# Unlocked Boot Loader?



## KevTN (Jun 13, 2011)

I love to flash rooms, of who here doesn't. I have tried to understand the pros and cons for an end user like myself to have unlocked boot loader?


----------



## Waffleninja (Sep 3, 2011)

KevTN said:


> I love to flash rooms, of who here doesn't. I have tried to understand the pros and cons for an end user like myself to have unlocked boot loader?


With an unlocked bootloader, you don't have to SBF to get to a different firmware. You can install any custom ROM on any firmware.


----------



## Goose306 (Sep 12, 2011)

It allows the replacing of the kernel, whereas a locked bootloader does not -

- not to get too technical, but the kernel is essentially the software that interfaces directly between the UI and the base hardware. With a locked bootloader, devs are able to circumvent it a bit using 2nd-init which allows the flashing of whole new system files. However, the kernel, which is directly correlated, is not changeable. It thus impedes development on the device. For a ROM to truly feel like a "rom" as its designed the kernel needs to be swappable because that allows changes to base hardware values and UI interface.

Essentially -

Locked bootloader = bad for development
Unlocked bootloader = good for development

Unlocked bootloader can also increase a device's lifespan as devs can then replace the kernel to the new OS kernel even if there is no official release - something that is coming up on the DX since ICS is coming out and the looks of getting an official OTA ICS is fairly slim.

EDIT: Forgot the other part of your question, the cons. There really isn't, at least for the end user. Replacing a kernel can be a slightly more risky job, because if something gets mussed up in the process its not as simple as re-SBFing. But this is really up to the end user, there is no requirement to say you have to use the open bootloader to its full form. Corps such as Verizon and Motorola see unlocked bootloaders as a liability issue probably, for uneducated peoples trying to flash and hard-bricking their phones, and also because it extends the life of the device it is undesirable as it can negate the want/need for an upgrade. However, it's really against the nature of Android as a whole to have a locked-down device on an open-source platform. Pretty silly. :/


----------



## KevTN (Jun 13, 2011)

Thanks for the information. So is the nexus going to be unlocked? I appreciate the information!


----------



## TwinShadow (Oct 17, 2011)

Any Nexus device is a Google Experience device, meaning their bootloaders will always be unlocked regardless.

Motorola and Verizon are the only companies to actively lock the bootloaders. Why is rather a mystery.. HTC and Samsung don't do that. I don't believe LG does either. So why is it just Motorola? Who knows... its anyone's guess really.

[edit] I should clarify about Moto and Verizon. I don't look at other companies right now being that I am a Verizon customer, but it is between Moto and Verizon only to lock the bootloaders. HTC and Samsung on Verizon are unlocked. That's before I start any confusion.

Regarding ICS on the Droid X, CM9 is in the works, and cvpcs is making attempts apparently. Whether or not it'll be successful is another matter entirely. The MIUI with ICS framework is a big step forward, but I don't believe a full port of a pure ICS AOSP will be possible on any Motorola device (except the Droid 1 (in other words, OG Droid)) due to that locked bootloader.


----------



## -TSON- (Jul 24, 2011)

Nearly every device released has a locked bootloader. The difference here is that Moto goes the whole nine yards and ENCRYPTS the bootloader with high-end technology that would take a normal computer a couple centuries to crack, and THAT's causing all of these problems.


----------



## TwinShadow (Oct 17, 2011)

And here I was under the impression that Samsung and HTC offered unlocking methods. =P Which they do, usually for select phones, but most of the forums here that I see for both manufacturers are Exploitable for the phones, and thus, usually would indicate the bootloader can be unlocked. Unlike Motorola phones.


----------



## KevTN (Jun 13, 2011)

Ahhhh....Good information...Thanks folks I appreciate it!


----------



## 209pcs (Nov 28, 2011)

I may be reading it wrong, but according to a Motorola blog entry from October 24 2011 they "plan to offer an unlockable/relockable bootloader....in future software releases starting later this year, where operator and channel partners will allow it.". It is well understood that Motorola's reasoning for locking the bootloaders in the first place was carrier's concern for security -/). I guess enough people made enough noise, because their MOTODEV software images page has a statement which seems promising:



> We understand the operator requirement for security to the end user, and will look to strike a balance between such concerns and _the need to support developer communities in using these products as a development platform_. (*emphasis mine*)


The dev page has software images and commands for flashing and unlocking the Xoom, so if the quoted statement holds true then we should have the same for other Motorola devices as well.

Motorola Blog
http://www.motorola.com/blog/2011/10/24/ice-cream-and-bootloaders-and-motorola-%E2%80%93-oh-my/.

MOTODEV Device Software Images page
http://developer.motorola.com/products/software/


----------



## jonwgee (Jun 6, 2011)

209, we'll believe that when we see it from Moto......


----------



## luigi90210 (Sep 5, 2011)

jonwgee said:


> 209, we'll believe that when we see it from Moto......


it wont happen unless someone from motorola leaks it for the droid x


----------



## TwinShadow (Oct 17, 2011)

209pcs said:


> I may be reading it wrong, but according to a Motorola blog entry from October 24 2011 they "plan to offer an unlockable/relockable bootloader....in future software releases starting later this year, where operator and channel partners will allow it.". It is well understood that Motorola's reasoning for locking the bootloaders in the first place was carrier's concern for security -/).


