yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Droid Ultra General] adrynalyne:
I think its more likely the devices fell under the radar, or the OP is trolling us. From a development perspective, it makes most sense to build all devices as unlockable and then go back and lock those that are requested to be as such. I also think it unlikely they just decided to change php scripts and happened to get a test one in there. If written properly, it only needs to be done once and the rest is controlled in the database for all devices. Notice that the process doesn't ask what phone you have? Its all in the info you send, and requires you to have added it to the database yourself with your Moto account. I also believe that HTC/Moto/etc probably reads these forums, but they will be of a less technical variety unless on their own time. Developers cost more money and trolling message boards is a PR thing to see what people want, not find exploits.

The PR person, (if they even saw the thread) would have reported it, and the wheels would have slowly started turning to fix it. If you think about it, cases like this where this has happened was due to it exploding across the blogosphere, which sped up the discovery process.

I still think it was just an oversight with a small batch of phones, or is a hoax altogether.
[Droid Ultra General] androidreviewguy:
ITS ONLY MOTOROLA DROID ULTRAS AND MOTO XS READ THE FIRST POST THERES NO TROLLING GOING ON HERE AT ALL LOL LOOK AT THE DEVICE TREE THEY JUST STARTED MAKING MOTOROLA DROID ULTRA NIGHTLIES AGAIN
[Droid Ultra General] adrynalyne:
Calm yourself.

If you noticed, people were trying those devices this weekend with no success.

You have to admit it's odd that only you can get it done. Right?
[Droid Ultra General] androidreviewguy:
I've done 6 for people so far bud but OK wait in line like the rest then very very irritating..
[Droid Ultra General] adrynalyne:
Have you even read what is going on?

We bypassed the Moto trickery and went straight to the source, bypassing the checks.

Look at the source code. There is no different endpoint that the form posts to using your vague instructions and a supported device.

You say it is irritating, but its obvious there is something you are not telling us. You are bringing the irritation upon yourself.
[Droid Ultra General] tmittelstaedt:
I have also not seen any posts from anyone saying that the OP helped them unlock.

If he is really able to do this the only explanation that makes any technical sense to me is that he hit the site, picked up a test script which is now cached in his browser, and that's why it's working for him and not for anyone else. He said he used Chrome but Chrome shouldn't be acting like this (at least not with my experience with it)

There seems to be a marked LACK of interest by the OP in investigating why this worked for him and providing any detailed technical explanation as to why it worked, and lack of corroborating evidence by anyone else agreeing with him. That's the mark of a flimflam artist - or a cracker who discovered a hole and wants to keep knowledge of it from anyone else, while continuing to exploit it himself.

Either way, it's a dry hole for us.
[Droid Ultra General] JulesJam:
But those of us who tried his method did it literally within an hour of him posting. So I doubt that.

Right - that is what many of us believe - that there is a database with all of the bootloader unlock codes (BUCs) somewhere. We know the Chinese code sellers were accessing a database that had ALL of the BUCs in it. What we don't know is whether or not this online database has all of the BUCs in it.

Sure, there could be an internal one somewhere, but that doesn't have to be the same one that is accessible online.

Right but the online database doesn't have to be the master database.

That would be great and what I was hoping because if so, now we know how to query the database directly w/o going through the moto site and it would be great if we can only figure out how to get it to return those BUCs.

All of the evidence was that it was an inside job and no breaking in/hacking was necessary. Some posters who spoke chinese posted that the seller told him they had a friend who worked for Motorola. I think it was someone at the chinese manufacturing plant myself.

