.company.name, ro.product.vendor.cert, ro.product.mod_device, ro.bootimage.build.fingerprint, or ro.bootimage.build.date.utc are needed and it wouldn't otherwise find the values in the normal vendor.prop and system.prop property entries?