Talk:Rooting (Android)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Globalize tag

I have removed the tag "Globalize/US" has there is almost certainly no further information to add regarding the legality of rooting in other regions. Sure, users could investigate the laws and make conclusions, but I seriously doubt any country has specific laws about rooting, so it would fall under WP:Original Research. --SF007 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Root versus Fastboot

I wanted to confirm this before modifying the article.

In the Description section, it says that some phones need to be rooted in order to install ROMs such as CyanogenMod. Based on my limited experience, this should be necessary since I can install ClockworkMod Recovery without booting into Android OS (this is called Fastboot, which is a mode by which one can modify the phone's filesystem on the computer via USB cable without booting Android). With this alternate recovery, it's possible to format the phone's data, boot, cache, and system partitions and install a custom ROM such as CyanogenMod via a zip that contains the new ROM's entire filesystem and a script that instructs the recovery on how to install it.

Provided that the article says that some phones need rooted, and I've had only one smart phone (unless the old Motorola RAZR is still considered "smart"), I wanted to confirm if my experience is or is not true for all phones. If it's not true, this paragraph is fine as is. ~Piki (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(Note: I've never had any Android phone nor do I have any Android experience beyond what I read) So, if I understand correctly, you are asking if users can just use Fastboot to install a new ROM without having to root the phone? As far as I know, this would only work if the phone is "unlocked" (like the Galaxy Nexus, from the Google Nexus series), otherwise you would need first to "root" the phone to use make any ROM modifications. Was that your question?. I've also just added some links to the Fastboot article you might want to look at. Cheers. --SF007 (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC) See my updated reply below! --SF007 (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've never actually tried flashing ROMs via Fastboot, I simply flashed an alternate recovery to take care of ROM flashing.

My question was if my experience was true of all phones or for just some. You've already answered that (in part), and I've since had chance to do some research. From what I understand from my research, the ROM flashing isn't done from within Android OS (unless ROM Manager can do this, I've never used it), so root isn't needed for actually flashing the ROM. Rooting is only needed to unlocking any phone that is locked by the manufacturer. Once unlocked, root access is no longer needed. ~Piki (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You are completely right in all your assertions and I was wrong. At least in the Nexus family (I own a Nexus S and that is what I am familiar with), there are two concepts: "unlock the bootloader" and "enabling root". You only need to unlock the bootloader to flash alternative ROMs. You can then enable "root" (install the "su" program) if you desire or not.--SF007 (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Root access. Is not required to unlock a nexus devices bootloader. Only ADB. and any custome Ron flashed will normally always have root access permitted. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 03:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

United States disputed tag

Replysixty, can you be more specific about which parts of the LoC document you think are relevant. It is quite a long PDF file. Thanks – Steel 02:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's a copy of his explanation (taken from the revision history):

having read the LOC's ruling regarding the smartphone proposed and accepted/rejected exceptions, the description below is not to my understanding an sufficient account regarding the proposed exemption for tablets, which, had it been accepted would have been to except "jailbreaking" (rooting+sideloading unauthorized copyrighted works) those devices, not mere rooting. Also, it is worth knowing that a separate discussion exists within the ruling with respect to *replacing* the full operating system. There, the Register suggests that such an exemption is not needed if rooting to fully replace the OS/firmware does not infringe a copyright access technology. In short, I think this paragraph below does not accurately or fully describe the LOC's ruling and the primary source should be used, not the insufficient, misleading blog reports.

Replysixty is wrong. Here's the relevant passage, from the primary source:

The Register determined that the statutory factors weighed in favor of a renewed

exemption for smartphones, as nothing in the record suggested that the market for mobile phones had been negatively impacted by the designation of such a class and, in fact, such a class might make smartphones more attractive to consumers. While Joint Creators raised concerns about pirated applications that are able to run on jailbroken devices, the record did not demonstrate any significant relationship between jailbreaking and piracy.

On the other hand, the Register concluded that the record did not support an extension of the exemption to “tablet” devices. The Register found significant merit to the opposition’s concerns that this aspect of the proposed class was broad and ill-defined, as a wide range of devices might be considered “tablets,” notwithstanding the significant distinctions among them in terms of the way they operate, their intended purposes, and the nature of the applications they can accommodate. For example, an ebook reading device might be considered a “tablet,” as might a handheld video game device or a laptop computer.

