A bit skeptical of how this article is written as it seems to be mostly written by AI. Out of curiosity, I downloaded the app and it doesn't request location permissions anywhere, despite the claims in the article.
I've noticed Claude Code is happy to decompile APKs for you but isn't very good at doing reachability analysis or figuring out complex control flows. It will treat completely dead code as important as a commonly invoked function.
The permissions snippet they show also doesn't include location, and you can't request location at runtime at all without declaring it there.
I'd verify all this stuff for myself, but Play won't install it in my phone so I can't really get the APK. Maybe because I use Graphene...? but I don't know all the ways they can restrict it, maybe it's something else (though for a pixel 9a it's rather strange if it's hardware based).
--- EDIT ---
To be specific / add what I can check, this is what my Play Store "about -> permissions" is showing:
Version 47.0.1 may request access to
Other:
run at startup
Google Play license check
view network connections
prevent phone from sleeping
show notifications
com.google.android.c2dm.permission.RECEIVE
control vibration
have full network access
which appears fairly normal, and does not include location, and I think Play includes runtime location requests there. Maybe there's a version-rollout happening, or device-type targeting?
It can request with a JS call. It can't passively collect it without you approving first. The article is written like calling that JS function will turn on location tracking without consent.
Looks like what you might expect in a standard marketing app from a consultancy. They probably hired someone to develop it, that shop used their standard app architecure which includes location tracking code and the other stuff.
Scrolling is extremely poorly behaved on that page for me too, Firefox 149 Windows 10. Which is quite ironic coming from an article that mainly criticizes the web dev aspects of the app!
The argument regarding no certificate pinning seems to miss that just because I might be on a network that MITM's TLS traffic doesn't mean my device trusts the random CA used by the proxy. I'd just get a TLS error, right?
Not if someone can issue the certificate signed by the CA your phone trust.
Imagine being in a cafe nearby, say, embassy of the certain north African country known for pervasive and wide espionage actions, which decides to hijack traffic in this cafe.
Or imagine living in the country where almost all of the cabinet is literally (officially) being paid by the propaganda/lobbying body of such country.
Or living int he country where lawful surveillance can happen without the jury signoff, but at a while of any police officer.
> Imagine being in a cafe nearby, say, embassy of the certain north African country known for pervasive and wide espionage actions, which decides to hijack traffic in this cafe.
How would they get your phone to trust their CA? Connecting to a Wi-Fi network doesn’t change which CAs a device trusts.
Ok, fair point. However, I would consider any MDM-enabled device fully "compromised" in the sense that the org can see and modify everything I do on it.
An MDM orga cannot install a trusted CA on non-supervised (company owned) devices. By default on BYOD these are untrusted and require manual trust. It also cannot see everything on your device - certainly not your email, notes or files, or app data.
> An official United States government app is injecting CSS and JavaScript into third-party websites to strip away their cookie consent dialogs, GDPR banners, login gates, and paywalls.
So at least it does something actually beneficial for the user! I wish it could go even further, the way Reader Mode in a browser would go.
Are those references to 45 and 47 "Easter Eggs" to Trump's presidency number(s)? As in, forty-five-press (45th president) and Version 47.x.x (47th president), as well as the text message hotline (45470).
> The official White House Android app has a cookie/paywall bypass injector, tracks your GPS every 4.5 minutes (9.5m when in background), and loads JavaScript from some guy's GitHub Pages (“lonelycpp” is acct, loads iframe viewer page).
Doesn’t seem too crazy for a generic react native app but of course coming from the official US government, it’s pretty wide open to supply chain attacks. Oh and no one should be continually giving the government their location. Pretty crazy that the official government is injecting JavaScript into web views to override the cookie banners and consent forms - it is often part of providing legal consent to the website TOS. But legal consent is not their strong suit I guess.
And when the app links off to an EU site? Nothing prevents an EU user from using this app. There are a variety of Trump enthusiasts, though I suspect less than there are here in the US.
They conduct a pervasive, hidden, persistent user tracking not only without consent, looking at the analysis, but also stripping the user from a chance of declining tracking on other sites.
