feat: Add `Spoof app signature` patch #5158

MarkusTieger · 2025-06-10T22:24:59Z

Some custom roms have a patch, that adds a "FAKE_PACKAGE_SIGNATURE" permission, which allows the app to be seen with an other signature by other apps.
It is used for example by MicroG (to pretend to be GooglePlayServices).

Not every custom rom has it by default, and some only with the microg signature hardcoded. If it is supported though, I think its a better alternative to the "Mount install".

oSumAtrIX · 2025-06-11T04:56:40Z

By patch you can read the app manifest forvm the signature. Please try that

MarkusTieger · 2025-06-11T11:15:35Z

By patch you can read the app manifest forvm thwee signature. Please try that

Only in signature version below 3 (there are 4 different versions how to sign an apk by now). Try to look into the youtube.apk, you will notice no certs in META-INF (it uses version 3)

If I had missed something, let me know

Site note: the source stamp which exists in the apk root is something entirely different than the signer certificate

oSumAtrIX · 2025-06-11T11:21:41Z

In this case add a patch option to manually input the signature for the patch

MarkusTieger · 2025-06-11T11:34:34Z

In this case add a patch option to manually input the signature for the patch

In addition or as replacement?

oSumAtrIX · 2025-06-11T12:44:48Z

I dont know what you mean by in addition but if v4 cant be obtained from inside a patch, you can still ask user to manually input it in a patch option

patches/src/main/kotlin/app/revanced/patches/all/misc/spoof/SignatureSpoofPatch.kt

patches/src/main/kotlin/app/revanced/patches/all/misc/spoof/BaseSignatureSpoofPatch.kt

patches/src/main/kotlin/app/revanced/patches/all/misc/spoof/SignatureSpoofPatch.kt

LisoUseInAIKyrios · 2025-06-28T07:10:36Z

Yes a fix is needed.

LisoUseInAIKyrios · 2025-06-28T07:38:08Z

It might be proguard stripping away the library.

Try running a full release (proguard is run there) and the issue may show up with using CLI tools.

MarkusTieger · 2025-06-28T15:40:46Z

It might be proguard stripping away the library.

Try running a full release (proguard is run there) and the issue may show up with using CLI tools.

It probably doesn't get shaded in and only works, because the exact same lib is present in https://github.com/ReVanced/revanced-library, used by revanced-cli.
Revanced Manager also uses "revanced-library", but there it probably hasn't the same package name, because proguard.

MarkusTieger · 2025-06-28T15:47:49Z

It might be proguard stripping away the library.

Try running a full release (proguard is run there) and the issue may show up with using CLI tools.

Should I try to shade the dependency in or should I rather declare "apksig" as dependency that has to be present unobfuscated all the time?

LisoUseInAIKyrios · 2025-06-28T15:51:12Z

@oSumAtrIX what do you think?

oSumAtrIX · 2025-06-28T16:17:24Z

patches/src/main/kotlin/app/revanced/patches/all/misc/spoof/SignatureSpoofPatch.kt

+    } catch (_: IOException) {
+    } catch (_: InvalidPathException) {
+    } catch (_: ApkFormatException) {
+    } catch (_: NoSuchAlgorithmException) {
+    } catch (_: IllegalArgumentException) {}


Shouldve just used runCatching { }

oSumAtrIX · 2025-06-28T16:17:41Z

patches/src/main/kotlin/app/revanced/patches/all/misc/spoof/SignatureSpoofPatch.kt

+            val manifest = document.getNode("manifest") as Element
+
+            val fakeSignaturePermission = document.createElement("uses-permission")
+            fakeSignaturePermission.setAttribute("android:name", "android.permission.FAKE_PACKAGE_SIGNATURE")


.apply shouldve been used

oSumAtrIX · 2025-06-28T16:17:56Z

patches/src/main/kotlin/app/revanced/patches/all/misc/spoof/SignatureSpoofPatch.kt

+
+            val fakeSignaturePermission = document.createElement("uses-permission")
+            fakeSignaturePermission.setAttribute("android:name", "android.permission.FAKE_PACKAGE_SIGNATURE")
+            manifest.appendChild(fakeSignaturePermission)


.let(manifest::appendChild) shouldve been used

oSumAtrIX · 2025-06-28T16:18:18Z

patches/src/main/kotlin/app/revanced/patches/all/misc/spoof/SignatureSpoofPatch.kt

+                val child = document.createElement("application")
+                manifest.appendChild(child)
+                child