While I agree that Motorola employees read here and elsewhere, I don't think they could have removed any leftover test code that fast given how fast several of us tried OP's method right after he posted it.
[Droid Ultra General] androidreviewguy:
Let me explain something real quick I am no expert I am no developer I am honestly not even very good with a computer.. All I know is it works for me on all the phones and I have done it with those phones are all ultras that are off contract and have been off contract for a while and a few moto xs the xt10531 ones half of the stuff that you guys are talking about I have no idea about the only reason that I posted this is because I spoke to Motorola on the phone personally when my original Motorola ultra was not allowing me to unlock the bootloader they said to give it a few days after I signed into my motorola account and try again because all older 2013 devices are now able to have the bootloader unlocked if you don't believe me call Motorola yourself and ask as to why I believe CyanogenMod has started making nightlies again for the motorola ultra I understand your guyses lack of understanding on how I've done it but honestly what I have stated above is exactly what I have done now I have tried a few of yours that you have sent me that are droid Max's I don't know if that is the same thing as a ultra but they do not work so maybe I did get lucky but I highly doubt it seeing as how I used only the ultras and the X's I apologize for getting everybody's hopes up I guess.. That was not my intent so now I will probably just close this thread because I am done with it at all I was trying to do was help and you all sit here and write like I'm some fool so good luck and again I apologize
[Droid Ultra General] JulesJam:
Can you not understand why we are skeptical?

I tried your method very soon after you posted it and got the 404 error. Even forcing the Request Unlock Key button to appear gave me the 404 error.

Then adrynalyne wrote a web app that performed the same steps as the javascript on the motorola site in order to query the database directly. I then tested it with 2 OG Moto X's - a Dev Ed that had already been unlocked and a Verizon retail version that I purchased an unlock code for from a chinese seller. Using adrynalyne's web app, I received an unlock code from motorola by email for the dev ed but for the verizon retail version I received the message phone does not qualify. I know that a bootloader unlock code exists for my verizon retail version because I bought one and used it to unlock my retail device.

I also tested it using my Verizon Moto X 2014 and got phone does not qualify.

So adrynalyne's web app works fine to query the database. It is just that the result of executing the javascript on the site to query the database does not return an unlock code except for the dev ed.

It would be great if someone with a Pure Edition Moto X 2014 could test it to see if they get a bootloader unlock code back.

The only other thing to do I guess is see if we can find any test code left on the site. I will look but as I have pointed out, I am not a programmer and am relying on woefully out of date programming knowledge and common sense to decipher what I am looking at.
[Droid Ultra General] adrynalyne:
Why so defensive? If I didn't have at least a bit of faith in you, I wouldn't have written the web app in hopes you were right.

If I've learned anything on xda, don't post something unless you are certain it works. Techy people love to dissect and dig into things to find the reason. Others naturally expect things to work as posted.

Its nothing to take personally and get defensive about.
[Droid Ultra General] androidreviewguy:
Lol I'm the least defensive person in the world its not working for you guys cool that's it..
[Droid Ultra General] JulesJam:
OK I will when I get the chance. An I will keep trying adrynalyne's web app with my retail OG Moto X.

All of my Motorola X's were bought full price and all have 2014 manufacture dates.

I think you did get lucky and am truly glad for you. Try not to be so sensitive. We are all trying to accomplish the same goal.
[Droid Ultra General] adrynalyne:
This is all very reminiscent of when HTC forgets to lock HTCDev to phones when they first come out.

Has happened several times.
[Droid Ultra General] JulesJam:
And the second part of the bootloader unlock data that actually has your model number in it isn't even part of the URL that queries the database.

As a follow-up, Kidjoe on the OG Moto X forum let me know that his Dev Ed showed its MEID and IMEI both but not the IMEI SV. I put an inactive SIM in my Dev Ed and lo and behold, now I see the MEID and the IMEI but no IMEI SV. And when I pop the SIM card out of my retail Moto X, I see the IMEI and the IMEI SV but no MEID.

To summarize my observations, the first part of the bootloader unlock data (BUD) for my retail OG Moto X is my MEID followed by 00. The IMEI SV is 00 so it looks like it could be the MEID + the IMEI SV.

In contrast, the first part of the BUD for my dev ed is my IMEI followed by 0. The IMEI SV is 00 so it looks like it could be IMEI + first digit of IMEI SV. Also, the IMEI does not end in 0 so the MEID + IMEI SV would not be the same as the IMEI + first digit of IMEI SV.

