Privacy-Focused Custom Android ROM Development

Privacy-centric custom Android ROMs have emerged to give users control over device identifiers and tracking features. These specialized ROMs go beyond de-Googling; they natively spoof device identifiers (IMEI, MAC, serial number, build fingerprint, Android ID, etc.) and even fake location data at the system level – all while striving to remain compatible with Google’s SafetyNet and Play Integrity checks. They also borrow security-hardening techniques from projects like GrapheneOS (enforcing SELinux, verified boot, etc.) to ensure that increased privacy doesn’t compromise device security. This analysis delves into the technical approaches behind such ROMs, their use cases in various industries, the challenges developers face, common devices chosen for these mods, and notable open-source tools enabling these features.

Native Device Identifier Spoofing in Custom Android ROM

A key feature of privacy ROMs is the ability to spoof device identifiers at the OS level, without needing third-party apps. These identifiers include:

• IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity): A unique per-device number used by carriers. Spoofing it can anonymize the device’s cellular identity for apps (though on network, the real IMEI is seen unless the baseband is modified).
• Device Serial Number: A manufacturer-set ID that may be exposed to apps; custom ROMs can override the system property for serial to a custom or random value.
• Wi-Fi MAC Address: Modern Android randomizes the MAC per network by default. Privacy ROMs may extend this by randomizing the MAC for all networks or on each connection to prevent tracking.
• Bluetooth MAC: Similarly subject to spoofing/randomization to prevent long-term device identification.
• Build Fingerprint & Model: Many custom ROMs set the build fingerprint and model to mimic a certified device (often a Google Pixel) to pass compatibility checks. This means when apps or Google services query the OS fingerprint or model, they receive an official string matching a certified device. Projects like LineageOS and its derivatives introduced PixelPropsUtils, which spoofs these properties for specific Google processes (e.g. Google Play Services) to satisfy CTS profiles.
• Android ID (SSAID): A per-app, per-user software ID. Normally, Android ID persists across app reinstalls and can’t be changed easily. Privacy ROMs might silo or randomize this by using work profiles or by fully resetting it on demand (though a full reset is typically needed on stock).
• Google Services Framework ID (GSF ID): An identifier generated when a device registers with Google’s servers (used for GCM/FCM push notifications). In microG-based ROMs, the OS can generate a random GSF ID at first registration to avoid tying the device to a persistent identity. For example, CalyxOS with microG registers the device with randomized data (except for essential model info) to obtain a GSF ID. Clearing the microG app’s data will force a new GSF ID if needed.
• Advertising ID (AAID): Google’s per-device advertising identifier. Stock Android allows resetting it, and on Android 12+ it can be zeroed out when the user opts out of ads. CalyxOS goes further: any app querying the Advertising ID gets a random ID each time, with no option to retrieve a stable value at all. This effectively nullifies cross-app ad tracking on the device.
• Other IDs: Spoofing can extend to IMSI (subscriber ID from SIM), SIM serial, device phone number, MediaDrm Widevine ID, and more. Tools like the open-source Android Faker (Xposed module) demonstrate this breadth – it allows randomizing IMEI, Wi-Fi/Bluetooth MACs, SIM identifiers, etc., to prevent third-party apps from correlating user data via these IDs. Importantly, such modules (or ROM-integrated equivalents) only mask the IDs at the software interface level, for apps and OS services. They typically do not alter the hardware ID seen by carriers or low-level hardware, as that would require baseband hacking (often illegal and beyond the scope of custom ROM development).

By integrating these spoofing capabilities natively, privacy ROMs remove the need for users to individually install Xposed modules or Magisk mods for each identifier. The ROM can provide a unified interface (or config file) to set random or user-defined values at boot. This ensures that apps “see” either sanitized or randomly generated IDs, effectively anonymizing the device’s fingerprint across sessions and applications.

Native Location Spoofing without Mock Providers

Another critical privacy feature is GPS/location spoofing at a low level – without using Android’s mock location developer option. The typical method of faking GPS location (enabling Allow mock locations and using an app) is easily detected by apps and flagged by services. Advanced custom ROMs or modules achieve undetectable spoofing by intercepting location API calls themselves:

• Framework-Level Spoofing: The ROM can modify the LocationManager system service to provide alternate location data. For example, an Xposed module like XposedFakeLocation hooks the system’s location providers so that apps receive a fake GPS fix without any mock flag being set. This approach can be built into a ROM’s code. It allows users to set a global fake latitude/longitude (or per-app coordinates) that the OS will report to all apps as the “real” location. Because the developer option isn’t used, apps cannot differentiate spoofed coordinates from genuine ones in the usual way.
• Sensor Data and Route Simulation: More sophisticated solutions also fake auxiliary data – e.g. altering the reported speed, altitude, or even simulating movement. XposedFakeLocation, for instance, lets users customize altitude and add random jitter to the location to mimic natural GPS drift. This is important because some apps cross-verify location with sensor readings (accelerometer, compass) or check for unrealistic static coordinates. A ROM-level implementation can feed consistent fake sensor data aligned with the spoofed location for realism.
• No Extra App Visible: Since the spoofing logic resides in the system (ROM or an installed hidden module), there’s no “fake GPS app” for other apps to detect. This makes it harder for anti-cheat or banking apps to know the location is forged. (Some advanced detection can still measure anomalies, like if the location changes in large jumps or if underlying GNSS chipset reports errors, but straightforward checks for mock providers will fail to find anything.)
• Hardware GNSS Spoofing: In specialized QA or research scenarios, physical GNSS signal simulators are used (feeding fake satellite signals to the device’s GPS receiver via a controlled radio environment). While not a ROM feature, it’s worth noting that enterprise testing labs use this to create lifelike movement scenarios (e.g. driving routes) in a Faraday-caged environment. However, from a ROM perspective, most solutions stick to software-based GPS data injection for practicality.

By incorporating location spoofing natively, a custom ROM allows invisible and on-demand relocation of the device. Privacy-focused users or testers can teleport their device location globally without apps being any wiser – useful for location-based app testing, protecting privacy, or region-specific access to content. (Of course, misuse for cheating in games or location-restricted services is possible, which is why robust apps now rely on the Play Integrity API’s device validation to counter this – more on that next.)

Spoofing and SafetyNet/Play Integrity Compatibility

One of the biggest challenges is maintaining compatibility with Google’s SafetyNet and the new Play Integrity API while these spoofing measures are in place. SafetyNet/PI are designed to detect tampered or uncertified environments, so a ROM that changes device identifiers or has an unlocked bootloader is inherently at risk of failing attestation. Developers have devised techniques to bypass or satisfy these checks:

• CTS Profile Spoofing: The SafetyNet CTS profile match (now reflected in Play Integrity’s deviceIntegrity/ctsProfile checks) verifies that the device’s model, build fingerprint, and OS properties match a certified device build. Custom ROMs, which are not Google-certified, usually fail this by default. The workaround is to spoof the device’s identity to appear as a certified Pixel device, for instance. By copying the exact ro.product properties (device name, model, manufacturer, fingerprint, security patch level) of a real certified build, the ROM can report a profile that passes CTS checks. Many ROMs integrate this directly (as mentioned, PixelPropsUtils will feed Pixel 5 or similar properties to Google Play Services and other Google apps) so that basic attestation sees a valid combo and passes. “Spoofing the profile of a certified device by copying ro.product properties” is explicitly recommended by developers of SafetyNet fixes. ProtonAOSP (by kdrag0n) was a custom ROM that did exactly this – it passed SafetyNet out-of-the-box by including the necessary spoofed props and attestation workarounds. (This saved users from having to flash Magisk modules for SafetyNet.)
• Blocking Hardware Attestation: Newer devices use hardware-backed attestation (Strong Integrity), which is much harder to spoof since it involves cryptographic keys in secure hardware. Custom ROMs have found ways to force SafetyNet to use basic attestation. For example, CalyxOS and others patched the Keystore service to refuse hardware attest requests by Google Play Services. One commit notes: “SafetyNet… opportunistically uses hardware-backed key attestation via KeyStore as a strong integrity check. This patch blocks that, forcing the use of basic attestation.” By altering the response of the KeyStore or fudging the device model (CalyxOS appended a whitespace to the model name so it no longer exactly matched a device that required hardware attestation), the ROM tricks SafetyNet into falling back to software attestation. crDroid 10.9’s release notes also highlight this: they “restored SafetyNet attestation blocking in PixelPropsUtils for better device spoofing” and even removed the certificate chain for hardware attestation, indicating the ROM actively prevents the use of the hardware-backed checks. The result is that the device only has to pass the basic CTS profile match, which, as noted above, can be satisfied via prop spoofing.
• Magisk/Zygisk Integration (Root Hiding): While an ideal custom ROM would not require root, many power-users do root their devices. Rooting typically invalidates SafetyNet outright. Modern solutions like Magisk’s Zygisk with DenyList (formerly MagiskHide) allow hiding root and modules from certain apps. In the context of these privacy ROMs, the ROM itself often isn’t rooted by default (for security reasons), but if the user does root, they must hide it to keep SafetyNet passing. The ROM documentation (e.g., ProtonAOSP’s FAQ) usually reminds users that installing mods or root can break SafetyNet and that passing attestation in a modified environment is a cat-and-mouse game with Google that could break at any time.
• Play Integrity API: The successor to SafetyNet, Play Integrity, adds new device checks (deviceIntegrity, basicIntegrity, and an optional strongIntegrity flag). The same tactics apply – by ensuring basic integrity (which is akin to CTS profile) passes and bypassing hardware binding, many ROMs can pass deviceIntegrity but will not pass strongIntegrity (since that requires an untouched device with Google-certified keys). Fortunately, most apps (as of 2025) still only require basic or device integrity. ROM developers keep an eye on Google’s changes: for example, when Google tightened attestation in 2021, custom ROMs quickly updated their fingerprints and model spoofing to new Pixel releases to stay ahead. It’s an ongoing maintenance task to update these props (some ROMs even have OTA mechanisms to update fingerprints periodically).
• Acknowledging Limitations: Some privacy ROM projects openly choose not to chase SafetyNet at all. For instance, DivestOS (a security-focused LineageOS fork) states it “won’t pass SafetyNet or the coming Play Integrity API” by design – prioritizing a fully open environment over compatibility with Google’s proprietary checks. Users of such ROMs must accept that certain apps (banking, Netflix, etc.) won’t run. On the other hand, projects like CalyxOS aim to balance privacy with usability: Calyx integrates microG (open-source Google services) and uses spoofing so that many banking apps and Google-dependent apps still work despite the ROM being unofficial. The existence of these SafetyNet workarounds in CalyxOS is a testament to that goal (they “spoof the device signature to pass SafetyNet by default” for the supported devices).

In summary, achieving SafetyNet/Play Integrity compatibility is a technical tightrope. It involves masquerading the ROM as if it were stock down to build identifiers and disabling any signals (like hardware attestation, unlocked bootloader status, or test-keys in the build) that Google’s servers would flag. The success of solutions like Universal SafetyNet Fix (which encourages ROM-side integration) and the widespread adoption of Pixel prop spoofing show that, with effort, custom ROMs can appease SafetyNet. However, it’s an arms race; ROM developers caution that these hacks could be broken by Google updates at any time.

Security Hardening Techniques (GrapheneOS-Inspired)

Paradoxically, a ROM that offers spoofing and user-controlled identities must also maintain or enhance security, so that the device isn’t left vulnerable to malware or attacks. Many such ROMs draw inspiration from GrapheneOS, a well-known security-focused Android OS, adopting some of its hardening measures:

• Strict SELinux Enforcement and Sandboxing: GrapheneOS improves the Android app sandbox by tightening SELinux policies and seccomp-bpf filters beyond stock Android. Privacy ROMs, even those not as hardcore as Graphene, typically keep SELinux in enforcing mode (never permissive) and may incorporate some of Graphene’s policy enhancements to reduce attack surface. The goal is that even with user modifications, malicious apps cannot easily escalate privileges.
• Verified Boot & Anti-Persistence: GrapheneOS has a highly fortified verified boot process it even extends verified boot to cover OS-managed app updates via fs-verity, ensuring every code chunk loaded is signature-verified. Custom ROMs aimed at privacy often allow the user to lock the bootloader with their own keys after installation, re-enabling verified boot. For example, GrapheneOS and CalyxOS (for Pixel devices) support locking the bootloader with the custom ROM’s release keys, meaning the OS can’t be tampered without detection. Enhanced verified boot prevents malware from persisting on the system partition any unauthorized change would break the chain of trust and be flagged on boot. This is crucial because if you are spoofing IDs to thwart tracking, you don’t want a spyware implant to quietly undo that by hooking deeper; verified boot defends against such persistence.
• Exploit Mitigations: GrapheneOS contributes many memory safety and exploit mitigation features (hardened libc, malloc, stack protections). Not all custom ROMs merge these (as they can be complex and sometimes affect performance), but some privacy ROMs do include components like hardened_malloc (Graphene’s custom allocator) or other kernel hardening patches. These make it harder for an attacker to exploit vulnerabilities in the system or gain code execution. Even if an attacker somehow gets past app sandboxing, Graphene-like hardening would limit the damage (e.g. making JIT exploitation harder, preventing code injection).
• Networking and Sensors Controls: Borrowing from GrapheneOS’s feature set, privacy ROMs often add system service toggles that give users more control. GrapheneOS introduced a Network permission toggle per app when off, the OS literally makes the app think no network is available. This can prevent a rogue app from sending data out if the user so chooses. Similarly, Graphene pioneered the Sensors toggle (kill switch for all sensors) which Android later adopted. Custom ROMs focused on privacy include these toggles to let users shut off sensors, GPS, or network access on demand for any app. It’s a way to ensure that even if an identifier spoof isn’t perfect, an app can’t simply siphon data without user consent.
• Minimal Necessary Services: Many privacy ROMs remove or disable unnecessary system apps/services that could leak data. For instance, they might omit analytics, preinstalled bloatware, or even Google Play Services entirely (in favor of microG or nothing). Reducing attack surface is a security gain: GrapheneOS is notable for stripping out non-essential code and making components optional (NFC, Bluetooth, etc. off by default). A privacy ROM might disable proprietary services that aren’t needed, to ensure they are not running in the background with privileges.
• Auditing and Attestation: Some advanced users employ companion apps like GrapheneOS’s Auditor to remotely verify their device’s integrity (using hardware attestation). While a spoofing-focused ROM might not prioritize this, incorporating the hardware attestation for user-verification (where the user can confirm their own device hasn’t been tampered) is a nod to Graphene’s philosophy. Notably, Graphene’s strong stance against root (for security reasons) is often followed: privacy ROMs typically ship unrooted by default (since rooting breaks verified boot security and opens numerous vulnerabilities). Users can root if they want, but it’s an explicit choice with warnings.

In essence, these ROMs try to deliver privacy by obscurity (of identity) and by strong security. They recognize that there’s no point in spoofing your IMEI or location to third parties if your device itself is easily compromised. Adopting GrapheneOS hardening means users get features like full verified boot, modern kernel, and rigorous enforcement of permissions alongside the spoofing capabilities. It’s a fusion of privacy and security one that requires significant development effort and maintenance to keep up with upstream Android patches.

Use Cases Across Industries

Why go to such lengths? There are many legitimate (and some less savory) use cases for having a custom Android environment that can assume different identities and locations. Here are some typical scenarios:

• QA Testing and Development: Quality assurance teams use spoofing to test mobile apps under various conditions. For example, testing a rideshare or map application might require simulating the device in different cities or with different device models. A privacy ROM that can feed fake GPS coordinates system-wide is invaluable for testing location-based app behavior (e.g. geo-fenced content). Similarly, changing device IDs can help test how an app handles unique installations or device-specific logic. It’s much easier to toggle a setting in a custom ROM to present a new device identity than to keep a closet full of physical test phones. This also extends to automated testing farms they can programmatically reset device identities between test runs to ensure clean state and to test anti-fraud detection in apps (making sure their apps properly treat each device as unique).
• Privacy Advocates and Individuals: A growing number of privacy-conscious users want to minimize tracking by apps, advertisers, and even cell network operators. For them, running a ROM that randomizes their Wi-Fi MAC, periodically changes their advertising ID, or even spoofs their IMEI for apps means increased anonymity. It helps disrupt the creation of a consistent profile on the user. For instance, an app that tries to link accounts by device IMEI or Android ID will be thwarted if those change frequently or appear blank. As noted in one discussion, people spoof devices “to protect their privacy by masking their real device information or location”. These users might be journalists, activists, or just everyday people wary of data collection.
• Research and Academia: Researchers studying malware, tracking, or fraud might use spoofing ROMs to create honeypot environments. For example, they could run malware samples on a device that reports fake credentials and IDs to observe behavior without risking a real identity. Academics might also use such ROMs to evaluate apps’ privacy invasions e.g. seeing what device identifiers an app tries to access when it’s given dummy data. In cybersecurity research, being able to impersonate different device models and OS versions helps in testing exploits or behaviors across a range of conditions without needing dozens of physical devices.
• Enterprise Security and BYOD: Enterprises concerned about data leakage could provision employees with a custom ROM that spoofs or scrubs sensitive IDs. For instance, a company might not want a partner’s app to get the actual device serial or employee’s SIM info. A ROM that feeds generic values prevents third-party apps from collecting corporate device inventory data. Some organizations also use location spoofing during demonstrations or trainings (to simulate a field worker’s device in a certain region). Furthermore, having SafetyNet compatibility means these custom ROM devices can still run essential corporate apps (which often require SafetyNet for compliance) a reason why balancing spoofing with attestation passing is important in enterprise use.
• Automation and Multiple Account Management: In online business scenarios like social media marketing, e-commerce (dropshipping), or ticket purchasing, there’s a need to manage multiple accounts or sessions without linking them. Tools like Multilogin mention device spoofing as a way to run multiple accounts from one machine without detection. Instead of using emulators (which many platforms can detect), some power-users set up real Android devices with custom ROMs that can assume different personas (different IMEIs, different GPS locales) for each account or task. This way, each account looks like it’s coming from a distinct physical device, reducing the chance of anti-fraud systems flagging them. While this veers into gray-area usage (and outright malicious in the case of fraudsters), it is a real-world application of these techniques. Notably, Google’s own best practices warn developers to use Play Integrity API to ensure a request “comes from a genuine Android device—rather than an emulator or code spoofing another device”, highlighting that spoofed devices are indeed being used and must be defended against. Legitimate automation, like testing an app’s multi-user functionality or simulating many IoT devices, can also leverage these ROMs without malicious intent.

In summary, device and location spoofing have versatile uses. From testing apps in different scenarios, to protecting user privacy, to enabling advanced enterprise controls, the demand for such functionality is broad. Each use case influences the design: e.g., QA testers want easy toggles and scripting, privacy advocates demand transparency and trust (open-source code, verifiable security), and enterprise use might require scalability and documentation. The ROM developers often get feedback from these communities to refine features (for instance, adding the ability to randomize IDs on a schedule, or to quickly toggle spoofing on/off for certain apps).

Technical Challenges in Implementation

Building a spoofing-capable, hardened ROM is not without significant hurdles. Some key technical challenges include:

• Bootloader Locks and Device Restrictions: Many devices simply cannot run custom ROMs with locked bootloaders. Unlocking the bootloader is usually step one for installing a ROM, but this action sets off security flags. For example, on Pixel devices, the bootloader unlock state is recorded and SafetyNet/Integrity APIs will note the device is “unsafe” unless hacks are applied. Some OEMs (Samsung Knox, etc.) permanently burn a fuse when you unlock, revoking certain keys (losing Widevine L1 for HD video, for instance). ROM developers have to accept these consequences or find workarounds. A challenge is that a custom ROM will almost always be uncertified by Google, so the device will show as uncertified in Play Store and trigger SafetyNet failures unless the aforementioned spoofing is done or the user registers the device ID with Google (as some custom ROM users do manually via Google’s device registration page). Moreover, certain vendors (Huawei, for one) no longer allow bootloader unlock at all, making those devices unusable for this purpose. Thus, the choice of device is limited (we discuss supported devices next).
• Hardware-Tied Identifiers: Some identifiers are difficult or impossible to spoof purely in software. IMEI, for example, is embedded in the modem firmware and used at the protocol level with cell towers. A ROM can intercept calls at the Android API level (so apps see a fake IMEI via TelephonyManager), but the radio hardware and carrier will still use the real IMEI. If the goal is to avoid carrier tracking, software spoofing isn’t sufficient one would need a programmable baseband or special equipment, which is beyond Android ROM scope (and illegal in many jurisdictions). So the limitation is that spoofing is effective for apps and most OS services, but not for altering network-facing IDs. Developers must clearly communicate this to users (e.g., “this module never changes real IDs sent to service providers” warns one tool). Other examples: SIM IMSI and phone number are SIM/card based you can’t truly change them without a new SIM, though you can feed dummy data to apps. Bluetooth MAC can be spoofed at the stack level for device discovery, but at low level, some protocols might reveal the real address. Handling these gracefully is a challenge.
• Detection Evasion: As spoofing tools proliferate, app developers implement anti-spoofing detections. For instance, banking or game apps may check for anomalies: is the device reporting a location that doesn’t match its timezone or IP address? Is the device model one that should have a locked bootloader (e.g. a production Pixel) yet is failing strongIntegrity? Some apps use sensors and timing to detect Xposed or Magisk (like measuring subtle delays in system calls that occur when hooks are in place). Others inspect the firmware for known signs of tampering. The ROM developers must constantly counteract these measures – e.g., modules like Hide My Applist or Shamiko hide the presence of root and modding frameworks; custom ROMs might randomize build IDs to avoid known fingerprints of test builds. Hiding the “mock location” status was one such cat-and-mouse game: modules now explicitly intercept the API that reveals if mock locations are enabled. The timing attack detection (hooks causing slight slowdowns) is very tricky – in some cases the only solution is to temporarily disable the framework (LSPosed) or use a different approach like kernel-level hooking which is less detectable. In summary, spoofing at scale invites countermeasures, and staying ahead requires deep knowledge of Android’s internals and constant updates.
• System Stability and Compatibility: Modifying core system services (telephony, location, keystore) can introduce bugs or crashes if not done carefully. A spoofing ROM must be rigorously tested to ensure, for example, that replacing the real GPS provider with a fake one doesn’t break emergency services or battery optimizations. The ROM also must preserve normal functionality when spoofing is turned off. Many privacy ROMs want to give the user the choice (real vs spoofed). Ensuring that toggling these settings doesn’t confuse apps or leave residual incorrect state is a challenge. For instance, if an app cached the Android ID before it was randomized, and later finds a different one, it might malfunction or log the user out. The ROM needs to decide whether to keep IDs stable per session, per reboot, or truly random each request each approach has trade-offs for usability.
• Performance Overheads: Adding layers of indirection (like Xposed hooks or continuous randomization) can incur performance costs. Developers try to implement spoofing in a way that is lightweight. For example, instead of hooking every single call for a device ID, they might override the underlying storage of that ID (so the system naturally reads the fake value). But not all IDs are stored in one place some are generated or retrieved via native code. Hooks in the Java framework via LSPosed are easy but a bit slower; native hooks (like Magisk Zygisk modules in JNI) might be faster but much more complex. Balancing performance and thoroughness of spoofing is an engineering challenge.

Supported Devices and Platforms

Not all Android devices are equal when it comes to supporting such custom ROMs. Typically, the Google Pixel series has become the reference hardware for privacy ROMs. Pixels are developer-friendly (unlockable bootloaders, documented hardware), and projects like GrapheneOS, CalyxOS, and ProtonAOSP have centered on Pixel devices. Pixels also have the advantage of being Google’s own, which paradoxically makes it easier to pass Google’s checks when running a Pixel-like ROM. For example, using a Pixel 5 fingerprint on a Pixel 5 running a custom ROM is very convincing to SafetyNet, as opposed to trying to make a Samsung device pretend to be a Pixel. Some specifics:

• Google Pixel (3 and above): GrapheneOS and CalyxOS target Pixels exclusively. Pixel 4 and 5 were popular for these due to strong security and easier verified boot customization. Pixel 6/7 introduced hardware attestation keys (Tensor chip) that made passing SafetyNet trickier when unlocked, but the community found ways to disable those. Pixel devices allow locking the bootloader with third-party ROMs (using custom AVB keys), a huge advantage for security. This means a user can flash CalyxOS and then relock their device, regaining the green “device is secure” boot state – something not possible on many other brands. So Pixel is a top choice for a secure, spoof-capable daily driver.
• OnePlus and other Unlock-friendly Phones: OnePlus models (especially older ones like 5/5T/6) have a strong ROM community. They are easily unlockable and were often used for experimental mods. However, OnePlus devices (and others like Xiaomi, Motorola) may not be certified under Google’s CTS for custom ROMs. Still, developers of mods like crDroid and LineageOS maintain builds for them, and features like PixelPropsUtils are included across these builds to help pass CTS where possible. Enthusiasts with these phones can thus install a privacy ROM and often get basicIntegrity to pass with some tweaking. OnePlus used to retain Widevine L1 even when unlocked (in some models), which was a bonus for media streaming on custom ROM.
• Samsung Galaxy (limited): Samsung’s Knox security and fused bootloaders make it less ideal. While there are custom ROMs for Exynos-based Samsung devices (and some Snapdragon ones), once you unlock, Knox is tripped and can’t be restored. SafetyNet will fail strongIntegrity permanently on those (because of the e-fuse). As a result, Samsung is rarely the platform of choice for privacy ROM projects the hurdles are just higher. Developers tend to favor devices that don’t aggressively lock out third-party firmware.
• Custom Development Platforms: Niche devices and dev kits (like NitroPhone, which is basically a Pixel with GrapheneOS pre-installed, or the Librem 5/PinePhone which run Linux-based OSes) are sometimes considered by extreme privacy enthusiasts, but they don’t run Android fully with Google services. For our focus (Android ROMs), the field is mostly mainstream Android phones that are unlockable.
• Android-x86 or Emulators: It’s worth noting that some testing use cases leverage Android-x86 (Android OS for PCs) or emulators with xposed/magisk to spoof identities in bulk. However, many apps can detect emulator environment easily, so using a real device with a custom ROM is preferred to appear “genuine”. The privacy ROMs discussed are primarily for real hardware.
• /e/OS, LineageOS for microG, etc.: These are de-Googled ROM projects that run on a wide array of phones (fairphone, older Samsungs, etc.). They generally focus on removing Google and enhancing privacy, but not all have built-in spoofing for SafetyNet. For instance, /e/OS doesn’t pass SafetyNet by default (though it leans on microG which has some ability to fake an attestation result but it’s not foolproof). If a user’s goal is to have a phone that completely disguises itself, they will likely pick one of the specialized ROMs (Calyx, etc.) on a supported device rather than a generic one. Community-maintained builds can incorporate patches though – for example, enthusiasts have provided unofficial Lineage builds with Signature Spoofing support (for microG) and SafetyNet hacks for various devices. It requires finding the right combination in forums like XDA.

In short, the Pixel/Nexus heritage devices are most commonly used for developing and running these privacy ROMs, thanks to their openness and standardization. Other OEM devices are used in cases where Pixels are not available or specific needs arise, but with more caveats. The platform (AOSP-based ROM like LineageOS as the base) is also common – most custom ROMs share a lineage, so the spoofing tricks (keystore patches, prop spoofing code) propagate across many ROM flavors in the community.

Notable Open-Source Components and Tools

The ecosystem of spoofing and privacy enhancements on Android is supported by numerous open-source projects. Some of the key components and tools include:

• microG: An open-source re-implementation of Google Play Services. It is crucial in privacy ROMs that don’t want the official Google services but still need functionality like push notifications or map APIs. microG enables a device to register a GSF ID with Google using fabricated data, and it requires “Signature Spoofing” support in the ROM (allowing an app to pretend to have the Google Play Services signature). Many custom ROMs include an option to enable signature spoofing for microG. This lets microG impersonate the official Google services to apps – a form of spoofing at the app identity level.
• Magisk and MagiskHide Props Config: Magisk is the popular rooting framework by topjohnwu, and historically MagiskHide allowed hiding root from specific apps. Although MagiskHide was deprecated in favor of a DenyList, the concept remains similar. The MagiskHide Props Config module is a community module that allows changing system properties (build.fingerprint, model, etc.) easily via a script. It’s essentially the user-facing way to apply the prop spoofing needed for SafetyNet. Many custom ROM users use this on ROMs that don’t natively spoof, to get their device to pass checks. The Universal SafetyNet Fix module by kdrag0n is another critical piece – it patches the dynamic attestation process (forcing basic attestation and spoofing some responses). ROMs like ProtonAOSP integrated that logic directly.
• Xposed/LSPosed Modules: Xposed Framework (and its successor LSPosed for modern Android) provides a hooking mechanism to modify app and system behavior at runtime. There’s a rich library of modules relevant to privacy:
  • Android Faker (Xposed Module): Provides a GUI to spoof numerous device IDs (IMEI, Android ID, MACs, etc.) on the fly. Good for users, but also serves as reference code for what needs to be overridden for effective spoofing.
  • XPrivacyLua: A successor to the XPrivacy project – it allows returning blank or fake values for sensitive API calls on a per-app basis (IDs, contacts, messages, etc.). It’s not a ROM per se, but a tool users often install on custom ROMs to get fine-grained control. It demonstrates the principle of feeding dummy data to apps to protect real data.
  • IMEI Masker (LSPosed): A dedicated module to spoof IMEI (and other telephony info) dynamically. It even can randomize IMEI on certain triggers (like network change). This kind of functionality could be built into a ROM’s settings (e.g., “shuffle device ID on reboot”).
  • Hide Mock Location & GPS Setter: Modules that hide the mock-location status and allow setting a fake GPS location respectively. These have informed ROM-level implementations of location spoofing without triggering detection.
• AOSP Patches on GitHub/Gerrit: The open-source nature of Android means many developers share patches. For example, the “Block key attestation for SafetyNet” patch that appeared in LineageOS, CalyxOS, and others is open for all to see and use. Similarly, the PixelPropsUtils code is in various ROM repositories. These code snippets are effectively open-source tools they are copy-pasted and adapted across different projects. The community collaborates via forums and platforms like GitHub/Gerrit to iterate on them (for instance, updating fingerprints when Google changes the attestation logic).
• Frida and Dynamic Instrumentation: In some cases, developers or advanced users may use Frida (a dynamic code instrumentation toolkit) to hook into apps or services at runtime and modify returns (similar to Xposed but more ad-hoc). It’s not commonly baked into ROMs (too technical for most users), but for research or one-off needs, it’s a powerful open-source tool to test spoofing/detection scenarios.
• Build Signature Spoofing Patch: For enabling microG, patching Android’s PackageManager to allow apps to declare fake signatures is needed. Projects like “Signature Spoofing for AOSP” exist on GitHub, and some ROMs include a toggle in Developer Options to enable it. It’s a niche modification, but very relevant to privacy ROMs that want to avoid Google but still run apps dependent on Google’s APIs.
• Community Knowledge Bases: Beyond code, the know-how is spread through XDA forums, Reddit threads (r/privacy, XDA subforums), and specialized blogs. For instance, GrapheneOS and CalyxOS have public documentation covering how their randomization features work, or how verified boot is managed. The open-source community around these ROMs means much of the implementation detail is public, allowing others to pick up and improve upon prior work.

All these components underscore that the development of privacy-focused spoofing ROMs is a community-driven, open-source endeavor. Pieces like SafetyNet fixes or Xposed modules often start as personal projects and then get integrated into mainstream ROMs if proven effective. The collaborative environment helps these custom ROMs stay up-to-date with Android’s changes and counter new forms of device identification.

---

The development of privacy-focused Android ROMs with integrated spoofing sits at the intersection of security engineering, device compatibility, and legal compliance. Whether for testing, research, or personal privacy, such solutions demand meticulous implementation.

If your organization or project requires a secure, reliable Android environment with these advanced capabilities, we invite you to contact us for a consultation. Our expertise spans low-level AOSP development, attestation management, and system hardening ensuring you get a robust and future-proof solution.

Contact us to discuss your project.