.also(manifest::appendChild) shouldve been used

oSumAtrIX · 2025-06-28T16:18:32Z

patches/src/main/kotlin/app/revanced/patches/all/misc/spoof/SignatureSpoofPatch.kt

+            val fakeSignatureMetadata = document.createElement("meta-data")
+            fakeSignatureMetadata.setAttribute("android:name", "fake-signature")
+            fakeSignatureMetadata.setAttribute("android:value", optionToSignature(signature))
+            application.appendChild(fakeSignatureMetadata)


apply and let shouldve been used here

oSumAtrIX · 2025-06-28T16:18:44Z

patches/src/main/kotlin/app/revanced/patches/all/misc/spoof/SignatureSpoofPatch.kt

+    }
+}
+
+internal fun optionToSignature(signature: String?): String? {


Shouldve been private

LisoUseInAIKyrios · 2025-06-28T16:19:32Z

I meant, what do you think about the apksig issue with Manager.

oSumAtrIX · 2025-06-28T16:19:36Z

patches/src/main/kotlin/app/revanced/patches/all/misc/spoof/SignatureSpoofPatch.kt

+    }
+}
+
+internal fun optionToSignature(signature: String?): String? {


Validator should just check if input is a valid path, because a path is never a signature, not sure what is going on here.

oSumAtrIX · 2025-06-28T16:20:29Z

I meant, what do you think about the apksig issue with Manager.

https://github.com/ReVanced/revanced-patches/pull/5158/files#diff-ce28239b6580555cc53f4c64582939f753c84d0bb42e44dd1a601a6fa6829a0dR19

This line shades apksig into the patches and thus is accessible from the patches classloader.

oSumAtrIX · 2025-06-28T16:21:34Z

I don't understand how it can be class not found

LisoUseInAIKyrios · 2025-06-28T16:22:11Z

Is proguard stripping away the library during release?

oSumAtrIX · 2025-06-28T16:52:38Z

The dependency is added to the gradle module where the java plugin is applied, not the android plugin, so I don't think proguard strips it away. Check the .dex file classes

MarkusTieger · 2025-06-28T17:02:04Z

The dependency is added to the gradle module where the java plugin is applied, not the android plugin, so I don't think proguard strips it away. Check the .dex file classes

There are no dependencies in patches/build/revanced/classes.dex, haven't been able to open the .rvp file.
It seems to be, again, that the dependency isn't shaded in. Also by default, the "java" plugin doesn't shade dependencies.

oSumAtrIX · 2025-06-28T17:23:04Z

Run the buildAndroid task, the final rvp has the dex in it

MarkusTieger · 2025-06-28T17:34:26Z

Run the buildAndroid task, the final rvp has the dex in it

Nope, the "rvp" from my build, nor the one from the release contains the dependency (or dependencies at all)

oSumAtrIX · 2025-06-28T17:39:10Z

Check the rvp file for .class files

MarkusTieger · 2025-06-28T18:31:52Z

Check the rvp file for .class files

Nope, not in the classes.dex and also not as .class files.

Steps to reproduce my results:

./gradlew :patches:buildAndroid
cd patches/build/libs
mkdir extracted
unzip patches-<version>.rvp -d extracted
cd extracted
Notice no dependencies as .class files
Open the classes.dex with jadx
Notice, only "app.revanced.*" packages

kitadai31 · 2025-06-28T18:39:08Z

A patches jar is not a fat jar, so it is not containing the classes from dependencies jar.
For this reason, afaik ReVanced Patches would not normally be able to use external libraries.

The reason that this patch is currently working on the ReVanced CLI is due to the coincidence that the ReVanced CLI depends on apksig.

ReVanced Manager also depends on apksig, but unlike ReVanced CLI, ProGuard shrinks and obfuscates the apksig library except for "internal" package.
https://github.com/ReVanced/revanced-manager/blob/875ce6439d7692d6678c0fd3173452fbff162137/android/app/proguard-rules.pro#L7
Therefore, apksig library cannot be used from patches on the ReVanced Manager.

MarkusTieger · 2025-06-28T18:56:49Z

It might be proguard stripping away the library.
Try running a full release (proguard is run there) and the issue may show up with using CLI tools.

Should I try to shade the dependency in or should I rather declare "apksig" as dependency that has to be present unobfuscated all the time?