Thus, the first part of the BUD is different for my retail Moto X than it is for my dev ed - the former is MEID + 00 and the later is IMEI + 0. And for both devices MEID + 00 is not equivalent to IMEI + 0 because for both devices the IMEI is one digit longer and does not end in a 0.

I tried using the IMEI + 0 for my retail Moto X in the URL to query the database but still got the phone does not qualify message.

I keep going back to the fact that the Chinese code sellers only needed our IMEI to return the bootloader unlock codes (BUCs) and did not need the BUD. And the dev ed BUD includes the IMEI but the retail Moto X BUD includes the MEID not the IMEI. As I tested, a simple substitution of the IMEI + 0 in the URL does not return a BUC for my retail Moto X.

The UIDs in the BUD for both devices are the value you receive when you do fastboot getvar uid followed by 0000.

Not sure if any of this is significant but this is what I have observed so just reporting back. What would be interesting to know is if all of the dev eds and other unlockable devices, such as sprint and tmobile Moto X, use IMEI + 0 and if only the Verizon and AT&T retail use MEID in the first part of their BUD. If so then it would be significant. However, it still wouldn't give insight into how that affects your ability to get a BUC returned from the database.

---------- Post added at 08:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:57 PM ----------

What does this mean? HTC intentionally releases some retail phones so that they can be unlocked against the carriers' wishes?
[Droid Ultra General] tmittelstaedt:
I'm glad you posted this because I'm concerned with the OP's defensive attitude and "take my ball and go home" remarks about closing the thread.

The OP seems to think if the phones are older than a year (out of warranty) that may be the reason they are unlocking. I would love to see this explored because legally I cannot understand how a defense by Motorola of continuing to refuse to release the unlock code AFTER the phone is a) no longer under warranty, and b) contract paid off and c) isn't even activated on any carrier's network - would stand up in any court.

The situation is like a car dealership who sells you a car then puts an electronic tracker in it as long as you owe him money, so you can't drive off and not pay him. Then, you pay him off, and he gives you the title - then refuses to tell you where the tracker is and how to disable it.

Motorola and the carriers have ZERO legal leg to stand on in this situation and I'm surprised nobody has setup a class-action lawsuit to fight this because it certainly is ripe for one.

Frankly, I think this is where the modding community needs to head towards in the future. As they continue to tighten down security on these phones it will get more and more difficult for a legitimate owner to unlock one.

I daresay that if all the money that was paid to jcase for Sunshine was used to hire a good law firm and setup a class action, we would have an agreement by now that would cover ALL the manufacturers and carriers and this bootloader locking would be nothing more than a historical footnote.
[Droid Ultra General] adrynalyne:
HTC makes all phones unlockable and then locks them per carrier wishes. HTCDEV is their unlock site.

Sometimes, they forget to flip the switch and if you buy your phone day one or get it a little early, it still works.
[Droid Ultra General] JulesJam:
My retail Moto X will be out of warranty soon. I will check again once it is out of warranty.

I can. You bought a phone with a locked bootloader and nothing in your bill of sale said it would ever be unlockable.

Now with the dev eds, if those won't unlock, then you have a breach of contract argument as well as a breach of the implied warranty of fitness/merchantability.

No it is not. I bought my phone outright.

Also, I did not buy the software running on the device - I have a license to use it as does any subsequent purchaser of the phone. And really with the bootloader unlocking, it is a software issue. They gave you a license to use the software as they provided it.

As explained above, there is ZERO leg to stand on for anyone to file a class-action lawsuit on this.

I doubt jcase is making a ton of cash off of sunshine. Do you really think there are that many people who are using it? If so, then why won't jcase try to support the Moto X and Droids? He would make more money.

My guess is that the money he is making off of sunshine is not enough to warrant the time he has to put into it to expand it to the Moto X and Droids.

Let me educate you about the legal field. You don't pay class action plaintiff's attorneys - they foot the bill as they are the only ones who make any money off of class actions.

