Show HN: Autonomous root for Tcl Android TV via CVE-2022-22706 | Hacker News Reader

Show HN: Autonomous root for Tcl Android TV via CVE-2022-22706

gitlab.com

59 pointst20n19 comments

I should just be able to have root on the TV that I bought and paid for and own.

Same would apply to mobile phones and tablets and yet a lot of people here defend mega corps for locking them down

It's an odd state of the world but here I am defending unrooted phones. Rootable phones mean rootkitable phones, and considering how many bank accounts are now accessible via touches and swipes, phones that are rootkitable do present a big financial danger.

Then again, we all still use browsers on rootable PCs, where the browser extension protection scheme is Google (hah) and Firefox (double hah) saying "Just trust us, users!".

That's not how it works, though. There's still a root-level UID 0 user identity on non-rootable Android phones, it's just not accessible to you, it's only accessible to manufacturers and hackers. Both rootable and non-rootable phones can be rootkitted.

Heaven forbid the financial system should be inconvenienced. Nevermind that downstream of all the technologies to lockdown finance are the tools to enable an oligarchic tyranny.

Agreed. But in the meantime this type of hacking is entirely legal under DMCA, that's actually quite clear.

Though it would be nice if it didn't require such work.

> this type of hacking is entirely legal under DMCA, that's actually quite clear.

Woah! I had no idea. Is that also true in the US? Do you have some sort of authoritative source?

Yes I mean the US, the DMCA is a US law. You can google it but "The specific legal source that allows you to hack or jailbreak your own smart TV is the U.S. Copyright Office's Triennial Section 1201 Exemptions."

I've been hearing that AI is a security armageddon, it's about time we realized that it's the means for a rebirth of the ancient art of rooting sleazy devices.

I bet AI could help us to keep the updates rooted, too. To lock out the manufacturers and to update some IoT garbage to work locally. And to port some drivers.

Always good to see progress towards people getting to own their own hardware.

> MIT for all original code. The kernel excerpt (kernel/mem.c) retains its GPL-2.0 license and copyright notices.

One small tweak needed here.

GPL 2.0? Has this bit:

> You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

"under the terms of [this License]."

It is viral. Copying the code, and distributing it, as done here, means that GPL 2.0 is meant to apply to everything. The only carveout, is if your code didn't depend on the kernel excerpt at all. But... It does.

> If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission.

There are many permissively-licensed source files in the Linux kernel. You are mistaken if you believe those files cannot be distributed independently and included in other permissively-licensed or closed works. The viral part applies when distributing the combined work, so the vendor can't say "some files are MIT so tough luck"; all sources must be made available for the binary you receive if any source is GPL-licensed.

In this particular case it is not viral. All MIT-licensed code can be "licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under" GPL 2. The point of the MIT license is that it can be freely relicensed.

You actually have more rights with that file than with the others; the GPL doesn't restrict non-GPL'd code distributed with it, it requires that that code be licensed in a way that allows it to be distributed under GPL 2. For example, I myself can take this code and redistribute the entire thing under GPL 2 without an exception for ./kernel/mem.c (as long as I include any acknowledgement required by MIT, such as a copy of the MIT license and a copyright notice.)

You're overcomplicating things and (maybe accidentally) spreading FUD. MIT was specifically designed to be compatible with anything from copyleft to proprietary.

MIT is relicensed as GPL, under the GPL 2.0. By including it as part of the whole, the whole becomes GPL.

And... It is surprising to me, that anyone can think otherwise, 2 decades on from D-Link [0].

> The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor the right to copy, distribute and modify the software, on the condition that the software is again distributed under the very conditions of the GPL

Which is something you start to say, and then say it isn't the case.

The whole just becomes GPL v2. That's the virality.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20130426055334/http://www.jbb.de...

When I was a kid, hacking meant breaking into others' systems, I'd not believe if you told me that one day we'd use security vulnerabilities to control products we own and paid for..

You were a kid in a parallel universe then. Hacking always meant creative, unconventional and most importantly curious use of technology. The wider public just did not know or understand that.

Cracking was the term for that. It's an honest misconception though.

We don't exactly specialize in PR.

on Hacker News?

I have a TCL Android TV, and just adb access, not root, allowed me to change the default launcher, which makes the home screen really quite beautiful - mostly a pretty background and just the apps I want; and no fucking ads.

I don't feel the need for root, but I also don't want to brick our main TV.

Once it becomes the secondary, though, and once the lineageOS equivalents for TVs start coming out, I'll be tinkering.

If it really is still on "Android 11 / Linux 4.4" as per the document, there's probably tons of root exploits

Reply on news.ycombinator.com