Now to this question again

I would prefer the second option. It is present anyway, it just has to be removed from every project (because then it would be duplicate) and added to the "revanced-patcher" as dependency, making it available to the patches as well as the cli and manager. It then also needs to be whitelisted in the revanced-manager in the proguard rules.

oSumAtrIX · 2025-06-28T19:30:47Z

A patches jar is not a fat jar, so it is not containing the classes from dependencies jar. For this reason, afaik ReVanced Patches would not normally be able to use external libraries.

The reason that this patch is currently working on the ReVanced CLI is due to the coincidence that the ReVanced CLI depends on apksig.

ReVanced Manager also depends on apksig, but unlike ReVanced CLI, ProGuard shrinks and obfuscates the apksig library except for "internal" package. ReVanced/revanced-manager@875ce64/android/app/proguard-rules.pro#L7 Therefore, apksig library cannot be used from patches on the ReVanced Manager.

Patches is using the java plugin:

https://github.com/ReVanced/revanced-patches-gradle-plugin/blob/dev/src/main/kotlin/app/revanced/patches/gradle/PatchesPlugin.kt#L80

So all dependencies are shaded into the JAR.

oSumAtrIX · 2025-06-28T19:34:52Z

A patches jar is not a fat jar, so it is not containing the classes from dependencies jar.

I am not sure, but applying the shadow plugin should make patches contain all dependencies. This can be added to the patches gradle plugin. However, how are duplicate classes handled? If its shaded into patches jar and cli also has it, I am not sure if any issues would occur.

MarkusTieger · 2025-06-28T19:58:57Z

A patches jar is not a fat jar, so it is not containing the classes from dependencies jar. For this reason, afaik ReVanced Patches would not normally be able to use external libraries.
The reason that this patch is currently working on the ReVanced CLI is due to the coincidence that the ReVanced CLI depends on apksig.
ReVanced Manager also depends on apksig, but unlike ReVanced CLI, ProGuard shrinks and obfuscates the apksig library except for "internal" package. ReVanced/revanced-manager@875ce64/android/app/proguard-rules.pro#L7 Therefore, apksig library cannot be used from patches on the ReVanced Manager.

Patches is using the java plugin:

https://github.com/ReVanced/revanced-patches-gradle-plugin/blob/dev/src/main/kotlin/app/revanced/patches/gradle/PatchesPlugin.kt#L80

So all dependencies are shaded into the JAR.

The java plugin doesn't shade dependencies. Thats why the "shadow" plugin exists.

MarkusTieger · 2025-06-28T21:37:10Z

It might be proguard stripping away the library.
Try running a full release (proguard is run there) and the issue may show up with using CLI tools.

Should I try to shade the dependency in or should I rather declare "apksig" as dependency that has to be present unobfuscated all the time?

Now to this question again

I would prefer the second option. It is present anyway, it just has to be removed from every project (because then it would be duplicate) and added to the "revanced-patcher" as dependency, making it available to the patches as well as the cli and manager. It then also needs to be whitelisted in the revanced-manager in the proguard rules.

Now it would be great if this question could be answered

LisoUseInAIKyrios · 2025-06-28T21:42:04Z

A patches jar is not a fat jar, so it is not containing the classes from dependencies jar.

I am not sure, but applying the shadow plugin should make patches contain all dependencies. This can be added to the patches gradle plugin. However, how are duplicate classes handled? If its shaded into patches jar and cli also has it, I am not sure if any issues would occur.

Why not try using shadow plugin, and if it works with CLI then go with that.

MarkusTieger · 2025-06-28T21:43:16Z

A patches jar is not a fat jar, so it is not containing the classes from dependencies jar.

I am not sure, but applying the shadow plugin should make patches contain all dependencies. This can be added to the patches gradle plugin. However, how are duplicate classes handled? If its shaded into patches jar and cli also has it, I am not sure if any issues would occur.

Why not try using shadow plugin, and if it works with CLI then go with that.

Ok, then with shadow.

