reCAPTCHA Mobile Verification Is Bringing the Play Integrity API to Desktops

5/15/2026 at 9:25:15 AM

This is begging for anti-competitive investigations, surely? It's explicit collusion between the largest mobile makers and key app-based services (e.g. gov services, communication tools, banking) to directly block any competing OS.

They're publicly agreeing that only users using their approved mobile devices are allowed to do banking, and competitors cannot. I'm not sure how much more clearly anti-competitive this could be.

by pimterry

5/15/2026 at 9:09:35 AM

In recent r/Android update post, this is put at the very last, I believe this completely verifies that Google is implementing hardware attestation.

And, r/android being mostly google worshipers won't say anything, but also it's difficult to parse through such a huge ai generated post.

  New data isolation and verification tools

  Expanded Binary Transparency: Anyone can now verify that the critical software layers on their device were actually authorized by Google and haven't been secretly modified by attackers. We are publishing a public, append-only ledger that provides cryptographic proof that production Google applications and Mainline Modules are the authentic versions released by Google. If a Google-signed app isn’t on this ledger, we didn’t intend to release it.

  Android OS verification: We have seen some bad actors begin to distribute malicious, unofficial versions of the Android OS that secretly compromise device integrity. To combat this, we are introducing Android OS verification in Android 17. Launching initially on Pixel devices, this feature helps you verify that your device is running an official, widely distributed build.

  Keeping your ambient data confidential and isolated: Android 17 introduces AISeal with pKVM which, along with Private AI Compute, creates an isolated, verifiable, hardware-backed environment where ambient data can be processed securely

by t_mahmood

5/15/2026 at 9:27:06 AM

https://old.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1tb8dxv/new_featur...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1tb8dxv/new_featur...

https://blog.google/security/whats-new-in-android-security-p...

by hurfdurf

5/15/2026 at 7:13:08 AM

> linux desktop

That's the only part I'm interested in. I've read this article - or something similar - before and it doesn't surprise me that these big tech companies want more control. What I don't understand is how this affects linux desktop?

Is it going to be that online services or websites or webapps can choose to require attestation? Whether you use this OS or that OS? Or are linux developers forced to change their open source software?

by rambambram

5/15/2026 at 8:08:11 AM

It'll affect you the same way reCAPTCHA does. A website decides to use "Google Cloud Fraud", and locks you out if you don't complete the "challenges" it shows. Your OS doesn't matter at all.

by CodesInChaos

5/15/2026 at 8:44:09 AM

Thanks! It was slightly confusing, now I get it.

by rambambram

5/15/2026 at 9:24:54 AM

This is very bad. Google has truly become evil.

My only hope left is that the EU will step in and prevent this. At least in Europe.

by reddalo

5/15/2026 at 9:26:57 AM

I don't buy the anti bot argument. Cheap Android phones can be purchased for less than $40 and QR code scanning can be automated. Bot farms will evolve.

The only possible reason for this is to lock out the competition.

by aussieguy1234

5/15/2026 at 5:21:24 AM

Aside from the horrendous privacy implications, is there a possible argument that this is anti-competitive?

by CalRobert

5/15/2026 at 6:24:45 AM

the only anticompetitive element I can think of is the way they pushed their scanning app to Android phones with Play Services. On IOS they're not in control but still able to launch an app (app snippets the feature is called, I think?) but on Android they themselves killed off Instant Apps because nobody used it. If one of Google's competitors like hCAPTCHA tries to do the same, they'll have more friction on Android than Google does.

When it comes to GrapheneOS, it's the website owners that decided to block those devices by using this service. There are other services that don't block those phones they can use instead.

by jeroenhd

5/15/2026 at 5:36:20 AM

That's the whole goal of the concept. Safetynet (the predecessor of Play Integrity) was developed to block CyanogenMod and then later used to block Huawei.

by realusername

5/15/2026 at 6:27:55 AM

App developers need to put effort into enabling these APIs so it's not like Google is actively blocking your favorite apps. Their makers are.

Like with reCAPTCHA, there are other services and libraries out there to detect root access and other things companies want to detect in their apps.

by jeroenhd

5/15/2026 at 7:02:40 AM

Sure, Google was betting that bureaucratic companies would enroll voluntarily and it worked.

> Like with reCAPTCHA, there are other services and libraries out there to detect root access and other things companies want to detect in their apps.

My opinion on this is that any method to check integrity, root access or if developer mode is enabled is a security vulnerability by itself, no such app should be able to know that.

by realusername

5/15/2026 at 8:44:21 AM

> My opinion on this is that any method to check integrity, root access or if developer mode is enabled is a security vulnerability by itself, no such app should be able to know that.

I think knowledge of such information should be available to all apps, but I think apps should not be so annoyingly restrictive. There's absolutely no reason why games or generic apps need to act on any of this information.

by jeroenhd

5/15/2026 at 9:14:37 AM

Realistically, in which scenario this information can be useful? I can't think of anything, it should be removed.

It's been misused by banking app and games, I've never seen a legitimate use case.

by realusername

5/15/2026 at 9:49:10 AM

To verify that the user or someone who had physical access to the device (border checks, etc.) hasn't messed with the firmware.

If I were a bank I wouldn't want to be on the hook for someone getting their bank account drained by the custom ROM someone downloaded from XDA.

Then there's the DRM thing, where copyright owners make companies like Netflix sign a document like "if you don't enforce strong DRM, you cannot serve our media". Their choice is either use DRM (which in turn uses integrity checking) or not serve you at all. As a user, you once again have the choice of "buy the box set" or "use a smartphone with a trusted OS".

There's also the corporate use case, companies have remote wipe capabilities for data integrity purposes and don't want their employees rooting phones.

Pokemon Go used it to check whether people were spoofing their location and ruining the game for others. They were especially assholish about it, but that should hardly be a surprise when Nintendo is involved at any part of the chain.

Any game with in-app purchases wants to verify that nobody messed with the APK to get paid content for free. It's almost a basic business requirement. Combining limited-lifetime remote attestation tokens with data fetch URLs means superweatherapp-patched-luckypatcher.apk on LineageOS will not be able to pretend to be the real app (GPlay on stock Android already offers app verification APIs).

In Google's case, "this is a physical device and not an emulator" is a strong signal that the user is not a bot pretending to be a human. In an age where CAPTCHAs are easier to solve for AI than they are for humans, that kind of verification is worth a lot.

I'm sure I'm missing a lot of use cases here, but the technology is useful. It's often used in apps and games I would never want to run on my phone anyway, except for banking apps perhaps.

by jeroenhd

5/15/2026 at 5:48:56 AM

I am going to assume that this also destroys millions of AI agents and bot scrapers this time which is why some “AI Engineers” were complaining about this recently.

Well, this is how Google will kill all the scrapers on its search data.

by rvz

5/15/2026 at 6:20:38 AM

Not entirely, Google's own page says:

> Fraud Defense leverages a sophisticated and adaptable risk analysis engine to shield against automated software. It is specifically designed to orchestrate trust for the agentic web, neutralizing malicious scrapers while welcoming legitimate AI agents.

I'm sure it'll block a whole bunch of awful scrapers but if Google doesn't hate a bot, it'll be able to pass.

by jeroenhd

5/15/2026 at 6:48:14 AM

Sounds like an anti-competitive play to build an AI moat. They'll introduce a sham "verification program" and only allow bots operated by entities large enough to sue them for anti-competitive conduct.

by dns_snek

5/15/2026 at 6:57:47 AM

Does mass scraping need google for content discovery? Surely most sites contain a site map or index that would effectively self enumerate once you know the domain, which is more often than not publicly disclosed?

by hsbauauvhabzb

5/15/2026 at 6:24:18 AM

So fuck blind people I guess?

by bekon

5/15/2026 at 9:36:01 AM

This one sounds less problematic for blind people than reCAPTCHA, which relied on a visual challenge. Especially since google or the screen reader software can easily add a browser extension that forwards the challenge to the phone removing the need for scanning a QR code.

The real problems with this technology are control (need a google approved phone) and privacy/tracking.

by CodesInChaos

5/15/2026 at 7:46:48 AM

Blind people need to start suing at least in America the ADA is far easier to win against large companies than in the UK as the equality act is treated vastly weaker by judges than if someone presented a religion or race lawsuit.

America is the only place to take down big tech discrimination.

by worldofmatthew

5/15/2026 at 9:21:19 AM

Smart glasses or apps like BeMyEyes can assist blind people through these flows. AI's visual understanding has progressed tremendously over the past couple decades.

by charcircuit

5/15/2026 at 6:58:47 AM

That is a cost that our future authoritarian world leader has decided is more than acceptable.

by hsbauauvhabzb

5/15/2026 at 7:06:53 AM

So, let me see if I understand it:

Apple+Google got punished by the EU for non-competitive practices and now they offered to ordinary websites their most desired features: bot blocking and unavoidable user tracking across all devices and operating systems.

And if EU wants to sue, they'll have to sue each and every website that requires this, and they would loose, because there are no alternatives and even if there were, they would be just as bad.

Great job Google+Apple! I'm proud of you. /s

by M95D

5/15/2026 at 5:38:23 AM

If Windows wasn't so far behind Apple and the rest of the industry in regards to integrity APIs this wouldn't be necessary. It's embarrassing for Microsoft that someone needs to use a separate, more secure device since their security is so bad.

by charcircuit

5/15/2026 at 5:43:25 AM

It's embarrassing for Hacker News that people here are commenting to support attestation systems that prevent you from owning the device you bought.

by chadgpt3

5/15/2026 at 5:48:23 AM

Attestation isn't against being able to do whatever you want with your own device. It just means that if you want other people to trust your custom device you need to get them to trust your signing key.

by charcircuit

5/15/2026 at 9:16:21 AM

The intention behind it doesn't matter at all. In the end, it just means that only a few major operating systems are allowed, and the market is divided up among the established manufacturers. Anyone new to the market faces a major problem right off the bat, and trying to build something yourself doesn't work either.

by RandomGerm4n

5/15/2026 at 6:54:16 AM

Pray tell, how might you get them to trust your signing key? Do you just email Mr. Pichai and ask nicely, is that enough?

by dns_snek

5/15/2026 at 9:18:10 AM

I would try reaching out to the Recaptcha team so you can create a legal contract around what guarantees and compensation are needed to get your key trusted.

by charcircuit

5/15/2026 at 9:57:06 AM

But that would only be possible for large companies. If I'm just tinkering with my own Linux distribution for fun, Google won't even bother responding to my request.

by RandomGerm4n

5/15/2026 at 6:53:11 AM

Not sure if you’re being deliberately obtuse, but a signing key means nothing by itself. What exactly do you think is being attested TO?

Thats right: that the user can’t do what they want with their own device. Obviously your key wouldn’t be trusted if they could.

There is no other conceivable purpose that attestation could serve.

by foltik

5/15/2026 at 6:56:19 AM

> Not sure if you’re being deliberately obtuse

Yes, they are. If there's a thread on HN about user-hostile features, you can be pretty confident that they've written a comment defending it.

by dns_snek

5/15/2026 at 8:41:23 AM

There are many changes that are possible which do not harm the integrity of applications.

