PRO1, AICP 17.1 (Android S) Official Build.

[Hook 3,043]

2 hours ago, EskeRahn said:

That it was all in vain did not help my mood on the whole thing....

We need a new reaction added....  Hahahaha+ThankYou(for trying) 😉

[EskeRahn 5,471]

5 hours ago, claude0001 said:

I just tested payload-dumper-go. It works well and has no dependencies whatsoever.

Except having to install something else that can execute .go instead of .py ...... 🤣

 

[claude0001 1,352]

1 hour ago, EskeRahn said:

Except having to install something else that can execute .go instead of .py ...... 🤣

Did you even follow the links I posted?!

Both of them give you portable Windows *.exe's (along with builds for other OS) that just run on any random box. No one expects you to compile the code yourself. When I say "no dependencies whatsoever", I mean it. Was actually trying to help ... 🙄

Edited April 5, 2023 by claude0001

[EskeRahn 5,471]

4 hours ago, claude0001 said:

Did you even follow the links I posted?!

yes...

[claude0001 1,352]

22 hours ago, EskeRahn said:

yes...

So why then make fun of my proposal and wrongly suggest it requires you to install a GO interpreter? (Something I am not sure even exists, I believe GO is meant to be a compiled language.)

Edited April 6, 2023 by claude0001

[EskeRahn 5,471]

21 hours ago, claude0001 said:

So why then make fun of my proposal and wrongly suggest it requires you to install a GO interpreter? (Something I am not sure even exists, I believe GO is meant to be a compiled language.)

You are aware that the links you posted were for the source, right?. And yes I did not read all the blah blah so I did not look for links for the binaries, And anyway I never install binaries from random links, so would not have used them had I found them..

[claude0001 1,352]

2 hours ago, EskeRahn said:

[...] the links you posted were for the source [...] all the blah blah [...] And anyway I never install binaries from random links, so would not have used them had I found them..

Eske, I usually wouldn't care. But as you are a moderator on this forum, I would really like to know how I deserve this kind of hostile response to (what I intended to be) a helpful post.

I linked to the github main pages of those two projects. They provide project descriptions, source-code (as you noticed), how-tos, instructional videos, and official (not "random") downloads of binaries from their release branches. I think that is a pretty transparent and widely accepted way to link to an external open-source project. None of the *.exe's need to be "installed" by the way - they run right from the *.zip without Administrator privilege.  

If you don't like those solutions - fine. If you refuse to run stuff from the Internet in general (excpect for Python, git, and LineageOS, it seems) - fine. Still, I think my post might be of interest to others, and does make things easier for a lot of people who just-want-to-extract-that-payload.bin. That running the lineage extract.py-tool was (too) complicated was precisely the thing you were warning people about. So why this "wtf" response to my post?

Again: You are moderating this forum! Why come down on me like that? What is the matter? 

Happy Easter anyway.

Edited April 7, 2023 by claude0001

[EskeRahn 5,471]

8 minutes ago, claude0001 said:

Again: You are moderating this forum! Why come down on me like that? What is the matter? 

Did I in any way say that people should not do what you suggested?

I even did follow one of your links for a recipe and fetched the source,

There are zero control that any code and link in the text on github are related, so yeah I see that as random links, obvious less random that what a google search can throw at you, but still unsafe. That Is why I needed to compile any source, that as open source is much less likely to be dirty than linked binaries..

 

[Rob. S. 1,664]

@EskeRahn I value you highly for all that you've done and you're still doing here, but I think in this case @claude0001 is right and you are wrong. Of course your statements do not literally say that people should not install stuff, but with your moderator authority here your rejection of those links amounts to a bit more than just your humble opinion. Now, those links are what is standard in open source software, an active github project including binaries built by the maintainer. I'm all for a bit of paranoia when it comes to installing foreign software, but in all earnest I think those .exe's @claude0001 linked to are less problematic to install than those operating systems from Redmond to begin with.