Believe me when I tell you that if there were a case to be had, the plaintiff's class action attorneys would be doing everything they could to fine lead plaintiffs to sue in their names - you don't go chasing plaintiff's class action attorneys - they find you.

No, you can't force a phone manufacturer to unlock a bootloader unless they sold it to you as an unlockable device. Even then you couldn't force them as they could just refund your money.

Specific performance is the remedy you would be looking for and courts rarely if ever award it when there is a money damages remedy that would adequately compensate the plaintiff. I doubt you could get specific performance even if you bought a dev ed that wouldn't unlock - you would get your purchase price back.
[Droid Ultra General] BladeRunner:
I suspect each production run of phones has its own database of unlock codes associated with the phone imei number. That would explain why the chinese unlock guy couldn't get codes for ALL devices only devices within a range of manufacture dates. Also with the developer edition phones for verizon they were manufactured in their own specific batches as they had the Developer Edition backs, even though internally they are identical to a consumer edition.

As for sunshine just because it works on HTC doesn't mean it will work on Moto devices. It has been stated that the exploit for Moto 4.4.4 devices would need to wait for sunshine 3.0 and there are "technical difficulties" in getting the moto devices unlocked so, hopefully, eventually it will happen, or, maybe it won't. That's the risk in buying a Moto device these days.

---------- Post added at 03:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:18 PM ----------

the moto xt1053 was the T-Mobile version and as such had an unlockable bootloader anyway, just fyi

---------- Post added at 03:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:22 PM ----------

We get a few unlocked consumer edition motos from time to time as well. Lucky b*st*rds.
[Droid Ultra General] JulesJam:
And that is probably what happened to OP - there was a batch of Droid Ultras that were manufactured in 2013 and were unlockable.
[Droid Ultra General] BladeRunner:
I think the whoever you spoke to Lenovorola didn't know what they were talking about. If it was true why would you need to do anything to "trick" the site into giving you a code? You should just be able to put your phones ID in and get your unlock code like any other unlockable device.

Droid Maxx is identical to the Ultra, just a bigger battery, so it would have been a different production run. That lends credence to my idea that each run has its own data base.

I believe you got really lucky and stumbled into a database that wasn't meant for the public.
[Droid Ultra General] JulesJam:
But ultimately to be able to unlock using a URL, all of the info would need to be in the database that is accessible online.

---------- Post added at 09:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 PM ----------

Another explanation is that the info was only kept at the Chinese manufacturing plant for a set period of time and then deleted. IIRC it was the older models that the Chinese code sellers could no longer get codes for. and eventually, they couldn't get codes for any of them so that would be in line with the data being deleted at some point.
[Droid Ultra General] BladeRunner:
I think it was the late 2013 models that he didn't have the codes for. The older models and the early 2014 ones he had unlock codes for.
[Droid Ultra General] JulesJam:
I have access to another Verizon Moto X 2014 and the first part of its BUD is its MEID + 00 and its IMEI SV is 00. Its IMEI is 1 digit longer than its MEID and the IMEI does not end in zero.

Can those of you with Droid Ultras confirm that the first part of your BUD is your MEID + 00? I am of course not asking people for their MEID; just asking them to confirm with a yes or a no that the first part of their BUD is their MEID+00.
[Droid Ultra General] adrynalyne:
Except, not. No manufacturer has to allow you to unlock their hardware so that you have your way with it. It came locked, you bought it locked. No law will force a manufacturer to make their phones less secure. It won't hold up in court for five seconds.

An analogy would be that a car dealer or manufacturer is forced to remove a governor on a car because you want it to faster. After all, its paid off and the warranty is null and void.

Yeah....not happening.
[Droid Ultra General] Mattish13:
Verizon droid turbo- it's IMEI+0 for the first part of my BUD.

sent from my droid turbo
[Droid Ultra General] calarco3:
Except, not. No manufacturer has to allow you to unlock their hardware so that you have your way with it. It came locked, you bought it locked. No law will force a manufacturer to make their phones less secure. It won't hold up in court for five seconds.

