Android May Soon Restrict On-Device ADB, Impacting Shizuku and Developers

As a developer of ShizuCallRecorder, I am concerned about a potential Google restriction on On-Device ADB connections. While aimed at security, blocking loopback access would break tools like Shizuku and libadb that many users rely on for accessibility and development. I argue that malicious apps cannot exploit this without direct human intervention, urging the community to provide constructive feedback rather than spam.

I used to hear that many users with disabilities had to trade their privacy for an easier daily life.
  1. microtonal

    I am generally in favor of security improvements, but I do not really see much of a benefit here. This attack vector requires both that the user enabled developer settings and that they have remote adb enabled. So, this does not seem to be a realistic attack vector for 99.9% of the users and most of the other 0.1% probably know what they are doing.

    The other proposed change (to restrict access to certain interfaces or IP addresses) seems good, but why not allow developers to restrict access localhost?

    It reeks of trying to block Shizuku, Canta, etc. using a way that only makes it look like a side-effect.

  2. 0x_rs

    Limiting ADB is the obvious next step. Even if this one specific feature request does not come to pass, Google has cornered everyone into relying on a developer interface for any normal personal computing tasks, whether running on-device or through USB/wireless. It's quite clear at some point in the future you will either be required to surrender your identity to them and pay a yearly fee or be severely limited to continue using it in any meaningful capacity, because Google does not want you to develop applications on Android outside their controlled channels -- and it's a developer bridge, the battle was already lost when they did not back down from the changes forbidding normal, legitimate ̶s̶i̶d̶e̶l̶o̶a̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ installation.

    >Don’t even get me started on OEMs that force an audio warning such as “This call is being recorded,” when it’s in places where it’s not legally required.

    This is also Google's fault. Their dialer--that OEMs increasingly pick over their own, despite their always being much better, see old MIUI one for example--just blanket applies the rule almost everywhere. Especially annoying on all MediaTek SoCs that do not support the feature on an hardware level at all through proper, reliable third-party applications. As if you didn't need any more proof you don't own "your" devices. But maybe in a couple years Gemini will be able to listen to the calls and summarize them for you, just need to go through the approved surveillance channel.

  3. eviks

    > Spamming the thread will only cause Google developers to lock the issue, ignore valuable community feedback, or stop sharing public updates about this change entirely.

    So nothing would change (they can also lock away your "valuable community feedback" because what bothers them is the criticism itself), thus feel free to express your approval

  4. bayindirh

    When Google first announced sideloading restrictions, somebody told “but we have ADB”, and who disagreed with them was criticized harshly.

    Now, I’m waiting for a workaround to enable ADB, so sideloading can be handled now, too.

    Android is not more open that iOS for a very long time now. The trend will continue.

    Again, this is not a technical problem (the mindset of Google), so technological solutions won’t help.

  5. satvikpendem

    Of course this was bound to happen, next you're telling me people will be surprised that the 24 hour limit for side loading will turn into some indefinite time period.

  6. Superblazer

    This is huge, Android getting locked down to such levels should be sounding alarm bells. They are slowly removing everything that makes Android good.

  7. IvanK_net

    I am worried that this might happen to websites soon.

    If you want your website to be openable on Apple devices, you would have to pay Apple a fee each month. If you want your website to be openable on Android devices, you would have to pay Google a fee ecah month, etc.

  8. peheje

    We need Linux on phones. Bank apps not needed as long as I can use browser. But do need some things like wireless cards, popular apps like Sonos and Spotify working.

  9. SwellJoe

    There's only one reason for anyone, or for me, at least, to choose Android, and it's the only reason I've consistently chosen Android from the very first Google Developer Phone: It's more open.

    So, they don't want me to even have that one reason to keep choosing Android, I guess.

  10. himata4113

    I was thinking a lot about how these restrictions are paved with good intentions, but every time these new security measures are implemented we see criminals adopt new strategies and continue going about their day like nothing ever happened.

    I've been seeing this specifically with ID / business verification requirements where they just have some innocent (or sometimes complicit) third party grant them access to verasign 'verified' trust signing keys which actually makes them way more trusted than they were ever before often making anti-malware applications way less strict about blocking it which in turn buys them just enough time to compromise the system and disable said anti-malware applications. The problem here is that anti-malware applications try to be seemless and are effectively in a giant race condition to terminate the application, more recently microsoft anti malware service will now block program execution until it validates that it is safe. Although it is not something other companies do as making the device feel sluggish is something they avoid at all costs (looking at you bitdefender).

More from this day

2026-07-25