You might sideload an Android app, or manually install its APK package, if you’re using a custom version of Android that doesn’t include Google’s Play Store. Alternately, the app might be experimental, under development, or perhaps no longer maintained and offered by its developer. Until now, the existence of sideload-ready APKs on the web was something that seemed to be tolerated, if warned against, by Google.

This quiet standstill is being shaken up by a new feature in Google’s Play Integrity API. As reported by Android Authority, developer tools to push “remediation” dialogs during sideloading debuted at Google’s I/O conference in May, have begun showing up on users’ phones. Sideloaders of apps from the British shop Tesco, fandom app BeyBlade X, and ChatGPT have reported “Get this app from Play” prompts, which cannot be worked around. An Android gaming handheld user encountered a similarly worded prompt from Diablo Immortal on their device three months ago.

Google’s Play Integrity API is how apps have previously blocked access when loaded onto phones that are in some way modified from a stock OS with all Google Play integrations intact. Recently, a popular two-factor authentication app blocked access on rooted phones, including the security-minded GrapheneOS. Apps can call the Play Integrity API and get back an “integrity verdict,” relaying if the phone has a “trustworthy” software environment, has Google Play Protect enabled, and passes other software checks.

Graphene has questioned the veracity of Google’s Integrity API and SafetyNet Attestation systems, recommending instead standard Android hardware attestation. Rahman notes that apps do not have to take an all-or-nothing approach to integrity checking. Rather than block installation entirely, apps could call on the API only during sensitive actions, issuing a warning there. But not having a Play Store connection can also deprive developers of metrics, allow for installation on incompatible devices (and resulting bad reviews), and, of course, open the door to paid app piracy.

  • hypertown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 months ago

    Good that most apps I use now are open source but for those few that I still get from Aurora Store it might be a death sentence but perhaps this API could be spoofed?

  • heavy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    113
    ·
    2 months ago

    Androids best advantage used to be full control of the device… Those were the days. Then it started with saying they know better than you, then locking you out. Now I’m waiting on a new, better solution.

    Honestly it’s not like native Linux is too far fetched, but there would have to be a big open source common ground device collaboration.

    • EddoWagt@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      2 months ago

      Man I really hate how they stripped your permissions to access the internal and external storage, files can no longer access data from other apps even if you say allow all file access. Also if your phone supports SD cards, you might notice that you don’t have write access to it for some reason on later versions of android. (I really struggled with this with my Galaxy S9 on Lineage), had to use apps that remounted my SD card and what not

    • 0x0@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      So the EU’s been forcing Apple to allow sideloading and Google goes Nah, it’ll be fine?

      • Plopp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Google still allows sideloading, it’s the app developers that can prevent you from installing their app from other sources than Google Play. Sideloading an app works fine on Android if the app’s developer allows it. Apple didn’t allow that even if the app devs wanted it.

        • diffusive@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          You are technically (and possibly legally) correct… But the spirit of the law is allowing customers to install what they want on their devices.

          This move defuses the responsibility to the developers but EU showed in the past that what they care is the spirit of the law and not the law itself…and they are happy to change the laws to make them more adherent to the spirit

          • Plopp@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            2 months ago

            I would be really happy if you’re right, but I sadly think Google’s fine here. As far as I understand it, this particular regulation is to prevent a powerful actor (Google, Apple) to use their monopolistic powers to shut alternative stores down. It’s not about allowing customers to install whatever and however. Google doesn’t shut anyone down with this, so they should be fine. They give the option for app developers to choose if they want to run only on an attested platform - which they sell as a completely optional security feature that nobody has to use.

            My guess is if the EU is going to take this further it would have to be regarding a potential monopoly on the attested platforms on the device. Google only offering their own platform as trusted could potentially be seen as another monopolistic behavior. If we’re lucky.

            • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              2 months ago

              The problem is though that the attested platform only accepts Google play as a store, for this to be truly fair you’d need a way to set a default store setting up and then the attestation API checks that store, but as things currently are it’s giving Google play store an unfair advantage.

  • Lightsong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m pretty new to this sort of stuff. I was planning to buy Google Pixel 8 sometime in November when they usually have sales. And install GrapheneOS. I never used this type of stuff before.

    So will I have some trouble installing some stuff like some of mobile games, banking app, emails, etc? I’m in Canada if this help.

  • Nikls94@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    This explains why I couldn’t install retroarch on the GalaxyS24 Ultra of a friend via apk or google play store. Would not work, but somehow the Galaxy store version worked….

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    2 months ago

    Was always inching closer, but looks like android has fully outstayed its welcome. The revolving door of executives hit its last person with any integrity on the ass on their way out the door.

  • T156@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    133
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    What is a “trustworthy software environment”?

    Does that mean that it will get mad and fail you for having Developer options enabled? Having F-Droid installed? Having it plugged into a computer?

    • FierySpectre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      2 months ago

      According to the dumbfucks making the government application of Belgium (to read official communication) trustworthy means having developer mode disabled.

    • whats_all_this_then@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      65
      ·
      2 months ago

      There’s a bank here that refuses to let you log into their app if you have developer options enabled. Their service was getting much better until that point, but I dropped them completely after that.

      I use developer options to get better screen density on my large ass screen, and to you know…develop apps 🤷‍♂️

      FUCK THESE ASSHOLES WHO THINK THEY CAN TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CAN NOT DO WITH MY PHONE

      • doctortran@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        People seriously need to start pushing back on the word “secure” being used as a blanket excuse for every restriction.

        It feels like every time that word is used, no one is willing to call out the fact that user freedom is equally as important and it’s a lazy, disrespectful developer who won’t take that into account by finding ways to maintain both.

  • FireWire400@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 months ago

    They’re still pissed that people won’t put up with their shitty YouTube app and use Revanced instead, eh?

    • ngwoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s not on Google Play so it doesn’t affect it. I honestly don’t know what the point of this is.

      • FireWire400@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Oh I see, so it only affects modded apks… They probably want to crack down on all those slightly-shady “spotify premium free”-apks.

        • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          No, it only affects vanilla apks where the dev implemented the check. For some reason the dev might forbid to run the app to users that side loaded the app instead of getting it from play store

          Patched/modded apks are unaffected because the check is patched out

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          That seems likely. The question comes down to where the line should be drawn. Allow the apps the be installed and then when the data is eventually reported/found by the app owners to have them file law suits against those who are “stealing” from them, or to not allow the cracked application to be loaded in the first place, which is easily disguised as a security protocol because if an app has code in it that is not originally supposed to be there, it is very possibly a form of malware, which then can hurt the users in the long run or short run if it actually acts malicious and starts doing shit like old school viruses did on PC.

          People want to say we own the device so we should be able to do whatever we want, but blatantly allowing people to install cracked apps with keyloggers onto their phones unintentionally will get them sued, and ultimately hurt how many people stay using their products.

          Imagine every user and password with the site listed was suddenly just accessible by everyone. It would be a hellscape of credit card companies trying to stop accounts because you order 18 pizzas off the dominos app in Georgia, and another 13 sandwiches in the burger king app at the same time in Jersey.

          We need to have the freedom to load apps we trust, but if you look at the standard user base, that’s who they have to make the phones for.

          Could do something like make the users agree to terms by taking the phone into developer mode that makes them non responsible somehow? Might not hold up in court when they get sued though. “All the photos I took on my phone got shared online”

          • TFO Winder@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            I think things are fine the way they are, we don’t need to interfere, unless for profits ofcourse.

          • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            People want to say we own the device so we should be able to do whatever we want, but blatantly allowing people to install cracked apps with keyloggers onto their phones unintentionally will get them sued, and ultimately hurt how many people stay using their products.

            Imagine every user and password with the site listed was suddenly just accessible by everyone. It would be a hellscape of credit card companies trying to stop accounts because you order 18 pizzas off the dominos app in Georgia, and another 13 sandwiches in the burger king app at the same time in Jersey.

            We need to have the freedom to load apps we trust, but if you look at the standard user base, that’s who they have to make the phones for.

            It has been 16 years since Android came on the scene. Why do you think that these things are going to become such a big issue now in 2024 and beyond?

  • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    the google store environment is such a pain, at work we have android based Zebra barcode readers… today when I was sideloading our app one of the devices kept uninstalling it because of google play… what a fucking pain in the ass

    only when intune fully took it over did it stop…

    DONT MAKE ME LIKE INTUNE GOOGLE… JFK

    • doctortran@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Did you turn off Play Protect?

      And yeah, when we set these barcode scanners up, unfortunately it made me appreciate Intune’s Android management tools. I despise Microsoft and Google, but Microsoft won that round of “Who do I hate the least right now?”

      • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I had a workflow that I designed in May and then we had to wait for the fiscal year to turn over before we could get another batch of the new style of devices. Between May and this week, Microsoft and Google must have made some changes because my workflow didn’t work as directed. I hadnt needed to disable Play Protect for that initial workflow. I just waited until the Intune enrollment was clearly done (policies and profiles were completed in Intune) before I did the customization of the device with abs and such, that seemed to make the other devices go according to plan.

      • ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        personally, i wouldn’t trust a third-party created app with my banking details. what’s more, i’ve removed all banking apps from my phone.

        i don’t need to allow access to my finances on the device which is most likely to get pinched out of everything i own. plus google and apple don’t need to know which banks have accounts of mine.

        imo that additional inconvenience to conduct all banking transactions from a browser is worth the candle.

      • Chozo@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’ll be real, I wouldn’t trust a banking app from any third-party storefront to begin with. That’s the sort of app I’d really want to be properly vetted and secured.

        • Cris@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          2 months ago

          If you’re using a custom de-googled rom you don’t have the play store, so this would just gut that functionality :/ same for any other app that decides they need this, which if the past is anything to go on is going to be a ton of apps that really don’t need it

        • Azzu@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          But, there’s no difference in security between using a different storefront? The difference in security depends on the app itself, not where it was downloaded from.

          • Chozo@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            2 months ago

            Assuming the app is legitimate, sure. But unless you can verify the code, yourself, then you’re having to trust that the source you download from hasn’t altered the APK in some way. That’s a pretty big risk for most people when it comes to finance apps.

            • mrvictory1@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              APKs are signed, you can verify the integrity of an APK. If you have a previous version of an app installed, a new version with incorrect signature won’t even install.

            • Azzu@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Yeah but I mean if your bank would offer their app through F-Droid as an addition to Google Play, there is no reason to assume the app suddenly got less secure because of that.

        • QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          The features you miss out on would be direct deposit from checks and app notifications (usually there are a few that you want enabled but are only available through the app).

          • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            Most banks I’ve used allow SMS notifications for things like deposits and purchases.

            The check things is true but I need to use it like less than once a year so eh.

        • kalpol@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Some places are ditching the website and going app-only. Stockpile as an example.

    • owenfromcanada@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      I already have to do this. My office wants everyone to use the MS authenticator app, won’t run on LineageOS. Even if it did, I wouldn’t install it, but still.

      Ended up making them purchase a hardware security key for me instead.

  • cm0002@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 months ago

    which cannot be worked around.

    Well, at least not without root lol

    Root detecting apps to Side loading detecting apps:

    First time?

    • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      “root access is used to bypass security measures!!! We will make it harder to root your phones to keep your data safe” – Google

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I installed FakeStore and set the app’s relevant /data/system/packages.xml properties from Aurora Store to FakeStore (installer="com.android.vending" packageSource="0" installInitiator="com.android.vending", the same as Google Play Store) and rebooted, which was enough to fool the public transport app I’m using. Is this the workaround you’re talking about, or does it require MicroG too?

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yea that sounds about right, really hiding root is straight up magic as is (even though it’s a cat and mouse game lol) and achieving that is 98% of the hard work of hiding the fact an app has been sideloaded. Short of a complete overhaul from Google where they actually try that is.

        Which, if I’m being honest, doesn’t seem like they are. It seems like a rather simple system all things considered. There’s no Playstore specific keys or signatures or file checks or hashs as far as I can tell. Its just a flag and checking if Playstore exists on the device at all

      • Ibuthyr@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I honestly think I’ll be getting a feature phone next time. I’ll keep an old smartphone just for Android Auto and that’s it.

        • nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Some time ago, I looked at kaios devices, and they looked really cool. I only didn’t get one because I need to use some banking apps only available for android

  • vext01@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 months ago

    I have an android DAP (music player) that runs Android 7. It’s a box with a headphone jack (remember those?) and it’s sole purpose is to play offline music from an SD card.

    I side-loaded a few music players, because there’s no way I’m putting my Google password in android 7 in 2024.

    I’d be upset if I couldn’t side load. These DAPs never have an up to date android.

    Let’s hope the music apps I use don’t block sideloading.

    Poweramp won’t. Musicolet?

    • diffusive@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      Likely android 7 would not honor (or even be aware) of this new metadata bit. You’ll be fine 🙂