An analogy would be that a car dealer or manufacturer is forced to remove a governor on a car because you want it to faster. After all, its paid off and the warranty is null and void.

Yeah....not happening.[/quote]

But there are federal safety laws saying the car has to be governed. The pc analogy definitely applies best.

Sent from my XT1254 using Forum Fiend v1.3.1.
[Droid Ultra General] adrynalyne:
Meh, it was a quick one off to the top of my head.

You could also look at it like after market mods to your car. The manufacturer cannot legally stop you, but they don't have to help you either.
[Droid Ultra General] JulesJam:
Well there goes my theory out the window, lol! Thanks though, you have stopped me from continuing on my wild goose chase!

It looks like the codes for those devices not allowed to be unlocked by the carriers are either not in the online database or if they are, the URL won't return them. Hopefully some others will get lucky and their codes will be in the database.

---------- Post added at 05:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:52 PM ----------

Then they have no contractual obligation to unlock it. Done. Game over.
[Droid Ultra General] calarco3:
You could also look at it like after market mods to your car. The manufacturer cannot legally stop you, but they don't have to help you either.[/quote]

Exactly, they cannot stop you.

Sent from my XT1254 using Forum Fiend v1.3.1.
[Droid Ultra General] tmittelstaedt:
Except that once you buy it, it's no longer "their" phone. Remember, the manufacturers (at least, Motorola) are locking because the carrier is requiring them, not because the manufacturer is choosing to lock. This is more of an issue between the consumer and the carrier, and the FCC has a lot of say on that. Motorola is perfectly happy to supply unlock codes on request if not prevented from doing so by a carrier. The carrier is not a manufacturer. Once you pay off the phone, the carrier can certainly refuse to allow you on their network if your unlocked, but they cannot argue that if you choose not to connect to their network that they still have a say over your property.

That is a false analogy for many reasons:

1) The car dealer does not install governors.

2) The manufacturer is REQUIRED BY LAW (at least in the United States) to certify their vehicles meet certain safety standards that protect human life for their vehicles to be sold. One of these is crumple zones. A vehicle crumple zone is designed for a certain top speed. Exceed that and the crumple zone no longer meets the regulatory requirement, and the vehicle would be illegal to sell. Asking the manufacturer to remove the governor is essentially asking them to break the law and endanger human life.

3) While the manufacturer may no longer be bound to a vehicle for WARRANTY they are definitely bound to a vehicle for LIABILITY. Meaning, that if you take a 10 year old car and have an accident and it's proven the accident was caused by a manufacturing defect, the manufacturer is still on the hook.

None of this applies to a cell phone bootloader unlock. You maybe could argue that unlocking a bootloader interferes with E911 requirements but even that would be invalid. Unlocking a bootloader does not do anything that interferes with E911. It may, of course, be possible that an owner of an unlocked phone could root it with firmware that would interfere with E911, but that would be the owner, not the manufacturer, doing it. Similar to a governed vehicle owner flashing his vehicle with software that removes the governor. If the FCC required locked bootloaders as a condition of E911 then it would not be legal to sell phones like the Nexus or the Moto developer phone that come with the ability to unlock bootloaders. Instead, the FCC requires phones to have the CAPABILITY of E911 but that is as far as they go.

Such hostile language! I'm quite surprised~ I had always thought these forums were populated by modders who wanted to mod their phones! Now I am finding out they are populated by people who are hostile to having phones moddable - or are carrier employees afraid of losing control - or carrier suck ups - or something. Sheesh!

---------- Post added at 09:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 AM ----------

They say the carriers are contractually obligating them to lock them. That implies they would unlock them if they weren't restricted from doing so. That is the issue that would be under dispute. Do the carriers have the right to interfere with property that you own, and are not using on their network?
[Droid Ultra General] teerout:
tmittle, your preaching to the choir. as soon as you start that class-action suit, post about that.