NTIA supported the designation of a class for both smartphones and tablets. Noting the broad support for such an exemption and the numerous noninfringing uses enabled by 16 jailbreaking, NTIA asserted that “the mobile application market has thrived, and continues to do so, despite – and possibly in part because of – the current exemption.” NTIA was persuaded that the proposed class should apply to tablets as well as mobile phones, believing that category to have been sufficiently defined by EFF. As noted, however, the Register determined that the record lacked a sufficient basis to develop an appropriate definition for the “tablet” category of devices, a necessary predicate to extending the exemption beyond smartphones. In future rulemakings, as mobile computing technology evolves, such a definition might be more attainable, but on this record, the Register was unable to recommend the proposed expansion to

tablets.

The Librarian of Congress found that the same logic which supports an extension of the past three years' exception to the prohibition of circumvention on mobile phones supports an extension of the exception to tablet devices; however, because the term tablet might be applied to video game consoles, netbooks, e-readers, etc., a more precise definition of the term tablet must be presented by proponents for exception lest unintended consequences ensue.

Therefore, I am removing the Disputed - Factual Accuracy tag. The primary source provides materially the same account set forth in the paragraph in question. A separate controversy does exist vis-à-vis circumvention of software installation controls--but those controls do not serve to protect copyrighted works; while any related decision will have knock-on consequences for the UEFI bootloader requirement on upcoming Windows 8-certified hardware, that is of no relevance to this article.

Patronanejo (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Legality in the United States

Does anybody actually need permission to decide what/how to run in their personal computers? Why does the copyright office have to allow rooting at all? Rooting literally means "root access". Using root access, users can modify the root partition in any way, maybe they just want to make an extra disk there to be used by applications. Or maybe they want to use some third-party applications requiring the root access, ex. to back up/restore their systems. Users own the hardware, therefore they are free to do anything they want with it within the legal limits. Rooting doesn't have anything to do with "copyright infringement". Who said that copyright office has standing to make such ruling? Is there a corresponding ruling for PCs, so that somebody had to legally allow to remove/modify Windows on, say, Dell-manufactures computer? Yurivict (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Bootloader" or "boot-loader" ?

Why does the article use both "bootloader" and "boot-loader"? Should it just stick to one? ZeniffMartineau (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Dangers of rooting

hi, noob here. I was looking around to find anything about the dangers of unlocking root-capability. like: will any app be able to use root, once available? in the article i found mentions of Apps which will control it (and i will continue researching in that direction) but generally i would be really grateful if an expert could write down something explicitly. i am really scared of root, although i really would like to do a nandroid backup. also: can you get rid of root, once enabled? 217.70.211.15 (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I can help. In relation to apps using root, apps can only use root permissions, if you (the root user) allow that app to use root permissions. Sort of like administrator rights on windows pcs. You can revoke them at anytime. In general when you root, you also install a superuser app that allows you to grant and deny root permissions at will. Some apps require root permissions in order to modify other parts of your phone. For example in order for you to be able to read and write system and root partitions, you have to grand a file explorer root permissions. Similarily if you want to modify the kernel in order to change the cpu frequencies, or if you wanted to disable carrier forced apps, you would have to grant the app that will allow you to change those features root permissions. As for if you can get rid of root, it depends on the specific device itself whether root is achievable and/or removable if granted. Unlocking the boot loader allows you to change your recovery parition to a custom one, and thus allows you to make a nandroid backup and flash new roms, etc. The dangers of trying to unlock or root your device go from the mild (void of warranty) to the harsh (rendering your phone inoperable; i.e. "bricking" your phone Surge1223 (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Total revision is required

This article is written from an uninformed perspective. Reading it is an insult to anyone who knows about Android/Linux permissions or has worked with devices other than HTC/Google.

1. root is the user from which all accounts are granted permissions.. root is user 0. root is on every android device. The term rooting allows access to this.

2. Samsung devices have never been locked down. Rooting a Samsung device has always required flashing an insecure kernel and then downloading the SuperUser app.

