[Magisk] Nodens:
No it doesn't and I will explain. We're not talking GMS here or GPay. We talking about it being marketed and offered to developers openly. You are looking at the tree and not at the forest. The greater the adoption of PI the more difficult it is to run anything custom exactly because apps adopting it will refuse to run. Already a LOT of users have shunned away from rooting their devices because of safetynet. This is the intended design goal. If it is attractive to developers they will implement it. Once they implement it software stops running on your device unless it's stock. Is it really that hard to grasp? Why does McDonalds app have to check if you are the admin of your device and decide not to run if you are?

See above.

And this is completely false. I'm an engineer who specializes in low level code, reverse engineering and to an extend security. I have done extensive work with UEFI and firmware patching, a lot of it on the compsec side, a lot of it not. Some of it public as well (like my patching of Intel OpRoms to enable TRIM command to pass through to SSDs under bios assisted RAID for the X79 platform). I know what I am talking about. It is just rare that I work with mobile devices.

A rooted device is the exact opposite of compromised. Any device in which the owner does not have admin control it is inherently insecure for the owner. These are basic compsec principles. You can not monitor or have access on your own device and whoever does can do anything to it without your knowledge. This is the definition of insecure.

The contactless payment argument is irrelevant as admin control of your device provides security and not the other way around. That narrative , which you have internalized, has nothing to do with compsec and everything to do with locked down ecosystems. It's Apple marketing, it's not compsec.

I suggest you to read the link I posted with the issue on Google's tracker, in which Google engineers working on safetynet basically admit that the device owner is a potential threat actor. The entire issue thread is very informative and a must read from a technical perspective.

This is a false equivalency. This is like saying su and sudo on linux is similar to a rootkit.

A rootkit is a type of malware that uses kernel mode access to hide itself from the operating system.

An admin access tool, is just that. An admin access tool. And it should have been part of android much like it is part of every operating system. Mobile devices are treated differently, although they are essentially just small computers, because certain corporate entities benefit from locked down ecosystems. That's all there is to it. It has nothing to do with security.

Is Linux insecure because you can sudo? Is that a logical argument? Or is ti that when you can sudo, you can inspect, monitor, configure, administer and secure your entire system as you have control of it?

And these are basic compsec concepts that people outside of compsec have hard time understanding unfortunately.

Authentication means verifying that the system is what you expect it to be. By signing your own binaries you can authenticate that it is what you expect it to be. You lock your bootloader, your binaries are signed and validate. Good, the system has not been tampered with. You own the system. You are secure.

Authorization is about what the system can do or not. That is not for Google or anyone other than the device owner to decide. You can not dictate what someone else's system can or can not do. That violates the ownership principle. If someone else controls authorization of your device, then it is not your device. You have no control of it. And that is inherently insecure for you, the supposed owner of the device, as whoever controls authorization can do anything from invade your privacy to steal your data. And you wouldn't even know because their processes run outside your ability to monitor. Like a rootkit. Heh.

I never said or implied that PI is an extension. It is a form of speech. "And by extension" means "and

consecutively" here as, as you said, PI is the replacement of SN.

A rooted device is a safe device for the device owner because it gives them control of the device. The security features you mention (eg unlocked bootloader) are not a requirement of admin access in principle. They are a requirement, currently, in order to bypass the design choice of the user not having control of their device. This is not the same thing. If root access was provided natively, you would not have to unlock the bootloader in order to root and if importing private keys was properly implemented there would be no discussion whatsoever about disabling security features. At all.

You mistakingly think that you can't have admin access in a secure environment when the truth is that you have to break the secure environment because Google decided to lock you out of admin access. And that's all there is to it.

What you can't have, is unauthorized users with admin access and be secure. But you are the owner. You are the defacto authorized user, who controls authorization of your device.

In the current case of android, Google is the admin of your device despite of you paying for it. And by extension (again a manner of speech) they are an unauthorized user with admin access running around in your device. Because they decided it's good for them. It's not good for you though. Not good for your security or your privacy (and even outside the principle, this has been proven in action again and again).

See the answer to the first paragraph.

Yes you can do all that in theory. But if PI gets implemented in apps, you actually can't. Because you'd compile your own AOSP port that wouldn't be able to run the applications you want because Google offered them PI to check if you're running stock or your own thing. Again the same answer as the first paragraph.

But the thing is that it is. This is exactly what is happening. Subtly but it is what it is. Either PI gets adoption and you can't run anything because everyone's using it, unless you're using the stock Google ecosystem (which is what Google wants). Or no one uses it so it is irrelevant (In which case there was no reason to develop it and market it in the first case).

And no I'm not complaining about anything of the sort. I don't even use financial apps on my device. My problem is the concept, design and implementation of SN and PI as it pertains to locking down android to Google controled system images with its adoption by developers. Much like my problem is also with their other horrendous plan with the "Web Integrity" API. It's really hard not to see what Google is actually doing.