[EskeRahn 5,471]

11 hours ago, Rob. S. said:

@EskeRahn I value you highly for all that you've done and you're still doing here, but I think in this case @claude0001 is right and you are wrong. Of course your statements do not literally say that people should not install stuff, but with your moderator authority here your rejection of those links amounts to a bit more than just your humble opinion. Now, those links are what is standard in open source software, an active github project including binaries built by the maintainer. I'm all for a bit of paranoia when it comes to installing foreign software, but in all earnest I think those .exe's @claude0001 linked to are less problematic to install than those operating systems from Redmond to begin with.

Well assuming that the ones that's behind the project are good people you are both absolutely right. But frankly how could we assume this? Posting something useful is the best vector to distribute any malware...

For large enterprises (like the one in Redmond you mentions), they put their brand value at risk if they publish stuff with hidden malware. (And yes I know many would say that the whole Windows system fills the definition of malware, but that is another discussion...)

So long story short: I'm all for open source, but I would advice anyone to fetch and compile the source rather than fetching binaries, unless they got good reasons to trust the people behind the project.

And though I'm a moderator, My opinions comes with no more weight than the the weight of my other comments. Just like anyone else in here. And sure I'm a bit more paranoid than most - and that come with the knowledge of what have hit others after over forty years in computers...

[claude0001 1,352]

On 4/10/2023 at 8:48 AM, EskeRahn said:

So long story short: I'm all for open source, but I would advice anyone to fetch and compile the source rather than fetching binaries, unless they got good reasons to trust the people behind the project.

Sorry, but this does not make sense to me.

For me, this entire discussion started with you trying to fix a broken build of AICP precisely without recompiling its source (as others would have done). Rather, you tried to substitute-in the boot partition from another build in binary form, hoping that would magically fix things. Do you personally know the AICP developers? For the Pro1? I do not think so. You simply trust that project because it's open-source and others trust it. That "toss-salt-over-your-shoulder-and-hope" approach is quite common. And we both use it. Strangely, that seems to be precisely what you criticize with me advertising those payload-extractor tools - even though I explicitly don't link directly to the *.exe's, but let anyone choose whether they trust the binaries or not ...

Again, I feel you wrongly received my initial post as a "critique" of your how-to about extract.py. It wasn't. I simply wanted to add the comment that things can be much simpler if you are ready to recur to third-party tools outside the lineage SDK (although I use the latter myself all the time). 

Edited April 11, 2023 by claude0001

[EskeRahn 5,471]

15 hours ago, claude0001 said:

Sorry, but this does not make sense to me.

There is a HUGE difference between what I will install on a test phone, and what I will install on my production pc.

Had it been an apk to do the unpacking on the device I was about flash anyway, it would have been a viable option.

[benoitjeffrey 66]

After a long sleep my pro1 has finally revived. That's sad to come back to see that there is no more AICP.

Does TDM still come here? maybe he could take a look at it, at least to get it on rails at start?

[Hook 3,043]

@tdmhasn't been here since March of 2022, so while it doesn't hurt to send out the call with the mention I just made, I'm not sure we'll get an answer.

[EskeRahn 5,471]

Has anyone checked if AICP is actually working again?

I see a rather large changelog here a month ago
https://dwnld.aicp-rom.com/device/pro1/WEEKLY/aicp_pro1_s-17.1-WEEKLY-20231011.zip.html
but see no mention on a going forward on the base android version again

Towards the bottom I see

149b0ef Merge "Track our own fork for CVE-2023-4863" into s12.1

So that seems to indicate that it is again on something 12.1 based?? - unless their whole s12.1 is borked and actually is an r11.x.....

[benoitjeffrey 66]

On 11/11/2023 at 10:42 AM, EskeRahn said:

Has anyone checked if AICP is actually working again?

I see a rather large changelog here a month ago
https://dwnld.aicp-rom.com/device/pro1/WEEKLY/aicp_pro1_s-17.1-WEEKLY-20231011.zip.html
but see no mention on a going forward on the base android version again

Towards the bottom I see

149b0ef Merge "Track our own fork for CVE-2023-4863" into s12.1

So that seems to indicate that it is again on something 12.1 based?? - unless their whole s12.1 is borked and actually is an r11.x.....

I'll test it as soon as I get a safety backup of a working LOS rom (without camera bug)

I really miss all the settings AICP adds to their roms so it will be a pleasure to test it back.

[benoitjeffrey 66]

after some tests, it's the same boot loop as before.

recovery say its android 12.