8 ms·

>and yea i know you can sideload on android, but the unwashed masses don’t know that so it doesn’t matter. Then what is your solution? The unwashed masses trie

>and yea i know you can sideload on android, but the unwashed masses don’t know that so it doesn’t matter. Then what is your solution? The unwashed masses tried the wild wild west of digital software delivery back in the 2000s. It ended with tears, viruses, UAC and SaaS. Even today, most sideloading, for general consumers, begins with trying to pirate apps and ends with even more invasive spyware. The locked in store model is better than than what we had before for the general consumer (at least iOS's, unequivocally is, IMO). The App Store might be bad for developers, but it's way better for consumers.

shittyadmin 8y ago
I'd say that the sandboxing introduced by mobile OSes today solves the vast majority of the problem. By isolating applications and introducing permissions, malware that can steal or encrypt user data isn't possible even for people installing those pirated APKs.
- comex 8y ago
  But the type of malware described in the article obviously is possible, given that it’s possible even on the Play Store. The OP posed switching to a decentralized model as a solution to that, and it’s hard to see how that makes any sense.
  - shittyadmin 8y ago
    I'd argue the type of malware described in this article is fairly to completely harmless to the user. Harm to ad networks and a bit of wasted bandwidth is basically the worst case scenario. The wasted bandwidth would be made clear by the OS to the user too, so it'd be trivial to identify if it was a significant consumer.
- raxxorrax 8y ago
  But in the end the software running on our phones is mostly crap. I doubt user data being protected by these mechanisms helped people to guard their data.
- vbezhenar 8y ago
  Don't trust Android or iOS or macOS sandbox. Google invests huge amounts of development time and research into Google Chrome JavaScript sandbox. It is the real wild west, there are malicious actors who want to break that sandbox. There are multiple layers of protection. Yet there are successful attacks. Much less people trying to break Android or iOS sandbox, because you can just ask for permission from Android and because Apple can kick bad app from the store and prevent infestation. It means that security of those sandboxes is worse, there are many undiscovered (or undisclosed) holes. Check out history of Java sandbox with its numerous vulnerabilities. I have no reasons to expect anything different from built-in sandboxes. It's like relying on unix user permissions and allow to run anything under untrusted user. Works in theory, but you'll be owned pretty soon, because local root escalation vulnerabilities are not that rare. In those days the only sandbox I would trust is JavaScript one. It's battle tested.
  - shittyadmin 8y ago
    > because you can just ask for permission from Android You cannot ask for permission to bypass sandbox restrictions on Android. You need root access, which means physical access to do things like unlock the bootloader or an exploit. iOS sandbox seems slightly weaker here due to the use of hidden/private functions to protect certain things, sideloaded apps would likely be a bigger risk on iOS than Android at the moment, but that's not something unresolvable. In any case, the things you're discussing aren't really so problematic - isolation systems are only getting better, OS level ones are improving every day. We could easily have sandboxes at this level just as secure as the javascript ones.
Yetanfou 8y ago
The solution is what has been suggested earlier: allow users to choose their own 'store', don't lock them to a single vendor. This is already possible with Android where F-Droid is a good example of a 'store' where the chance of being exposed to these shenanigans is close to zero. Currently iOS users lack this option so for them the only way out is to change platform.
- thekyle 8y ago
  Another nice thing about F-Droid is that it uses Linux style "repositories" meaning that individuals/companies can setup repos for apps without needing to build their own custom app store. There are also multiple independent implementations of the F-droid client: https://gitlab.com/gdroid/gdroidclient/ https://gitlab.com/gdroid/gdroidclient/ https://github.com/SkyzohKey/M-Droid https://github.com/SkyzohKey/M-Droid
  - tty2300 8y ago
    I am told thses software repos are super useful for the 3rd world because phone stores can run a local app repo and people can download apps without using their very limited internet data. Fdroid also allows local app transfers to people near you.
- acdha 8y ago
  That doesn’t seem like much of an improvement: if it became popular, you’d see the same social attacks switch from getting people to install apps to enabling a new store. F-Droid is safer because it’s much smaller and mostly free software: that’s good for people who don’t want anything else but it seems unlikely to satisfy mainstream demand or survive a motivated attack.
  - Yetanfou 8y ago
    Linux survived these attacks. Debian survived them. Ubuntu did. More or less all Linux distributions have been attacked but survived, many of them thrive. Yes, this is free software. Being less susceptible to these problems has been one of the stated advantages of using such for a long time. Alternative 'stores' carrying 'pirated' non-free software do not have this advantage and can easily turn into dark places so the solution does not lie there. Will people choose a 'boring' free software 'store' over a 'cool pirate store' (Arrrrr!)? Some will, some won't. Those who will will end up being mostly silent as the thing just works. Those who won't will be susceptible to the whims of those who put up those 'stores' and are likely to come home with a bit more than they asked for. Some 'stores' will get a good reputation along the lines of that of F-Droid, some will get the reputation of being the place to go to get the latest craze but also the latest infection. Users will start making conscious decisions based on those reputations, just like they already do elsewhere. Will opening up closed platforms like iOS for third-party software repositories get rid of these problems? No, it won't, it will even raise the average level of problematic software on that platform. The difference between closed systems and more open ones is not that the closed ones are inferior, it is that they limit the user's choice to get something which is better as well as worse than what the walled garden offers. In this context better can mean software which does not come with tracking, analytics, profiling and other such privacy-invading nonsense. I can get the source code and build it myself, I can host my own repository, only time limits where I can go. This is not true for the Google Play Store or the Apple Appstore, nor is it true for the Amazon equivalent or any of those Chinese alternatives. That is why I chose to use something like F-Droid. By the way, there is nothing keeping e.g. Facebook or Twitter from releasing a free software version of their apps. Their value - and most of their profiling proficiency - lies in their platforms, not in the apps used to access them. They might lose any additional venues for leaching the user of data but they would gain some believability when they state that they're not up to no good. Of course there are plenty of alternative apps for these services so they don't really need to but they could if they wanted to.
wolco 8y ago
The single source has many advantages but also many negatives. Android apps run the risk of becoming facebook apps. A rising platform that had a lot going for it. Little by little more restrictions pushed many away and turned into what it is today.
43920 8y ago
The problem with early 2000's-style software delivery wasn't that you could choose which software to install, it was that there was no separation between programs, so that any random program you installed could add toolbars to your browser, steal all your passwords, etc. If iOS or Android made it easier to install apps outside the store, I highly doubt you'd see anywhere near the same level of problems, since everything is so isolated from each other.
- tty2300 8y ago
  I would find it acceptable if side loading apps was allowed by default but sideloaded apps are blocked from the dangerous permissions like device admin and draw over screen. Apps that really do require this have to be checked by a maintainer or require the device to be in developer mode. This way almost everyone is happy because most apps don't really require anything other than internet, camera and GPS which can be denied by the user.
  - floatingatoll 8y ago
    Isn’t that what native web apps are for, where you Share > Home Screen and they store themselves in local storage in the browser cache?
    - tty2300 8y ago
      Web apps can't use GPS like an app can
      - stephenr 8y ago
        Im generally not a fan of web apps but this is incorrect. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Geolocation https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Geolocation
        LoSboccacc 8y ago
        can't see anywhere mentioned geofencing.
StreamBright 8y ago
It is amazing that we can fly aircrafts to space but cannot solve software installations, in't it? Maybe the software industry as a whole needs a kick in the butt.
- cmpxchg8b 8y ago
  Flying to the moon isn’t filled with profit motivated bad actors.
z3t4 8y ago
Funny thing is the pirated apps often remove spyware and other crap.
tallanvor 8y ago
The locked in store model in iOS also forces you in to a specific and rather puritanical morality when it comes to the apps you can choose from.

