4 ms·

Your solution for what? for privacy? Apple privacy? just nope. Antivirus software are all bloatware, they don't do money anymore then they focus on other thing

Your solution for what? for privacy? Apple privacy? just nope. Antivirus software are all bloatware, they don't do money anymore then they focus on other things "to secure". Ok. your clipboard can be read by other software (like in Windows ...) then what? just don't copy password. "Yes downvote my comment but don't argue. The solution buy an iPhone is still not valid solution."

simonh 10y ago
You're getting downvotes for your "LA, LA, LA I'm not listening" attitude. Android and iOS have many very different advantages and disadvantages over each other, but security on iOS is very clearly vastly superior and this has been confirmed repeatedly by top security researchers. Trying to pretend that's not true or pick and choose 'whataboutist' issues and pretend that's all that matters to make false equivalences is really going to wind people up. The expected level of discourse here is quite a bit beyond that.
- yellowapple 10y ago
  "security on iOS is very clearly vastly superior and this has been confirmed repeatedly by top security researchers" The vast majority of this "superiority" only applies because the iOS ecosystem is a walled garden. Android devices typically allow sideloading, which obviously introduces an additional attack vector; reproducing this on iOS (i.e. by jailbreaking) brings you back to the same attack surface. The other notable difference between iOS and Android security-wise has historically been the ability to selectively accept certain privileges, but recent Android versions have introduced this as well, and even the old permissions model was (and still is) much more up-front and fine-grained about which permissions an app requires. iOS also had (and probably still has) an edge for awhile when it came to OpenBSD-style exploit mitigations IIRC, but Android is getting these too by way of projects like CopperheadOS. Other than those aspects, there are actually very few major differences (last I checked, at least; I haven't really been following the iOS world, so maybe Apple's done some crazy stuff while I wasn't looking) between their security models. Both implement some form of per-app sandboxing, both default to disallowing root access (in most cases, at least; third-party Android distros have a tendency to ship with root access, usually behind some toggle and/or some management app like SuperSU or whatever the latest hotness is), both default to a locked-down boot environment (in order to defend against rootkits), etc. Both have had their share of security-affecting bugs, too. There's no "clearly vastly superior" about it in either direction, at least on a platform level. On an ecosystem level, sure; Google doesn't do quite as good a job as Apple when it comes to screening malware (there have been quite a few notorious examples of this), and the ability to sideload apps (as well as the much easier jailbreaking/rooting situation) means that more malware is actually viable. This isn't a security problem in the sense of the platform itself, but rather in the sense of allowing users to shoot themselves in the foot by installing trojans. Like I said above, these exact same problems happen on jailbroken iOS devices, too (I reckon with a very similar frequency, too, but I don't have statistical evidence to back it up, so take that with a grain of salt).
  - jerf 10y ago
    "Android devices typically allow sideloading," In the context of this discussion, sideloading is irrelevant. We're talking about the default happen-to-everybody case. "Other than those aspects, there are actually very few major differences... between their security models" It's not just about the security model, though. We have some reason to believe that Apple phones may actually be at least partially resistant to law enforcement. I say that not as an encouragement to use them that way, but to point out that's about the highest security bar possible and we at least have some reason to think the latest iPhones get there. (And I am carefully phrasing this as "some reason to believe" and "resistant" because we do not know for sure whether this is the case, and I wouldn't bet that even if the phone can stymie a local police investigation that it would block a full-powered Federal investigation.) We have no reason to believe any Android phone meets this standard of security, nor would the fact that a particular one rose to that standard meant any other ones would. And if I'm pro-anything, I'm pro-Android in general. But that doesn't change the facts.
    - yellowapple 10y ago
      "We have some reason to believe that Apple phones may actually be at least partially resistant to law enforcement." Clarification: we have some reason to believe that Apple itself may be resistant to law enforcement agencies trying to compel Apple into doing said LEAs' jobs. It's a good sign that Apple hasn't (to public knowledge, at least) disclosed any sort of backdoor in iOS' at-rest encryption, but the same thing can be said of Android devices, too (at least the ones that do indeed support encrypted storage, which should be all of them released within the last couple years per what I recall from Google's standards, plus a significant quantity of prior devices). If we're going for the default happen-to-everybody case, iOS and Android are on equal footing here. If we're going for the security-conscious case, then Android has a huge leg up (due to the existence of completely-FOSS - and therefore completely-publicly-auditable - ROMs) relative to iOS (which lacks such a capability). Transparency is a dependency of trust. Neither iOS nor Android are transparent in a typical deployment, but at least an Android device can be transparent, and thus can be trustworthy. iOS cannot, and therefore cannot be trusted to be secure. Given that, I feel like - in this case - talking about "facts" when the publicly-available information on the lack of iOS backdoors (both at-rest and in-transit) is speculative at best does not seem to be logically consistent.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

simonh 10y ago

You're getting downvotes for your "LA, LA, LA I'm not listening" attitude. Android and iOS have many very different advantages and disadvantages over each other, but security on iOS is very clearly vastly superior and this has been confirmed repeatedly by top security researchers. Trying to pretend that's not true or pick and choose 'whataboutist' issues and pretend that's all that matters to make false equivalences is really going to wind people up. The expected level of discourse here is quite a bit beyond that.