Which federal law would be relevant here? I'm only aware of California and EU laws that might be. But, I'm fairly certain they don't apply to the US government because of several Constitutional and international laws superseding.
I'm not sure. If there is an attorney to answer that would be interesting.
Quite honestly, it’d be hilarious to see the clown car response from the White House if some EU bureaucrats tried to enforce their GDPR rules on the White House though. “Lol Make us” is the nicest response I can guess at.
"An official United States government app is injecting CSS and JavaScript into third-party websites to strip away their cookie consent dialogs, GDPR banners, login gates, and paywalls."
In their defense, this is the first thing the Trump admin has done that's unambiguously positive for ordinary people.
I too love it when US imperialism invades digital spaces, just ignore how the US treats people critical of its own government (not just referring to the Trump admin here) then yeah sure great.
Let me know when this can ignore malware/adware from US companies then I'll give accolades.
"Amateur hour" is basically their theme. They were swept in on a wave of distrust for people who know what they're talking about. They were elected to tear down Chesterton's fence, even (and especially) the parts holding in the face-eating leopards.
To mix the metaphors further, they (the politicians and their supporters) fancy themselves the kind to dream of things that never were and ask why not. Why not have a war in Iran? You won't know until you give it a try.
> An official United States government app is injecting CSS and JavaScript into third-party websites to strip away their cookie consent dialogs, GDPR banners, login gates, and paywalls.
Giving people a taste of web with Ublock Origin annoyance filters applied, refreshing. Can’t believe orange man regime is doing one thing right.
> An official United States government app is injecting CSS and JavaScript into third-party websites to strip away their cookie consent dialogs, GDPR banners, login gates, and paywalls.
Rare Trump administration W. I'm assuming there's one particular website they open in the app that shows a cookie popup, and this was a dev's heavy-handed way of making that go away.
Using somebody's stuff is different than hot-linking directly to a hosted version of it, even just from the perspective that dude could delete it at any time and break the whole app.
All good for you to make those choices for yourself. Your response seems to be show ignorance of all the recent supply chain attacks that have occurred. You can imagine that given the situation with the shoe gifts that many high up members of the administration and cabinet members are running this app.
I don't know if you're being serious or not, but in case you are: There is a difference between (re)using other people's open sourced code, hopefully reviewed, and giving anyone in control of the third party repository the ability to run arbitrary code on your user's devices. Even if the "random GitHub repo" doesn't contain any malicious code right now, it may well contain some tomorrow.
Completely agree. This is really unique. Can you imagine if it were standard practice to be open to supply chain attacks like that, by blindly relying on hotlinked or unpinned dependencies?
It's always a better idea to make a local copy of it.
Imagine they're downloading a project directly from your GitHub account. Even if you're not doing anything malicious and have no intention of doing anything malicious even after you've been aware of this, now all of a sudden your GitHub account / email is a huge target for anyone that wants to do something malicious.
I've worked on a three letter sports orgs (one of NFL, NBA, NHL, etc) Android app.
I always joke that we could probably tell you what color and type your underwear is on any random day with how much data is siphoned off your phone.
As for loading random JS, yeah also seen that done that before. "Partner A wants to integrate their SDK in our webviews." -> "Partner A" SDK is just loading a JS chunk in that can do whatever they want in webviews, including load more files.
Don't get me started on the sports betting SDKs...
Though we do have a Security team constantly scanning SDKs and the endpoints for changes in situations like this.
> As for loading random JS, yeah also seen that done that before.
Partner A is not random JS. The assumption there is 1) you have some official signed agreement with them and 2) you've done your due diligence to ensure you can use them in this way.
It's not just some person's GH repo who can freely change that file to whatever they want.
Hotlinking is as old as the internet, and a well-worn security threat.
The comments in here are pretty rich. If this was any other app, everyone would be screaming about "why are you being mean to the author", flagging posts left and right.
Nah, I suspect any app that's loading arbitrary JS from somebody's random GitHub page would get called out for that behavior. We're getting supply chain attacks daily.
That is some impressive willful ignorance. “If it was anybody else threatening to beat this guy up for what he was saying, you’d probably praise them. But a cop does it one time and …”
A bit skeptical of how this article is written as it seems to be mostly written by AI. Out of curiosity, I downloaded the app and it doesn't request location permissions anywhere, despite the claims in the article.
