3 ms·

> You have to root your device to run it wtf. I have been using F-Droid for many years, and this has not been the case. as far as I know, this has never been t

> You have to root your device to run it wtf. I have been using F-Droid for many years, and this has not been the case. as far as I know, this has never been the case, as Android has always had functions for third party app stores. in fact, even today, F-Droid recommends not using root for installs, since then you don't get the screen showing permissions. > allow third party code that's called running apps. tl;dr nice FUD.

angry_octet 8y ago
'allow third party code' means code which is not signed. Once you tick that any unsigned code can run, not only the app you downloaded. Makes exploitation significantly easier. It would be better if Android forced you to explicitly select which code could run, but too hard for most users.
- ficklepickle 8y ago
  Then you "untick" it until the next time you need to install something. This is what I do on lineageOS. I don't regularly install new apps. Side rant: This marketer-driven "install an app for everything" is a threat to the open internet and privacy. Usually the only reason is to extract more personal info. Already, young people barely use a web browser. That appears to be the future. Now get off my lawn or I'll start talking about the war.
  - angry_octet 8y ago
    You might do it, but thousands wouldn't. Android could undoubtedly be stronger in this regard, and in permission control, firewall, ad blocking etc, but it's not going to happen. Apps wouldn't be so bad if they were actually sandboxed properly, but yeah, they suck. I was interested in Copperhead OS as an alternative, but it seems to have fallen into a greed induced mess.
    - cannonedhamster 8y ago
      You just shot your own argument against his point in the foot. Thousands of people doesn't even make up a percentage point of the users of Android. Most people on Android use Google Play because it's sufficient against the threats that they need to it be sufficient against. Most people are okay with the risk/reward ratios that come with using commercial software because they then don't have to think about it. Signal provides a nearly turnkey level of protection above and beyond standard messaging in an easy enough format for most people to use.
      - angry_octet 8y ago
        IDK what you're going on about. What is your argument? I am arguing Play store is fine, and side loading is bad policy. I argued that for every person who will take the time to micromanage permissions, thousands wouldn't. So what are you talking about?
  - angry_octet 8y ago
    We're about to see what happens with APK side loading at scale... Fortnite is bypassing Play store. I predict massive pwnage. https://twitter.com/APKMirror/status/1027580291374702592?s=19 https://twitter.com/APKMirror/status/1027580291374702592?s=1...
- eighthave 8y ago
  Android explicitly forbids running unsigned APKs, it is not possible to do.
leshow 8y ago
> that's called running apps. And you accuse me of making things up? "Allow third party code" is not called "running apps"

angry_octet 8y ago

'allow third party code' means code which is not signed. Once you tick that any unsigned code can run, not only the app you downloaded. Makes exploitation significantly easier. It would be better if Android forced you to explicitly select which code could run, but too hard for most users.

ficklepickle 8y ago
Then you "untick" it until the next time you need to install something. This is what I do on lineageOS. I don't regularly install new apps. Side rant: This marketer-driven "install an app for everything" is a threat to the open internet and privacy. Usually the only reason is to extract more personal info. Already, young people barely use a web browser. That appears to be the future. Now get off my lawn or I'll start talking about the war.
- angry_octet 8y ago
  You might do it, but thousands wouldn't. Android could undoubtedly be stronger in this regard, and in permission control, firewall, ad blocking etc, but it's not going to happen. Apps wouldn't be so bad if they were actually sandboxed properly, but yeah, they suck. I was interested in Copperhead OS as an alternative, but it seems to have fallen into a greed induced mess.
  - cannonedhamster 8y ago
    You just shot your own argument against his point in the foot. Thousands of people doesn't even make up a percentage point of the users of Android. Most people on Android use Google Play because it's sufficient against the threats that they need to it be sufficient against. Most people are okay with the risk/reward ratios that come with using commercial software because they then don't have to think about it. Signal provides a nearly turnkey level of protection above and beyond standard messaging in an easy enough format for most people to use.
    - angry_octet 8y ago
      IDK what you're going on about. What is your argument? I am arguing Play store is fine, and side loading is bad policy. I argued that for every person who will take the time to micromanage permissions, thousands wouldn't. So what are you talking about?
- angry_octet 8y ago
  We're about to see what happens with APK side loading at scale... Fortnite is bypassing Play store. I predict massive pwnage. https://twitter.com/APKMirror/status/1027580291374702592?s=19 https://twitter.com/APKMirror/status/1027580291374702592?s=1...
eighthave 8y ago
Android explicitly forbids running unsigned APKs, it is not possible to do.

leshow 8y ago

> that's called running apps. And you accuse me of making things up? "Allow third party code" is not called "running apps"