3. SuperUser access is a security hole. It bypasses ALL android permissions and basically circumvents the entire Android system

4. HTC's 2011 "unlocking" is irrelevant as Google and Samsung have always allowed flashing unsecure kernels. HTC's act of allowing unlocking is a marketing ploy. This article reads like an advertisement.

5. Barnes and noble Nook Tablet allows for booting an unsecure kernel from SDCard with a security work around.

6. iOS jailbreaking is the act of installing a 3rd party market.

7. Google devices have always been more locked down then Samsung devices. You can put a Samsung device into download mode and without accepting a notification, simply flash a kernel.

8. The PROCESS section does not describe the process. here is the process

- place the "su" binary into any folder with executable permissions in the system PATH

- disable security or install custom kernel

- install permissions manager like "SuperUser"

9. Fastboot is used on several devices outside Google.

10. The writing style is incongruitive and full of repeating "however"s and "although"s.

11. All new official android devices allow sideloading.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.233.125 (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2012‎ Corrrll1969 (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirection of "Rooting"

I just discovered that attempting to open the article at "Rooting" redirects not to this article, but rather to "Cutting (plant)". I would submit that a reader looking for "Rooting" is far more likely to be seeking the subject covered in this Android article (as I was) than the subject of the article about plant cuttings. Therefore I have proposed (on Talk:Cutting (plant)) that the "Rooting" meta-article be changed to redirect to the "Rooting (Android OS)" article, rather than to "Cutting (plant)". I also noted that, if deemed necessary, an italicized sentence could be inserted at the beginning of the "Rooting (Android OS)" article to refer readers looking for information about plant propagation to that other article (although I personally have never heard the term "rooting" used in this way). — Jaydiem (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. I have actually heard "rooting" as a synonym for "fucking", but anyway, I think your suggestion makes sense, so mission accomplished. -Replysixty (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ramon Ramonsantos18 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI: Rooting = jailbreaking in the legal sense. And illegal (for tablets).

First, I'm not a lawyer. But I copied the legal section on jailbreaking from iOS jailbreaking to here (replaced/merged as best I could), assuming all the legal stuff (DMCA) and exemptions (and unlocking) apply to rooting. I would like to know if I assumed wrong. And note jailbreaking/rooting is illegal (for tablets at least). Please keep in sync as much as possible. Some links might look out of place here or there, saying rooting or jailbreaking. comp.arch (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer that we found sources that specifically mention rooting, or just link to iOS jailbreaking with a sentence saying that much of that article is assumed to be true of this one too. – Steel 11:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree - since there are some technical and practical differences between jailbreaking and rooting (even if not big differences), it's a bit on the synthesis side to copy over the text with the terms changed. Here's also some recent discussion of the text on the iOS jailbreaking article: Talk:iOS jailbreaking#Jailbreaking (and rooting) (il)legal(?) in the States. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Rooting as a more general concept, not limited to Android