I've noticed Claude Code is happy to decompile APKs for you but isn't very good at doing reachability analysis or figuring out complex control flows. It will treat completely dead code as important as a commonly invoked function.
The permissions snippet they show also doesn't include location, and you can't request location at runtime at all without declaring it there.
I'd verify all this stuff for myself, but Play won't install it in my phone so I can't really get the APK. Maybe because I use Graphene...? but I don't know all the ways they can restrict it, maybe it's something else (though for a pixel 9a it's rather strange if it's hardware based).
--- EDIT ---
To be specific / add what I can check, this is what my Play Store "about -> permissions" is showing:
which appears fairly normal, and does not include location, and I think Play includes runtime location requests there. Maybe there's a version-rollout happening, or device-type targeting?> it doesn't request location permissions anywhere, despite the claims in the article
The article does not claim the app requests the location. It claims it can do it with a single JS call.
It can request with a JS call. It can't passively collect it without you approving first. The article is written like calling that JS function will turn on location tracking without consent.
He explicitly says he can't determine it, but that the location tracking as configured will turn on once the user grants consent. All true statements.
How would you have written it differently
"If the user chooses to opt-in and grants location-tracking permission, the app is then, and only then, able to track the user's location?"
> The article does not claim the app requests the location. It claims it can do it with a single JS call.
so can ... any other code anywhere on a mobile device? That is how API work...
You need to state the permissions you *may* request/use in AndroidManifest.xml. This data can then be displayed to users pre-installation.
From the (limited) article, it doesn't seem they do this: https://thereallo.dev/blog/decompiling-the-white-house-app#p...
----
EDIT: I'm mistaken. From the Play Store[0] it has access to
* approximate location (network-based)
* precise location (GPS and network-based)
[0] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=gov.whitehouse...
This seems to disagree with:
> The location permissions aren't declared in the AndroidManifest but requested at runtime
*shrug*, someone should dig deeper. It looks like the article may not match reality.
what version are you on?
from the iphone app store: version 47.0.1 - minor bug fixes - 34 minutes ago
while the parent posted 18 minutes ago
they may have patched the location stuff as part of the “minor bug fixes”?
I have the iOS version from yesterday, haven't updated the app yet.
No location permission request prompting encountered. In system settings, where each app requesting location data is listed, it isn't present either.
Looks like what you might expect in a standard marketing app from a consultancy. They probably hired someone to develop it, that shop used their standard app architecure which includes location tracking code and the other stuff.
Interesting. The site is nearly unusable to me unfortunately. '19 MBP w/ Chrome - scrolling stutters really bad
Scrolling is extremely poorly behaved on that page for me too, Firefox 149 Windows 10. Which is quite ironic coming from an article that mainly criticizes the web dev aspects of the app!
Scrolling is so laggy it's annoying to follow on mobile (FF 151.0a1)
Does it for me too, chrome on a thinkpad
Not what you meant, but works fine on
Firefox 148.0.2 (Build #2016148295), 15542f265e9eb232f80e52c0966300225d0b1cb7 GV: 148.0.2-20260309125808 AS: 148.0.1 OS: Android 14
I agree, the website of the original article is kinda terrible
The argument regarding no certificate pinning seems to miss that just because I might be on a network that MITM's TLS traffic doesn't mean my device trusts the random CA used by the proxy. I'd just get a TLS error, right?
Not if someone can issue the certificate signed by the CA your phone trust.
Imagine being in a cafe nearby, say, embassy of the certain north African country known for pervasive and wide espionage actions, which decides to hijack traffic in this cafe.
Or imagine living in the country where almost all of the cabinet is literally (officially) being paid by the propaganda/lobbying body of such country.
Or living int he country where lawful surveillance can happen without the jury signoff, but at a while of any police officer.
Maybe its not common but frequent enough.
> Imagine being in a cafe nearby, say, embassy of the certain north African country known for pervasive and wide espionage actions, which decides to hijack traffic in this cafe.