yellowapple 10y ago
"security on iOS is very clearly vastly superior and this has been confirmed repeatedly by top security researchers" The vast majority of this "superiority" only applies because the iOS ecosystem is a walled garden. Android devices typically allow sideloading, which obviously introduces an additional attack vector; reproducing this on iOS (i.e. by jailbreaking) brings you back to the same attack surface. The other notable difference between iOS and Android security-wise has historically been the ability to selectively accept certain privileges, but recent Android versions have introduced this as well, and even the old permissions model was (and still is) much more up-front and fine-grained about which permissions an app requires. iOS also had (and probably still has) an edge for awhile when it came to OpenBSD-style exploit mitigations IIRC, but Android is getting these too by way of projects like CopperheadOS. Other than those aspects, there are actually very few major differences (last I checked, at least; I haven't really been following the iOS world, so maybe Apple's done some crazy stuff while I wasn't looking) between their security models. Both implement some form of per-app sandboxing, both default to disallowing root access (in most cases, at least; third-party Android distros have a tendency to ship with root access, usually behind some toggle and/or some management app like SuperSU or whatever the latest hotness is), both default to a locked-down boot environment (in order to defend against rootkits), etc. Both have had their share of security-affecting bugs, too. There's no "clearly vastly superior" about it in either direction, at least on a platform level. On an ecosystem level, sure; Google doesn't do quite as good a job as Apple when it comes to screening malware (there have been quite a few notorious examples of this), and the ability to sideload apps (as well as the much easier jailbreaking/rooting situation) means that more malware is actually viable. This isn't a security problem in the sense of the platform itself, but rather in the sense of allowing users to shoot themselves in the foot by installing trojans. Like I said above, these exact same problems happen on jailbroken iOS devices, too (I reckon with a very similar frequency, too, but I don't have statistical evidence to back it up, so take that with a grain of salt).
- jerf 10y ago
  "Android devices typically allow sideloading," In the context of this discussion, sideloading is irrelevant. We're talking about the default happen-to-everybody case. "Other than those aspects, there are actually very few major differences... between their security models" It's not just about the security model, though. We have some reason to believe that Apple phones may actually be at least partially resistant to law enforcement. I say that not as an encouragement to use them that way, but to point out that's about the highest security bar possible and we at least have some reason to think the latest iPhones get there. (And I am carefully phrasing this as "some reason to believe" and "resistant" because we do not know for sure whether this is the case, and I wouldn't bet that even if the phone can stymie a local police investigation that it would block a full-powered Federal investigation.) We have no reason to believe any Android phone meets this standard of security, nor would the fact that a particular one rose to that standard meant any other ones would. And if I'm pro-anything, I'm pro-Android in general. But that doesn't change the facts.
  - yellowapple 10y ago
    "We have some reason to believe that Apple phones may actually be at least partially resistant to law enforcement." Clarification: we have some reason to believe that Apple itself may be resistant to law enforcement agencies trying to compel Apple into doing said LEAs' jobs. It's a good sign that Apple hasn't (to public knowledge, at least) disclosed any sort of backdoor in iOS' at-rest encryption, but the same thing can be said of Android devices, too (at least the ones that do indeed support encrypted storage, which should be all of them released within the last couple years per what I recall from Google's standards, plus a significant quantity of prior devices). If we're going for the default happen-to-everybody case, iOS and Android are on equal footing here. If we're going for the security-conscious case, then Android has a huge leg up (due to the existence of completely-FOSS - and therefore completely-publicly-auditable - ROMs) relative to iOS (which lacks such a capability). Transparency is a dependency of trust. Neither iOS nor Android are transparent in a typical deployment, but at least an Android device can be transparent, and thus can be trustworthy. iOS cannot, and therefore cannot be trusted to be secure. Given that, I feel like - in this case - talking about "facts" when the publicly-available information on the lack of iOS backdoors (both at-rest and in-transit) is speculative at best does not seem to be logically consistent.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]