5 ms·

With Marshmallow Android is moving towards a runtime-permission-prompt model similar to Chrome. They've also done a lot of work on sandboxing using SELinux. Als

by guelo 11y ago

With Marshmallow Android is moving towards a runtime-permission-prompt model similar to Chrome. They've also done a lot of work on sandboxing using SELinux. Also, after stagefright they started doing monthly security patches and have gotten buy-in from the OEMs to push those patches. Android's biggest security challenge has been getting the manufacturers and carriers to update their software but there has been a lot of work towards changing that, from moving big parts of the OS to userland so they can be updated independently of the core system, to applying business pressure. Presumably updates will be easier on Chromebooks than on phones.

pjmlp 11y ago
Still waiting for Samsung fixes....
- 72deluxe 11y ago
  We may be waiting forever... time to ditch it for a loss
  - pjmlp 11y ago
    Yeah, the problem is what to get instead if staying on Android. I surely won't pay what Google is asking for their devices, given lack of SD card and changeable battery. Plus, they also proved they aren't trustworthy by not providing a path for those that gave them money for the Nexus with TI processor. As if Google didn't had the money to keep supporting them.
    - 72deluxe 11y ago
      It's like they don't care, which is sad. They have got into a great position to be a contender in the fickle horse-race that is the mobile phone industry, but the same horse is trampling the people that funded them to get there. "What about security updates for my phone?" The hurdle is jumped, and the patron has the Google horse land on them, causing death
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      If TI decides to leave the market, there's nothing to be done. You can't force TI to come back if they don't want to.
      - pjmlp 11y ago
        You can maintain the code yourself for the existing devices, that is a lame excuse. Goggle has the knowledge and money to do so.
        s73v3r 11y ago
        How can you do that if TI didn't give you the rights to it in the first place?
    - nradov 11y ago
      Unfortunately the latest Samsung devices don't have SD cards or changeable batteries either. They have apparently voluntarily eliminated two of their key differentiating features, not sure why.
ilurk 11y ago
> runtime-permission-prompt model So each app will continue to ask for access to everything and you choose between being info-excluded or giving away your data. > buy-in from the OEMs to push those patches How does this work? Is there any legal obligation for manufacturers/vendors to provide these patches in X weeks? If there isn't then I won't keep my hopes up. > from moving big parts of the OS to userland so they can be updated separately from the core system How exactly? By moving from Android to google proprietary apps? If so then this is a two-edged sword as it inevitably binds you to google spyware. Either you own an half-phone or you give away your data. Sorry if I sound bitter but I see what Android could be and get defeated by what it is. I never owned an iPhone but my next phone will be one. Maybe I'll still be disappointed, but at least won't have to deal with CM, Xprivacy, manual updates and all the other shenanigans. Disclaimer: I'm an increasingly disappointed Android user.
- AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
  > So each app will continue to ask for access to everything and you choose between being info-excluded or giving away your data. I think you might misunderstand what the Marshmallow upgrade will allow. Users will have the ability to turn off any given permission for any given app. Don't want google maps to have GPS access? Cool, just turn it off and the app will have to deal with the lack of information. It's not a Windows model carte blanche per-run thing. Sure, apps can be abusive and ask for more permissions than they need and refuse to run if they don't have them, but that's a problem with any conceivable permission system.
  - malka 11y ago
    > Sure, apps can be abusive and ask for more permissions than they need and refuse to run if they don't have them, but that's a problem with any conceivable permission system. The OS could give fake data to the apps. Such as a arbitrary GPS location, or an empty contact list.
    - oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
      Hopefully, that would be unnecessary. If my calculator app won't run without full access to my address book, I'll seek out an alternative calculator which will; at this extreme, with an open marketplace, there will surely be alternatives.
chetanahuja 11y ago
"With Marshmallow Android is moving towards a runtime-permission-prompt model similar to Chrome" This is horrible from a usability perspective. Note that large bulk laptop purchasers (schools, large enterprises with mostly web application requirements etc.) have been the biggest markets for chromebook. One of the biggest reasons for that popularity is the lower cost of management of chromebooks compared to windows or mac laptops. In that the base OS not only just works, it also just updates. A huge saving in admin time and headache. The other factor is that all user data is automatically in the cloud, which means backups/restores/replacements/upgrades are trivial operations now. One way chromebooks can retain this ease of use/administration is by basically shipping a laptop with chrome running on Android OS but no other apps installable by the user (outside of chrome sandbox). This will get Google out of the two OS kernels management business but could still retain the essential goodness of the chromebook concept.
- lnanek2 11y ago
  > Android OS but no other apps installable by the user There are quite a few device management solutions out there for Android that can white list, black list, deny all installs of apps. It's very common to setup in business and already completely supported. It's even far more powerful than that with capabilities to do things like deny certain apps/networks unless you have certain password complexity requirements, etc..

by guelo 11y ago

pjmlp 11y ago

Still waiting for Samsung fixes....