How would they get your phone to trust their CA? Connecting to a Wi-Fi network doesn’t change which CAs a device trusts.
Not if you are part of an org that uses MDM and pushes their own CA to devices.
Ok, fair point. However, I would consider any MDM-enabled device fully "compromised" in the sense that the org can see and modify everything I do on it.
An MDM orga cannot install a trusted CA on non-supervised (company owned) devices. By default on BYOD these are untrusted and require manual trust. It also cannot see everything on your device - certainly not your email, notes or files, or app data.
If it is untrusted, you also won’t have a TLS connection be established based on that CA.
i assumed it was malware out the gate. yep
> An official United States government app is injecting CSS and JavaScript into third-party websites to strip away their cookie consent dialogs, GDPR banners, login gates, and paywalls.
So at least it does something actually beneficial for the user! I wish it could go even further, the way Reader Mode in a browser would go.
>>> This is a government app loading code from a random person's GitHub Pages.
A random person with pronouns, no less. That means the code is “woke.”
nice work, so they can get your location and have ICE scoop you up if required
Are those references to 45 and 47 "Easter Eggs" to Trump's presidency number(s)? As in, forty-five-press (45th president) and Version 47.x.x (47th president), as well as the text message hotline (45470).
> The official White House Android app has a cookie/paywall bypass injector, tracks your GPS every 4.5 minutes (9.5m when in background), and loads JavaScript from some guy's GitHub Pages (“lonelycpp” is acct, loads iframe viewer page).
Doesn’t seem too crazy for a generic react native app but of course coming from the official US government, it’s pretty wide open to supply chain attacks. Oh and no one should be continually giving the government their location. Pretty crazy that the official government is injecting JavaScript into web views to override the cookie banners and consent forms - it is often part of providing legal consent to the website TOS. But legal consent is not their strong suit I guess.
Aren't the banners for EU page visitors. I don't think there is a US law about this, is there?
Some states have them. California has a similar one "Don't Sell My Personal Information."
I think the Supremacy Clause protects federal agencies but not sure. Also Privileges and Immunities, and Commerce clauses...
And when the app links off to an EU site? Nothing prevents an EU user from using this app. There are a variety of Trump enthusiasts, though I suspect less than there are here in the US.
They conduct a pervasive, hidden, persistent user tracking not only without consent, looking at the analysis, but also stripping the user from a chance of declining tracking on other sites.
I'm quite sure that's illegal.
Which federal law would be relevant here? I'm only aware of California and EU laws that might be. But, I'm fairly certain they don't apply to the US government because of several Constitutional and international laws superseding.
I'm not sure. If there is an attorney to answer that would be interesting.
I think they just fine the entity doing business in the EU. If they don't do business there, I can't see any issues.
I'm not an attorney, but I don't find any cases that extend beyond that.
Quite honestly, it’d be hilarious to see the clown car response from the White House if some EU bureaucrats tried to enforce their GDPR rules on the White House though. “Lol Make us” is the nicest response I can guess at.
Please don't give them ideas.
"An official United States government app is injecting CSS and JavaScript into third-party websites to strip away their cookie consent dialogs, GDPR banners, login gates, and paywalls."
In their defense, this is the first thing the Trump admin has done that's unambiguously positive for ordinary people.
Indeed.
I'd love it somehow taken out of it and made available for the general public. Custom uBlock / Adblock filers will be probably the easiest.
Yes, this is a major UX improvement considering I remove those with uBlock Origin anyway.
I too love it when US imperialism invades digital spaces, just ignore how the US treats people critical of its own government (not just referring to the Trump admin here) then yeah sure great.
Let me know when this can ignore malware/adware from US companies then I'll give accolades.
lol honestly all of this tracks given the current administration. i'm actually surprised it isn't worse. but yeah, amateur hour for sure.
"Amateur hour" is basically their theme. They were swept in on a wave of distrust for people who know what they're talking about. They were elected to tear down Chesterton's fence, even (and especially) the parts holding in the face-eating leopards.
To mix the metaphors further, they (the politicians and their supporters) fancy themselves the kind to dream of things that never were and ask why not. Why not have a war in Iran? You won't know until you give it a try.
> An official United States government app is injecting CSS and JavaScript into third-party websites to strip away their cookie consent dialogs, GDPR banners, login gates, and paywalls.
Giving people a taste of web with Ublock Origin annoyance filters applied, refreshing. Can’t believe orange man regime is doing one thing right.
> An official United States government app is injecting CSS and JavaScript into third-party websites to strip away their cookie consent dialogs, GDPR banners, login gates, and paywalls.
Rare Trump administration W. I'm assuming there's one particular website they open in the app that shows a cookie popup, and this was a dev's heavy-handed way of making that go away.
I don't see what the fuss is about. This all looks pretty standard. I use random people's stuff all the time. Isn't that the point of open source?
Did you find something malicious in the random GitHub repo? If so, you should write an article about that instead.
Using somebody's stuff is different than hot-linking directly to a hosted version of it, even just from the perspective that dude could delete it at any time and break the whole app.
All good for you to make those choices for yourself. Your response seems to be show ignorance of all the recent supply chain attacks that have occurred. You can imagine that given the situation with the shoe gifts that many high up members of the administration and cabinet members are running this app.
I don't know if you're being serious or not, but in case you are: There is a difference between (re)using other people's open sourced code, hopefully reviewed, and giving anyone in control of the third party repository the ability to run arbitrary code on your user's devices. Even if the "random GitHub repo" doesn't contain any malicious code right now, it may well contain some tomorrow.
Completely agree. This is really unique. Can you imagine if it were standard practice to be open to supply chain attacks like that, by blindly relying on hotlinked or unpinned dependencies?
It's always a better idea to make a local copy of it.
Imagine they're downloading a project directly from your GitHub account. Even if you're not doing anything malicious and have no intention of doing anything malicious even after you've been aware of this, now all of a sudden your GitHub account / email is a huge target for anyone that wants to do something malicious.
The dependencies weren't vendored, meaning their behavior can change at any time if a malicious actor gains control of that third-party repo.
This is bad for security.
you are a fucking genius
I would've expected worse. :)
This is a pretty standard decomplation of an Android app.
I am sure if you decompile other apps used by hundreds of thousands of people, you would find all sorts of tracking in there.
Thanks for helping the White House improve their app security for free though.
Even in the apps I've worked on, you won't find us loading arbitrary JS from a random GitHub user's account.
> Even in the apps I've worked on, you won't find us loading arbitrary JS from a random GitHub user's account.
You'd be surprised how many apps inside have hacks and workarounds because deadlines.
Let's see if anyone can give an example of such a high profile app doing something similar.
I've worked on a three letter sports orgs (one of NFL, NBA, NHL, etc) Android app.
I always joke that we could probably tell you what color and type your underwear is on any random day with how much data is siphoned off your phone.
As for loading random JS, yeah also seen that done that before. "Partner A wants to integrate their SDK in our webviews." -> "Partner A" SDK is just loading a JS chunk in that can do whatever they want in webviews, including load more files.
Don't get me started on the sports betting SDKs...
Though we do have a Security team constantly scanning SDKs and the endpoints for changes in situations like this.
> As for loading random JS, yeah also seen that done that before.
Partner A is not random JS. The assumption there is 1) you have some official signed agreement with them and 2) you've done your due diligence to ensure you can use them in this way.
It's not just some person's GH repo who can freely change that file to whatever they want.
Hotlinking is as old as the internet, and a well-worn security threat.
Is this a surprise to anyone?
The comments in here are pretty rich. If this was any other app, everyone would be screaming about "why are you being mean to the author", flagging posts left and right.
Nah, I suspect any app that's loading arbitrary JS from somebody's random GitHub page would get called out for that behavior. We're getting supply chain attacks daily.
That is some impressive willful ignorance. “If it was anybody else threatening to beat this guy up for what he was saying, you’d probably praise them. But a cop does it one time and …”
Are you upset people are being critical of a shabbily run government program?
> government program
Is there a cabinet member for the Department of Apps?
It's a throwaway app, probably written by someone that posts here.
Is this not a government program? Did someone in the cabinet choose to do this?
I’d prefer they not release shoddily build propaganda apps