>the user can’t do what they want with their own device

In the same way the user can't make their device have the Microsoft Word app send them $1 million from Microsoft's bank account. Once other people are in the picture you can't always have your way.

by charcircuit

5/15/2026 at 6:33:53 AM

Windows Hello offers an attestation API according to the releases I found, though because Microsoft has called at least four products "hello" now, I can't easily find the details. I don't think there's a technical reason why Google couldn't have released an app with a URL handler that uses that API except maybe for the Windows TPMs being less secure than mobile ones in general.

by jeroenhd

5/15/2026 at 8:41:12 AM

That attestation is for attesting you are using a TPM for user authentication. Which is different than attestation of integrity.

by charcircuit

5/15/2026 at 8:50:31 AM

They do have some kind of attestation mechanism to actually attest the device state: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/attestation/tpm-atte...

It seems like the documentation for the feature is aimed entirely at MDM setups, though.

The basic API requirements are all there, and Windows 11 requires TPM 2.0, so I believe it should be possible for Google to build a Play Integrity equivalent around that.

by jeroenhd

5/15/2026 at 5:45:28 AM

Integrity doesn't guarantee any security to your device, just that the device is same as from the factory. That's a common misconception.

by realusername

5/15/2026 at 6:38:28 AM

"strong integrity" also takes into account if a security update has been installed recently enough. I don't believe hardware integrity spoofing has been accomplished on Android yet. Software integrity and compatibility with old hardware has been used to spoof device IDs and pretend a phone doesn't have the ability to do hardware attestation.

It's technically possible to exploit a kernel and get root access on a running device, of course, but the persistent root that is used most often will be detected by hardware integrity mechanisms. Exploit based root might be as well if it makes itself detectable enough.

by jeroenhd

5/15/2026 at 7:51:12 AM

> if a security update has been installed recently enough

In turn, this enables any tyrannical or anti-competitive demand which can be implemented in software, such as "user is not on the blasphemer list" or "all communications are being CC'ed to the Ministry of Truth."

by Terr_

5/15/2026 at 7:03:50 AM

> "strong integrity" also takes into account if a security update has been installed recently enough.

My Galaxy S10, last update in 2023 passes strong integrity.

With the little amount of security updates most Android devices have, I'm pretty sure you can find an exploit for pretty much everything except the most expensive flagships.

What does integrity really means when nobody really knows what's in the device and with a terrible software update policy anyways.

by realusername

5/15/2026 at 8:40:39 AM

The exact requirements for security updates depends on the Android version you're running and the one your device came with. From the docs:

        MEETS_STRONG_INTEGRITY
        
        The app is running on a genuine and certified Android device with a recent security update.
        
        On Android 13 and higher, the MEETS_STRONG_INTEGRITY verdict requires MEETS_DEVICE_INTEGRITY and security updates in the last year for all partitions of the device, including an Android OS partition patch and a vendor partition patch.
        On Android 12 and lower, the MEETS_STRONG_INTEGRITY verdict only requires hardware-backed proof of boot integrity and does not require the device to have a recent security update. Therefore, when using the MEETS_STRONG_INTEGRITY, it is recommended to also take into account the Android SDK version in the deviceAttributes field.
        
        A single device will return multiple device labels in the device integrity verdict if each of the label's criteria is met.

The S10 should be on Android 13, so it should not pass STRONG_INTEGRITY. If it does, perhaps it's possible Google updated the docs early in anticipation of a change? The software update requirement wasn't always there.

by jeroenhd

5/15/2026 at 9:13:10 AM

I didn't know about this change, this is actually good news, it means no app can realistically rely on strong integrity as it will cut them from their user base.

by realusername

5/15/2026 at 9:39:14 AM

I think you overestimate how far apps are willing to go for stupid reasons.

Also, there is still the DEVICE_INTEGRITY check that verifies the hardware side of things so if old devices have to be pushed, app developers still won't let you run their apps on LineageOS

by jeroenhd

5/15/2026 at 8:29:58 AM

>I don't believe hardware integrity spoofing has been accomplished on Android yet.

It has, but extracted keys aren't free.

by charcircuit