Why is this not just a subsection of an article on rooting? Android did not pioneer rooting, nor is it the be-all, end-all of rooting or jailbreaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.95.80 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What other specific examples of "rooting" (in the sense of "gaining superuser access") are sufficiently notable to be included in a generalized article on the subject? ...And aren't (or shouldn't be) covered in the Superuser or Privilege escalation articles? — Jaydiem (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move: Android rooting → Rooting (Android OS)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Android rooting → Rooting (Android OS) – This article was titled “Rooting (Android OS)” for some time up until 2012-09-29, when it was renamed (see edit here) to the present “Android rooting”. This name change bugs me, because both the words android and rooting have multiple meanings (and disambiguation pages on Wikipedia), so taken at face value, the term “android rooting” could be interpreted as “mechanical humanoid digging for food”, among other possibilities. In contrast, “Rooting (Android OS)” has a clear and unambiguous meaning, and subjectively seems more “encyclopedic” in style; therefore it seems preferable as the title of this article. — Jaydiem (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: article title appears to be WP:PRECISE enough. Regarding ambiguity concerns: WP:AT favors natural disambiguation, and there is no evidence that current title is ambiguous. (“[M]echanical humanoid digging for food”? Really?) Let's wait until there sis at least a shadow of necessity. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• I support this. A small issue maybe, but the subject of the article is just rooting as evidenced by the fact that it's called 'rooting' throughout except in the initial sentence which explains, somewhat tautologically, that Android rooting is attaining privileged control of Android. Even external sources that use 'Android rooting' for initial context proceed to exclusively use 'rooting' thereafter. I would prefer the article title reflects actual usage of the term. – Steel 20:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. WP:PRECISE beats WP:NATURAL here, I'm afraid. Red Slash 23:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Red Slash's reasoning. SnowFire (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: In the interest of fairness, I should mention that the edit summary accompanying the 2012-09-29 move to “Android rooting” indicated that the editor's intention was to make this article's title congruent with that of the iOS jailbreaking article. Having said that, I personally would prefer to see that other article moved to Jailbreaking (iOS). Similar reasoning can be applied in both cases: Provided that the context of discussion is known to be smartphones (rather than gardening or criminal justice), when people talk about “rooting” everyone understands they're referring to Android (not some other OS), and when people talk about “jailbreaking” everyone understands they're referring to iOS. Given the context, the subject of “rooting” or “jailbreaking” needs no further qualification. In other words, “Android rooting” and “iOS jailbreaking” are redundant titles. The parenthetical qualifications (Android OS) and (iOS) are needed to disambiguate the base terms from completely different meanings (gardening or criminal justice, among others), not different OSes. Therefore the parenthetical disambiguation technique of “Rooting (Android OS)” and “Jailbreaking (iOS)” seems to me to form the most appropriate titles for the two articles. (The latter also has the small side benefit of avoiding the technical complication of a title beginning with a lower-case letter.) — Jaydiem (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Per Jaydiem's explanation above. However, as Jaydiem also wrote above, I'd support this move only if we end up with Jailbreaking (iOS) as well (or at least with another move request) – just for consistency. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: How about renaming to Rooting (Android) instead, for a more simple title? When capitalized, "Android" surely doesn't mean "mechanical humanoid" and it's clear almost to everyone that it's about an operating system. Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

USB On-The-Go (OTG)

Although rooting is not ever needed to utilize USB OTG, user must root the device when initially not available USB OTG. --Lagoset (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Hm, I'm not sure whether that's good enough for the OTG to be included into the Rooting (Android OS) § Advantages section... Maybe if it would be worded in a different way. At the same time, why do we have Tasker included there? What makes Tasker so notable? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It is usefull, when the regular user has not included USB OTG in the nonrooted version (as happens to me in one of the devices). Notability of Tasker and similar is for easy (one-click) and warranty, as also Framaroot [1].--Lagoset (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ubuntu

Rooting not always necessary. Android is a Linux kernel under a proprietary presentation interface. Easy enough to upgrade kernel etc to a better version of Linux like Ubuntu. Shjacks45 (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting: you can install / simulate Ubuntu / Debian in Android. In any case, I would prefer install Replicant in a phone (or buy one with Replican preinstalled).--Lagoset (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Add disadvantages section

I see an advantages section but no disadvantages section. Jidanni (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jidanni: It probably shouldn't have either. See WP:PROCON. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Unlockable bootloaders

Rooting a device involves circumventing its technological protection measures [...]

This is not true for devices with an unlockable bootloader, such as Nexus devices. They are intentionally designed so that their bootloader can be unlocked easily. (They perform a factory reset upon unlocking, in order to protect user data.)

See also: It's not "rooting", it's openness | Android Developers Blog -- nyuszika7h (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! In a few words, unlocking a bootloader and rooting a device are two different things. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dsimic: In 99% of cases, rooting those devices involves unlocking the bootloader, which is an intentional feature and not circumvention, and although tools like Towelroot exist for those devices, there's rarely a reason to use them. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you please provide alternate wording? Starting from there, we'll work it out and move into the article. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Minor edit request

I can't change it, so - could someone please modify reference 2 so that it explicitly states that the link is to Sony's website? 99.245.230.104 (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done, improved a few references. — Dsimic (talk | contribs)

Adding the Nexus 6 and 9 under Section 2?

"By contrast, the Google-branded Android phones, the Nexus One, Nexus S, Galaxy Nexus, Nexus 4 and Nexus 5, as well as their tablet counterparts, the Nexus 7 and Nexus 10 [...]"