I have doubts on the security bit. If this was the case, why are HTC and Samsung phones on Verizon unlocked? Or have the ability to be unlocked? There's something between Motorola and Verizon, that I have no doubt over.


----------



## luigi90210 (Sep 5, 2011)

TwinShadow said:


> I have doubts on the security bit. If this was the case, why are HTC and Samsung phones on Verizon unlocked? Or have the ability to be unlocked? There's something between Motorola and Verizon, that I have no doubt over.


they are not unlocked, they are hacked to be unlocked, there is a difference
people just cant hack motorola bootloaders thats all


----------



## blackadept (Jun 13, 2011)

Just to clarify some stuff; most every none Google phone comes with a locked bootloader. The difference is in how they are locked/ how difficult it is to circumvent it/ and the method of locking.

HTC uses s-on for example, which stands for secuflag. The hboot uses the s-on to check the signature of flashed or fastbooted items. This protects the NAND partition of the phone and prevents the flashing of kernels in this case. Motorola on the other hand uses a slightly similar approach to the signature security and check. However, Motorola goes further with it as they encrypt said bootloader with an RSA 2048 encryption scheme as well as an e-fuse (I hate you ibm). When the htc hboot is cracked it basically just bypasses the signature checking, flagging it s-off, which then let's you flash and fastboot whatever. Being that it is not encrypted it is often just a matter of finding the right bytes to change the flag, tho not always....and def not always easy either mind you. Htc also offers to unlock your phone via their website and your serial number, which is what moto says they will do but doubtfully ever will as moto are nothing but liars. At the same rate even with htc, they only offer a software s off sometimes, where as the cracked versions are true s off, so even with HTC there is a difference. To crack the moto you need a rediculous amount of computer power and time .... And smarts..... Or you need a favor from the baby jesus.. or the encryption key from moto lol (with the last bring the least likely to happen).

As for what the kernel does, It affects the functionality of the phone. By tweaking or creating a new kernel you can alter how the phones hardware works. For example: overclocking, undervolting, ext functionality, sound, video, etc... Are all controlled in part atleast by the kernel. So even if the software or os is wanting the hardware to do something, it has to be told it can or can't by the kernel, so changing the kernel can open up a lot more functionality possibly.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW


----------



## luigi90210 (Sep 5, 2011)

blackadept said:


> Just to clarify some stuff; most every none Google phone comes with a locked bootloader. The difference is in how they are locked/ how difficult it is to circumvent it/ and the method of locking.
> 
> HTC uses s-on for example, which stands for secuflag. The hboot uses the s-on to check the signature of flashed or fastbooted items. This protects the NAND partition of the phone and prevents the flashing of kernels in this case. Motorola on the other hand uses a slightly similar approach to the signature security and check. However, Motorola goes further with it as they encrypt said bootloader with an RSA 2048 encryption scheme as well as an e-fuse (I hate you ibm). When the htc hboot is cracked it basically just bypasses the signature checking, flagging it s-off, which then let's you flash and fastboot whatever. Being that it is not encrypted it is often just a matter of finding the right bytes to change the flag, tho not always....and def not always easy either mind you. Htc also offers to unlock your phone via their website and your serial number, which is what moto says they will do but doubtfully ever will as moto are nothing but liars. At the same rate even with htc, they only offer a software s off sometimes, where as the cracked versions are true s off, so even with HTC there is a difference. To crack the moto you need a rediculous amount of computer power and time .... And smarts..... Or you need a favor from the baby jesus.. or the encryption key from moto lol (with the last bring the least likely to happen).
> 
> ...


not only that but it allows the life of the device to be extended well after EOL, the OG droid is still pumping out roms and that has an unlocked bootloader, the tmobile G1 is running ICS and that has an unlocked bootloader


----------



## KevTN (Jun 13, 2011)

Ok this is begining to make sense. Thanks....One last question at least for now...(?) You have an unlocked bootloader and screw up and boot loop or worse "brick" the phone. Can you SBF at that time? What is the safety net if you screw up?

Thanks


----------



## evolution (Oct 6, 2011)

I am speaking from a thunderbolt point of view but as far as I can see you can't actually brick this phone and trust me I've flashed some stupid things. I can always get it back through hboot with no need to hook anything to a pc, just pull the battery, boot to bootloader, boot recovery, and restore or flash another working rom from the SD card.

Sent from my HTC Mecha using Tapatalk


----------



## KevTN (Jun 13, 2011)

Thanks you folks gave me a better understanding.... One of the reasons I love it here!!


----------



## TwinShadow (Oct 17, 2011)

luigi90210 said:


> they are not unlocked, they are hacked to be unlocked, there is a difference
> people just cant hack motorola bootloaders thats all


Oh, I see, I guess that makes sense now.


----------



## blackadept (Jun 13, 2011)

If you semi bricked it you would have to use a factory recovery leak that includes a bootloader overwrite/upgrade, assuming you mean messing up The phone and bootloader and not a true brick. Most sbfs do include this so it would more than likely rectify that. Sbf is just an archive type comprised of smaller file subsets, smgs, with each comprising certain aspects of the phone, I.e. 39 = firmware, which is why different parts of the sbf take longer then others. So assuming you use one that overwrites the bootloader partition it would fix a corrupt bootloader, assuming you haven't gone completely brick. It is similar for all phones however they use different methods, htc = RUU, Samsung = tarballs used by Odin or heimdall, etc.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW


----------