shittyadmin 8y ago

I'd say that the sandboxing introduced by mobile OSes today solves the vast majority of the problem. By isolating applications and introducing permissions, malware that can steal or encrypt user data isn't possible even for people installing those pirated APKs.

comex 8y ago
But the type of malware described in the article obviously is possible, given that it’s possible even on the Play Store. The OP posed switching to a decentralized model as a solution to that, and it’s hard to see how that makes any sense.
- shittyadmin 8y ago
  I'd argue the type of malware described in this article is fairly to completely harmless to the user. Harm to ad networks and a bit of wasted bandwidth is basically the worst case scenario. The wasted bandwidth would be made clear by the OS to the user too, so it'd be trivial to identify if it was a significant consumer.
raxxorrax 8y ago
But in the end the software running on our phones is mostly crap. I doubt user data being protected by these mechanisms helped people to guard their data.
vbezhenar 8y ago
Don't trust Android or iOS or macOS sandbox. Google invests huge amounts of development time and research into Google Chrome JavaScript sandbox. It is the real wild west, there are malicious actors who want to break that sandbox. There are multiple layers of protection. Yet there are successful attacks. Much less people trying to break Android or iOS sandbox, because you can just ask for permission from Android and because Apple can kick bad app from the store and prevent infestation. It means that security of those sandboxes is worse, there are many undiscovered (or undisclosed) holes. Check out history of Java sandbox with its numerous vulnerabilities. I have no reasons to expect anything different from built-in sandboxes. It's like relying on unix user permissions and allow to run anything under untrusted user. Works in theory, but you'll be owned pretty soon, because local root escalation vulnerabilities are not that rare. In those days the only sandbox I would trust is JavaScript one. It's battle tested.
- shittyadmin 8y ago
  > because you can just ask for permission from Android You cannot ask for permission to bypass sandbox restrictions on Android. You need root access, which means physical access to do things like unlock the bootloader or an exploit. iOS sandbox seems slightly weaker here due to the use of hidden/private functions to protect certain things, sideloaded apps would likely be a bigger risk on iOS than Android at the moment, but that's not something unresolvable. In any case, the things you're discussing aren't really so problematic - isolation systems are only getting better, OS level ones are improving every day. We could easily have sandboxes at this level just as secure as the javascript ones.