The Nexus 6 and Nexus 9 have not been added yet, but the unlockig process is the same as with all other nexus phones. I think it would make sense to add these phones to the list.

Thane DE (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rooting (Android OS). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.itmag.org/android-operating-system-news/175-cyanogenmod-supported-by-samsung-gives-away-galaxy-s2-to-devs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links? Currently the page has "See also" and "References". Have the external links been removed? Regards, PeterEasthope (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done, the changes noted above are fine. From what I've seen, it seems that this bot calls all URLs external links. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Legality of locking devices

As well as the section on supposed legal restrictions on a user manipulating a device they own in a manner of their own choosing, there should be a contrasting section on the possibility that it is in fact illegal for a device manufacturer to restrict the use of a device once sold.

Most jurisdictions, if not all, provide a distinction between a sale and a lease. When an item is legitimately sold, it becomes the natural property of the purchaser, who can employ said device in whatever manner they may choose, usually restricted only by considerations such as what harm may be inflicted upon others or upon society at large.

The section about supposed legal restrictions on use of devices should mention and discuss whether the supposed legal restrictions have been tested in legal action, and what outcomes, as well as what potential exists for further challenge.

Here is one example which could be mentioned (if I were able to edit the page of the wiki... remind me what wiki means again... ?) ... in Australia it is (or once was?) mandatory when selling a manufactured device with non-obvious means of actuation, that full details be provided to the new owner of how the device may be operated. I am computer literate, and consider the ability to substitute my own software for that which has been provided, or to alter and amend same, to be a mandatory and fundamental use to be made of a general purpose computing device which provides a user interface and which is not dedicated to some specific, highly restricted task. This information may well constitute the equivalent of 'rooting', whereas the action of 'rooting' the device is in no way intrinsically and unavoidably linked to copyright infringement, which is a legal tort, arguments of which may not be robotically decided by automated means, but which in many cases require lengthy and arduous contemplation by full benches of qualified, human experts. (I am not a legal expert, just trying to be clear.)

Here is another consideration: many users who 'root' their android do so in order to remove software which they consider to be malware, such as spyware, for example where the device constantly 'calls home' or informs unknown parties of the user actions and/or environment, or state of the device. Despite articulated attempts at contractual restriction on purchasers' rights, it is not possible in many jurisdictions (if at all) to remove certain rights, and these fundamental rights may be those being protected by amendment of software functions of a device. However this does not reverse the sale, and so once sold, purchasers may well have legal grounds for amending software, which should the vendor attempt to restrict or even to misinform the user, may be a legal tort in itself, or may create a legal tort even if the original tort would have been groundless. Try the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.3.246 (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Key open-source libraries

There doesn't seem to be a real good "behind the scenes" article on how the open source projects affect rooting, but it seems that koush's Superuser and the related work by ChainsDD (both of whom were involved in the Cyanogenmod project) are pretty important. See What exactly is superuser.apk and su? for example. Koush's Superuser project is a bit out of date; the latest fork seems to be seSuperuser/Superuser. But again, not really documented in third-party sources. II | (t - c) 08:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Disadvantages

Could you please add a separate section or link to another appropriate article, if such exists, about disadvantages of rooting? Of course, not about the legal issues (they are mentioned already) but primarily about the security problems. Thanks! --109.252.107.106 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No Mention of Related Software App Methods,etc.

No mention here of apps offering (or claiming to offer instant rooting via installation and execution of a single app on Android (King Root, et al)? Seems a major gap. 94.119.64.23 (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm worried that would come off as promotional, but would welcome any appropriate reliable sources that have discussed them. DonIago (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Minor edits: Its the Librarian of Congress who decides, not the Library and it was a "Ruling" not a "statement. DavidCharmel (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Minor edits:

1. Its the Librarian of Congress who decides, not the Library Please replace "the Library of Congress" with "the Librarian of Congress"

2. It was a "Ruling" not a "statement"

Please replace "following a statement by the Copyright Office and Librarian of Congress" with "following a Ruling by the Librarian of Congress"

References : https://www.copyright.gov/1201/

and

https://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2015/80fr65944.pdf

Bumping this post, as it was never archived. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)