5 ms·

nullc makes a similar comment below. I had thought this was too obvious to bother pointing out, but no, root exploits are not a good thing. The reason phones u

nullc makes a similar comment below. I had thought this was too obvious to bother pointing out, but no, root exploits are not a good thing. The reason phones use kernel sandboxing is to allow users to install apps and have confidence the permissions granted mean something. A root exploit means any app or update you install may turn the phone into spyware, a portable bug-in-your-pocket. The number of users who care about that is measured in billions (all phone users). The number of phone users who care about getting a root shell for their own use is vanishingly small, especially as people who care about that buy phones like the Nexus that have unlocked bootloaders anyway. So no - this sort of exploit is pretty damn bad. The number of people hurt is multiple orders of magnitude higher than the number of people "helped", where that "help" is extremely tenuous anyway.

rando832 10y ago
> The number of phone users who care about getting a root shell for their own use is vanishingly small Only a very small number of people care about how /any/ individual piece of technology could be improved, they have have other things to think about. That is a not a valid argument. It would be better to have it by some other means to get root, but it's not as simple as you make it out. Show a user 2 otherwise identical phones, explain that on one phone, they could do things like tethering, and on the other phone, it's restricted because they can't get root, they will choose the one where they can get root.
- detaro 10y ago
  IMHO the better answer is "buy/recommend phones from manufacturers who give you root access, instead of giving business to companies making vulnerable devices where you can use those vulnerabilities to get root"
- alsetmusic 10y ago
  However, when presented with the full story (you can get tethering on this phone, but at the cost of security; you can get security on another phone, but at the cost of tethering; and you can get both tethering and security on this third phone, but at a higher price), enough people will opt for option three as to make it at least meaningful to the market, despite those who don't care about security.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  Tethering and root access are unconnected: my phone can tether and is unrooted. Maybe if you get your phone from a US carrier these things are related, in which case, buy elsewhere? There really aren't any reasons to try and root an Android phone. If you want to replace the OS with some custom open source build, just use a phone with an unlocked bootloader and go wild. But you can already access so many features and customise so many things without root it hardly seems worth it.
  - izacus 10y ago
    But thats his point exactly - one of the phones allows him to get over customer hostile limitations of some corporation and makes his device more useful in his life. The other is controlled by a whim of somoeone who sees you just as a walking wallet.
    - zigzigzag 10y ago
      If the carrier is giving you the device on better terms than an outright purchase then it's not "customer hostile" is it? You can always buy one instead. Your attitude seems to be "I should be able to get a cheap phone from a carrier by agreeing not to tether, and then I should be able to violate that agreement anyway, and this is a totally moral position". Phones are a commodity. You can get them anywhere. Want to tether? Buy a phone and a plan that allows it. Problem solved.
      - izacus 10y ago
        No, my attitude is "I should be able to do with my 5GB dataplan whatever I wish because that's what I pay for and the carrier has no business dictating why my hardware can or cannot do.". And since I live in EU that is an actual reality - my carrier provides the voice and data service and my phone does what I tell it to and I can choose whichever phone I want. Free market as it should be. Which is why it baffles me beyond all limits just why so many smart Americans go out of their way to defend corporate practices that hurt them as customers.
        10y ago
- gcb0 10y ago
  you're taking most out of thin air. let's see: device that sells the free-to-root marketing (even being a lie in this case), Nexus: billions of sales. device that boast root to be impossible, blackberry: zero sales
  - gcb0 10y ago
    lol. downvote facts. go hackernews!

rando832 10y ago

> The number of phone users who care about getting a root shell for their own use is vanishingly small Only a very small number of people care about how /any/ individual piece of technology could be improved, they have have other things to think about. That is a not a valid argument. It would be better to have it by some other means to get root, but it's not as simple as you make it out. Show a user 2 otherwise identical phones, explain that on one phone, they could do things like tethering, and on the other phone, it's restricted because they can't get root, they will choose the one where they can get root.

detaro 10y ago
IMHO the better answer is "buy/recommend phones from manufacturers who give you root access, instead of giving business to companies making vulnerable devices where you can use those vulnerabilities to get root"
alsetmusic 10y ago
However, when presented with the full story (you can get tethering on this phone, but at the cost of security; you can get security on another phone, but at the cost of tethering; and you can get both tethering and security on this third phone, but at a higher price), enough people will opt for option three as to make it at least meaningful to the market, despite those who don't care about security.
zigzigzag 10y ago
Tethering and root access are unconnected: my phone can tether and is unrooted. Maybe if you get your phone from a US carrier these things are related, in which case, buy elsewhere? There really aren't any reasons to try and root an Android phone. If you want to replace the OS with some custom open source build, just use a phone with an unlocked bootloader and go wild. But you can already access so many features and customise so many things without root it hardly seems worth it.
- izacus 10y ago
  But thats his point exactly - one of the phones allows him to get over customer hostile limitations of some corporation and makes his device more useful in his life. The other is controlled by a whim of somoeone who sees you just as a walking wallet.
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    If the carrier is giving you the device on better terms than an outright purchase then it's not "customer hostile" is it? You can always buy one instead. Your attitude seems to be "I should be able to get a cheap phone from a carrier by agreeing not to tether, and then I should be able to violate that agreement anyway, and this is a totally moral position". Phones are a commodity. You can get them anywhere. Want to tether? Buy a phone and a plan that allows it. Problem solved.
    - izacus 10y ago
      No, my attitude is "I should be able to do with my 5GB dataplan whatever I wish because that's what I pay for and the carrier has no business dictating why my hardware can or cannot do.". And since I live in EU that is an actual reality - my carrier provides the voice and data service and my phone does what I tell it to and I can choose whichever phone I want. Free market as it should be. Which is why it baffles me beyond all limits just why so many smart Americans go out of their way to defend corporate practices that hurt them as customers.
      - 10y ago
gcb0 10y ago
you're taking most out of thin air. let's see: device that sells the free-to-root marketing (even being a lie in this case), Nexus: billions of sales. device that boast root to be impossible, blackberry: zero sales
- gcb0 10y ago
  lol. downvote facts. go hackernews!