Yetanfou 8y ago

The solution is what has been suggested earlier: allow users to choose their own 'store', don't lock them to a single vendor. This is already possible with Android where F-Droid is a good example of a 'store' where the chance of being exposed to these shenanigans is close to zero. Currently iOS users lack this option so for them the only way out is to change platform.

thekyle 8y ago
Another nice thing about F-Droid is that it uses Linux style "repositories" meaning that individuals/companies can setup repos for apps without needing to build their own custom app store. There are also multiple independent implementations of the F-droid client: https://gitlab.com/gdroid/gdroidclient/ https://gitlab.com/gdroid/gdroidclient/ https://github.com/SkyzohKey/M-Droid https://github.com/SkyzohKey/M-Droid
- tty2300 8y ago
  I am told thses software repos are super useful for the 3rd world because phone stores can run a local app repo and people can download apps without using their very limited internet data. Fdroid also allows local app transfers to people near you.
acdha 8y ago
That doesn’t seem like much of an improvement: if it became popular, you’d see the same social attacks switch from getting people to install apps to enabling a new store. F-Droid is safer because it’s much smaller and mostly free software: that’s good for people who don’t want anything else but it seems unlikely to satisfy mainstream demand or survive a motivated attack.
- Yetanfou 8y ago
  Linux survived these attacks. Debian survived them. Ubuntu did. More or less all Linux distributions have been attacked but survived, many of them thrive. Yes, this is free software. Being less susceptible to these problems has been one of the stated advantages of using such for a long time. Alternative 'stores' carrying 'pirated' non-free software do not have this advantage and can easily turn into dark places so the solution does not lie there. Will people choose a 'boring' free software 'store' over a 'cool pirate store' (Arrrrr!)? Some will, some won't. Those who will will end up being mostly silent as the thing just works. Those who won't will be susceptible to the whims of those who put up those 'stores' and are likely to come home with a bit more than they asked for. Some 'stores' will get a good reputation along the lines of that of F-Droid, some will get the reputation of being the place to go to get the latest craze but also the latest infection. Users will start making conscious decisions based on those reputations, just like they already do elsewhere. Will opening up closed platforms like iOS for third-party software repositories get rid of these problems? No, it won't, it will even raise the average level of problematic software on that platform. The difference between closed systems and more open ones is not that the closed ones are inferior, it is that they limit the user's choice to get something which is better as well as worse than what the walled garden offers. In this context better can mean software which does not come with tracking, analytics, profiling and other such privacy-invading nonsense. I can get the source code and build it myself, I can host my own repository, only time limits where I can go. This is not true for the Google Play Store or the Apple Appstore, nor is it true for the Amazon equivalent or any of those Chinese alternatives. That is why I chose to use something like F-Droid. By the way, there is nothing keeping e.g. Facebook or Twitter from releasing a free software version of their apps. Their value - and most of their profiling proficiency - lies in their platforms, not in the apps used to access them. They might lose any additional venues for leaching the user of data but they would gain some believability when they state that they're not up to no good. Of course there are plenty of alternative apps for these services so they don't really need to but they could if they wanted to.

wolco 8y ago

The single source has many advantages but also many negatives. Android apps run the risk of becoming facebook apps. A rising platform that had a lot going for it. Little by little more restrictions pushed many away and turned into what it is today.

43920 8y ago

The problem with early 2000's-style software delivery wasn't that you could choose which software to install, it was that there was no separation between programs, so that any random program you installed could add toolbars to your browser, steal all your passwords, etc. If iOS or Android made it easier to install apps outside the store, I highly doubt you'd see anywhere near the same level of problems, since everything is so isolated from each other.

tty2300 8y ago
I would find it acceptable if side loading apps was allowed by default but sideloaded apps are blocked from the dangerous permissions like device admin and draw over screen. Apps that really do require this have to be checked by a maintainer or require the device to be in developer mode. This way almost everyone is happy because most apps don't really require anything other than internet, camera and GPS which can be denied by the user.
- floatingatoll 8y ago
  Isn’t that what native web apps are for, where you Share > Home Screen and they store themselves in local storage in the browser cache?
  - tty2300 8y ago
    Web apps can't use GPS like an app can
    - stephenr 8y ago
      Im generally not a fan of web apps but this is incorrect. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Geolocation https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Geolocation
      - LoSboccacc 8y ago
        can't see anywhere mentioned geofencing.

StreamBright 8y ago

It is amazing that we can fly aircrafts to space but cannot solve software installations, in't it? Maybe the software industry as a whole needs a kick in the butt.

cmpxchg8b 8y ago
Flying to the moon isn’t filled with profit motivated bad actors.

z3t4 8y ago

Funny thing is the pirated apps often remove spyware and other crap.

tallanvor 8y ago

The locked in store model in iOS also forces you in to a specific and rather puritanical morality when it comes to the apps you can choose from.