Game changer in my #mobile #coding was, when i figured out that i don't need #androidstudio to compile and sign #apk !
Just plain java development kit, android sdk and platform tools, #gradle and #apksigner
Game changer in my #mobile #coding was, when i figured out that i don't need #androidstudio to compile and sign #apk !
Just plain java development kit, android sdk and platform tools, #gradle and #apksigner
#apksigner v35.0.2 is now in #Debian trixie. The v3.1 signer rotation stuff needs testing. Please try it out!
Getting apksigner from Debian has two key advantages over the Google binaries:
* They are reproducibly built.
* They have an actual free software license.
So what is the Android team's intention? Should v3.1-only APKs be considered valid? Or not? My guess is they should be not considered valid since the Android team has explicitly marked that kind of signature as invalid since apksigner v30.0.0 (besides v33). Are there any plans to unified the code that verifies APK signatures?
#Android #AndroidSDK #APK #apksigner
2/2
Interesting bug in #apksigner reported to @fdroidorg: an APK with only a v3.1 signature was only considered valid by v33. <33 error out with "APK Signature Scheme v2 signature 0 indicates the APK is signed using APK Signature Scheme v3 but no such signature was found." >33 error out with "The APK contains a v3.1 signing block without a v3.0 base block". Android uses its own verify code and treats it as valid. https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroidserver/-/issues/1253
1/2
With a specific configuration of fdroidserver and a specifically crafted APK, it is possible to bypass AllowedAPKSigningKeys. I could install the poc-v6.apk in an SDK-34...