72deluxe 11y ago
We may be waiting forever... time to ditch it for a loss
- pjmlp 11y ago
  Yeah, the problem is what to get instead if staying on Android. I surely won't pay what Google is asking for their devices, given lack of SD card and changeable battery. Plus, they also proved they aren't trustworthy by not providing a path for those that gave them money for the Nexus with TI processor. As if Google didn't had the money to keep supporting them.
  - 72deluxe 11y ago
    It's like they don't care, which is sad. They have got into a great position to be a contender in the fickle horse-race that is the mobile phone industry, but the same horse is trampling the people that funded them to get there. "What about security updates for my phone?" The hurdle is jumped, and the patron has the Google horse land on them, causing death
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    If TI decides to leave the market, there's nothing to be done. You can't force TI to come back if they don't want to.
    - pjmlp 11y ago
      You can maintain the code yourself for the existing devices, that is a lame excuse. Goggle has the knowledge and money to do so.
      - s73v3r 11y ago
        How can you do that if TI didn't give you the rights to it in the first place?
  - nradov 11y ago
    Unfortunately the latest Samsung devices don't have SD cards or changeable batteries either. They have apparently voluntarily eliminated two of their key differentiating features, not sure why.

ilurk 11y ago

> runtime-permission-prompt model So each app will continue to ask for access to everything and you choose between being info-excluded or giving away your data. > buy-in from the OEMs to push those patches How does this work? Is there any legal obligation for manufacturers/vendors to provide these patches in X weeks? If there isn't then I won't keep my hopes up. > from moving big parts of the OS to userland so they can be updated separately from the core system How exactly? By moving from Android to google proprietary apps? If so then this is a two-edged sword as it inevitably binds you to google spyware. Either you own an half-phone or you give away your data. Sorry if I sound bitter but I see what Android could be and get defeated by what it is. I never owned an iPhone but my next phone will be one. Maybe I'll still be disappointed, but at least won't have to deal with CM, Xprivacy, manual updates and all the other shenanigans. Disclaimer: I'm an increasingly disappointed Android user.

AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
> So each app will continue to ask for access to everything and you choose between being info-excluded or giving away your data. I think you might misunderstand what the Marshmallow upgrade will allow. Users will have the ability to turn off any given permission for any given app. Don't want google maps to have GPS access? Cool, just turn it off and the app will have to deal with the lack of information. It's not a Windows model carte blanche per-run thing. Sure, apps can be abusive and ask for more permissions than they need and refuse to run if they don't have them, but that's a problem with any conceivable permission system.
- malka 11y ago
  > Sure, apps can be abusive and ask for more permissions than they need and refuse to run if they don't have them, but that's a problem with any conceivable permission system. The OS could give fake data to the apps. Such as a arbitrary GPS location, or an empty contact list.
  - oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
    Hopefully, that would be unnecessary. If my calculator app won't run without full access to my address book, I'll seek out an alternative calculator which will; at this extreme, with an open marketplace, there will surely be alternatives.

chetanahuja 11y ago

"With Marshmallow Android is moving towards a runtime-permission-prompt model similar to Chrome" This is horrible from a usability perspective. Note that large bulk laptop purchasers (schools, large enterprises with mostly web application requirements etc.) have been the biggest markets for chromebook. One of the biggest reasons for that popularity is the lower cost of management of chromebooks compared to windows or mac laptops. In that the base OS not only just works, it also just updates. A huge saving in admin time and headache. The other factor is that all user data is automatically in the cloud, which means backups/restores/replacements/upgrades are trivial operations now. One way chromebooks can retain this ease of use/administration is by basically shipping a laptop with chrome running on Android OS but no other apps installable by the user (outside of chrome sandbox). This will get Google out of the two OS kernels management business but could still retain the essential goodness of the chromebook concept.

lnanek2 11y ago
> Android OS but no other apps installable by the user There are quite a few device management solutions out there for Android that can white list, black list, deny all installs of apps. It's very common to setup in business and already completely supported. It's even far more powerful than that with capabilities to do things like deny certain apps/networks unless you have certain password complexity requirements, etc..