MarkusTieger force-pushed the spoof_signature branch 2 times, most recently from 793c0f2 to b112417 Compare June 11, 2025 13:53

MarkusTieger changed the title ~~Added spoof signature patch for youtube~~ Added spoof signature patch Jun 11, 2025

MarkusTieger changed the base branch from main to dev June 11, 2025 14:47

MarkusTieger changed the title ~~Added spoof signature patch~~ feat: Added spoof signature patch Jun 11, 2025

Nuckyz changed the title ~~feat: Added spoof signature patch~~ feat: Add Spoof signature patch Jun 11, 2025

Nuckyz changed the title ~~feat: Add Spoof signature patch~~ feat: Add spoof signature patch Jun 11, 2025

LisoUseInAIKyrios reviewed Jun 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

patches/src/main/kotlin/app/revanced/patches/all/misc/spoof/SignatureSpoofPatch.kt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

LisoUseInAIKyrios changed the title ~~feat: Add spoof signature patch~~ feat: Add Spoof app signature patch Jun 12, 2025

oSumAtrIX reviewed Jun 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

patches/src/main/kotlin/app/revanced/patches/all/misc/spoof/SignatureSpoofPatch.kt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

MarkusTieger force-pushed the spoof_signature branch 2 times, most recently from e0407aa to 8752d06 Compare June 12, 2025 20:09

MarkusTieger requested a review from oSumAtrIX June 12, 2025 20:09

LisoUseInAIKyrios reviewed Jun 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

patches/src/main/kotlin/app/revanced/patches/all/misc/spoof/SignatureSpoofPatch.kt Show resolved Hide resolved

LisoUseInAIKyrios reviewed Jun 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

oSumAtrIX reviewed Jun 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

patches/src/main/kotlin/app/revanced/patches/all/misc/spoof/SignatureSpoofPatch.kt Show resolved Hide resolved

oSumAtrIX reviewed Jun 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

patches/src/main/kotlin/app/revanced/patches/all/misc/spoof/SignatureSpoofPatch.kt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

MarkusTieger force-pushed the spoof_signature branch from 8752d06 to dde4931 Compare June 13, 2025 18:07

MarkusTieger requested review from LisoUseInAIKyrios and oSumAtrIX June 13, 2025 18:07

LisoUseInAIKyrios reviewed Jun 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

patches/src/main/kotlin/app/revanced/patches/all/misc/spoof/SignatureSpoofPatch.kt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Added Spoof app signature patch

708a867

MarkusTieger force-pushed the spoof_signature branch from dde4931 to 708a867 Compare June 13, 2025 18:36

MarkusTieger requested a review from LisoUseInAIKyrios June 13, 2025 18:41

LisoUseInAIKyrios approved these changes Jun 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

oSumAtrIX reviewed Jun 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

Uh oh!

feat: Add Spoof app signature patch #5158

feat: Add Spoof app signature patch #5158

Conversation

MarkusTieger commented Jun 10, 2025 • edited by LisoUseInAIKyrios Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

oSumAtrIX commented Jun 11, 2025

Uh oh!

MarkusTieger commented Jun 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

oSumAtrIX commented Jun 11, 2025

Uh oh!

MarkusTieger commented Jun 11, 2025

Uh oh!

oSumAtrIX commented Jun 11, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

LisoUseInAIKyrios commented Jun 28, 2025

Uh oh!

LisoUseInAIKyrios commented Jun 28, 2025

Uh oh!

MarkusTieger commented Jun 28, 2025

Uh oh!

MarkusTieger commented Jun 28, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

LisoUseInAIKyrios commented Jun 28, 2025

Uh oh!

oSumAtrIX Jun 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

oSumAtrIX Jun 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

oSumAtrIX Jun 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

oSumAtrIX Jun 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

oSumAtrIX Jun 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

oSumAtrIX Jun 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

LisoUseInAIKyrios commented Jun 28, 2025

Uh oh!

oSumAtrIX Jun 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

oSumAtrIX commented Jun 28, 2025

Uh oh!

oSumAtrIX commented Jun 28, 2025

Uh oh!

LisoUseInAIKyrios commented Jun 28, 2025

Uh oh!

oSumAtrIX commented Jun 28, 2025

Uh oh!

MarkusTieger commented Jun 28, 2025

Uh oh!

oSumAtrIX commented Jun 28, 2025

Uh oh!

MarkusTieger commented Jun 28, 2025

Uh oh!

oSumAtrIX commented Jun 28, 2025

Uh oh!

MarkusTieger commented Jun 28, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

feat: Add `Spoof app signature` patch #5158

feat: Add `Spoof app signature` patch #5158

MarkusTieger commented Jun 10, 2025 •

edited by LisoUseInAIKyrios

Loading

MarkusTieger commented Jun 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading

MarkusTieger commented Jun 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading

MarkusTieger commented Jun 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading

kitadai31 commented Jun 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading

MarkusTieger commented Jun 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading

MarkusTieger commented Jun 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading

MarkusTieger commented Jun 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading