6 ms·

And your chance to share this complete control with every installed app. Phones should be like desktop computers. You install an app, you give it access to ever

And your chance to share this complete control with every installed app. Phones should be like desktop computers. You install an app, you give it access to everything your account can touch on the computer.

zelly 7y ago
Android has one of the best security models and sandboxing for apps. It's based around SELinux.
- vengefulduck 7y ago
  Which this vulnerability bypasses, so kinda a moot point.
  - mrb 7y ago
    "Best" security model ≠ "Perfect" model. In fact, no model is perfect.
- zzzcpan 7y ago
  > Android has one of the best security models and sandboxing for apps. It's based around SELinux. You mean a security model that misses the fact that the kernel cannot be updated and relies on a "sanboxing" solution that doesn't bother limiting kernel attack surface. No, I don't think they even had a security model in mind, a threat model or anything beyond random ad hoc ideas. And if they did some thinking, they would not have chosen SELinux either, as it's not a decent solution to anything, it's more like a solution to "we must to do something, this is something, we must do this".
  - ebiggers 7y ago
    SELinux actually does significantly reduce the kernel attack surface on Android, and it has made a lot of kernel vulnerabilites unexploitable on Android. This particular bug was simply one in the remaining attack surface.
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    Despite the fragmentation and lack of updates provided by most OEMs, Android's architecture from security point of view is safer than any other Linux based platform, with exception of ChromeOS. Managed languages userspace, drivers implemented in Java or C++ in their own process with IPC to the kernel (since project Treble), whitelist of allowed native calls beyond the rather thin set of native libraries, to touch IO beyond own APK install dir or TCP/IP, native code needs to go through managed layer, several security critical processes are deployed in production with FORTIFY and sanitizers turned on. ChromeOS turns the notch even higher by running Crostini on its own Rust implemented hypervisor and Go written userspace syscalls wrapper (gVisor).
- realusername 7y ago
  And it throws all that security model out of the window by having the manufacturer do whatever they want and lacking upgrades. How long is it going to take for this update to propagate? I'm betting on at least 4 months for my phone.
shrimp_emoji 7y ago
SHOULD desktop apps be like this? :D
- jdnenej 7y ago
  Absolutely not. It's an outdated concept from the days where all the software you run was either preinstalled or you created it yourself and the only security consideration was stopping you from messing up another users setup on the shared computer.
  - incompatible 7y ago
    My desktop environment doesn't associate data with particular programs. Data is ideally in standard file formats and multiple programs can interact with it. I can see that tying data to a particular program may improve security, but it would also be extremely inconvenient.
    - shrimp_emoji 7y ago
      >extremely inconvenient. Maybe. I'd argue "extremely". It does suck, for instance, that Discord as a Flatpak can only access a fixed subset of $HOME directories. But it can't scan your machine's processes like ordinary Discord can (to report the game you're playing), which is a privacy gain. The security (and portability) advantages of sandboxing/containerizing apps may outweigh the hassle of the workarounds/memory inefficiency. Meanwhile, with unfettered access, you have things like: https://www.thegamer.com/civilization-6-steam-eula-change-spying-permission-data-collection/ https://www.thegamer.com/civilization-6-steam-eula-change-sp... >"We may combine the information with your personal information and across other computers or devices that you may use" They also mentioned "photo", which there's no obvious way to collect. I remember someone joking, "What, do they go through your directories, looking for a picture of you?!"
      - incompatible 7y ago
        There'd be a case for sandboxing proprietary software, for sure.
adtac 7y ago
Nobody would willingly run outdated, vulnerable software if there was an easy, direct, and supported way to root your phone. Sell phones locked for security or whatever, I couldn't care less, but give people the option to root when they want. So many iPhone users knowingly refuse to upgrade to newer versions of the operating system just so they can keep their jailbreak.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > Nobody would willingly run outdated, vulnerable software if there was an easy, direct, and supported way to root your phone. People do that all the time with desktop computers.
  - userbinator 7y ago
    As much as a certain outspoken group want you to think, there are lots of other reasons besides security to do something.
  - realusername 7y ago
    Yeah but at least there's a way to upgrade desktop computers, phones just aren't.
- scarface74 7y ago
  “Many” users?
  - adtac 7y ago
    Yes, nearly all of /r/jailbreak is running iOS 12.x or lower. Specifically, practically no one there has updated to 12.4.1, which fixes Pwn20wnd's exploit.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      R/jailbreak has about about 5400 members and “or lower” includes discussions about a first generation iPad and the iPad mini one. They aren’t using an older version by choice - they are using old versions because there are no newer versions available.
StavrosK 7y ago
I always wonder if the people who go around spreading this FUD have ever used a rooted phone. Privilege elevation is a specific, clear, and targeted procedure. It's not automatic, apps don't just get access to the entire system right away bu default, and nobody who rooted their phone just answers "yes, give root to this app" for any old purpose.

zelly 7y ago

Android has one of the best security models and sandboxing for apps. It's based around SELinux.

vengefulduck 7y ago
Which this vulnerability bypasses, so kinda a moot point.
- mrb 7y ago
  "Best" security model ≠ "Perfect" model. In fact, no model is perfect.
zzzcpan 7y ago
> Android has one of the best security models and sandboxing for apps. It's based around SELinux. You mean a security model that misses the fact that the kernel cannot be updated and relies on a "sanboxing" solution that doesn't bother limiting kernel attack surface. No, I don't think they even had a security model in mind, a threat model or anything beyond random ad hoc ideas. And if they did some thinking, they would not have chosen SELinux either, as it's not a decent solution to anything, it's more like a solution to "we must to do something, this is something, we must do this".
- ebiggers 7y ago
  SELinux actually does significantly reduce the kernel attack surface on Android, and it has made a lot of kernel vulnerabilites unexploitable on Android. This particular bug was simply one in the remaining attack surface.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Despite the fragmentation and lack of updates provided by most OEMs, Android's architecture from security point of view is safer than any other Linux based platform, with exception of ChromeOS. Managed languages userspace, drivers implemented in Java or C++ in their own process with IPC to the kernel (since project Treble), whitelist of allowed native calls beyond the rather thin set of native libraries, to touch IO beyond own APK install dir or TCP/IP, native code needs to go through managed layer, several security critical processes are deployed in production with FORTIFY and sanitizers turned on. ChromeOS turns the notch even higher by running Crostini on its own Rust implemented hypervisor and Go written userspace syscalls wrapper (gVisor).
realusername 7y ago
And it throws all that security model out of the window by having the manufacturer do whatever they want and lacking upgrades. How long is it going to take for this update to propagate? I'm betting on at least 4 months for my phone.

shrimp_emoji 7y ago

SHOULD desktop apps be like this? :D

jdnenej 7y ago
Absolutely not. It's an outdated concept from the days where all the software you run was either preinstalled or you created it yourself and the only security consideration was stopping you from messing up another users setup on the shared computer.
- incompatible 7y ago
  My desktop environment doesn't associate data with particular programs. Data is ideally in standard file formats and multiple programs can interact with it. I can see that tying data to a particular program may improve security, but it would also be extremely inconvenient.
  - shrimp_emoji 7y ago
    >extremely inconvenient. Maybe. I'd argue "extremely". It does suck, for instance, that Discord as a Flatpak can only access a fixed subset of $HOME directories. But it can't scan your machine's processes like ordinary Discord can (to report the game you're playing), which is a privacy gain. The security (and portability) advantages of sandboxing/containerizing apps may outweigh the hassle of the workarounds/memory inefficiency. Meanwhile, with unfettered access, you have things like: https://www.thegamer.com/civilization-6-steam-eula-change-spying-permission-data-collection/ https://www.thegamer.com/civilization-6-steam-eula-change-sp... >"We may combine the information with your personal information and across other computers or devices that you may use" They also mentioned "photo", which there's no obvious way to collect. I remember someone joking, "What, do they go through your directories, looking for a picture of you?!"
    - incompatible 7y ago
      There'd be a case for sandboxing proprietary software, for sure.

adtac 7y ago

Nobody would willingly run outdated, vulnerable software if there was an easy, direct, and supported way to root your phone. Sell phones locked for security or whatever, I couldn't care less, but give people the option to root when they want. So many iPhone users knowingly refuse to upgrade to newer versions of the operating system just so they can keep their jailbreak.

saagarjha 7y ago
> Nobody would willingly run outdated, vulnerable software if there was an easy, direct, and supported way to root your phone. People do that all the time with desktop computers.
- userbinator 7y ago
  As much as a certain outspoken group want you to think, there are lots of other reasons besides security to do something.
- realusername 7y ago
  Yeah but at least there's a way to upgrade desktop computers, phones just aren't.
scarface74 7y ago
“Many” users?
- adtac 7y ago
  Yes, nearly all of /r/jailbreak is running iOS 12.x or lower. Specifically, practically no one there has updated to 12.4.1, which fixes Pwn20wnd's exploit.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    R/jailbreak has about about 5400 members and “or lower” includes discussions about a first generation iPad and the iPad mini one. They aren’t using an older version by choice - they are using old versions because there are no newer versions available.

StavrosK 7y ago

I always wonder if the people who go around spreading this FUD have ever used a rooted phone. Privilege elevation is a specific, clear, and targeted procedure. It's not automatic, apps don't just get access to the entire system right away bu default, and nobody who rooted their phone just answers "yes, give root to this app" for any old purpose.