2 ms·

I think the Android model is perfectly good here. You get the option to load unsigned apps or unlock the bootloader, etc, but those options are all off by defau

I think the Android model is perfectly good here. You get the option to load unsigned apps or unlock the bootloader, etc, but those options are all off by default and full of warnings to the user.

scarface74 7y ago
And “warnings” like UAC worked really well to keep Windows secure and to keep ransomware and malware from infecting Windows computers. It’s also not working too well to keep Android devices secure.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > It’s also not working too well to keep Android devices secure. There is no evidence that malware is utilizing these vectors to any measurable degree. If you don't want to control your device, that's fine, but don't spread FUD that carefully design6 user-controllable devices are less secure than closed devices, when the opposite is true in practice. See XCodeghost and others.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-unremovable-xhelper-malware-has-infected-45000-android-devices/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-unremovable-xhelper-malwar...
- dahfizz 7y ago
  I don't think you understand how this works. The analog to UAC on Android is permissions, which work pretty similarly to ios. You could argue that the user gets used to just clicking agree and that not much is gained for the average user. Sideloading apps and unlocking the bootloader is much different. It requires the user to actively go through the settings to enable the options, which would only happen if the user knew what they were doing in the first place. And after you try to enable the settings, you are bombarded with warnings before the settings actually apply. An app can't trick you into flipping these switches. Most of them are actually hidden in developer mode anyway. I challenge you to prove these have ever been a vector for attack. It's just not practical. The security lost is zero, and the freedom gained is immense.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    I challenge you to prove these have ever been a vector for attack. It's just not practical. https://www.cnet.com/news/fortnites-battle-royale-with-android-security-problems-is-just-getting-started/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fortnites-battle-royale-with-andro...

I think the Android model is perfectly good here. You get the option to load unsigned apps or unlock the bootloader, etc, but those options are all off by default and full of warnings to the user.

scarface74 7y ago

And “warnings” like UAC worked really well to keep Windows secure and to keep ransomware and malware from infecting Windows computers. It’s also not working too well to keep Android devices secure.

lern_too_spel 7y ago
> It’s also not working too well to keep Android devices secure. There is no evidence that malware is utilizing these vectors to any measurable degree. If you don't want to control your device, that's fine, but don't spread FUD that carefully design6 user-controllable devices are less secure than closed devices, when the opposite is true in practice. See XCodeghost and others.
- scarface74 7y ago
  https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-unremovable-xhelper-malware-has-infected-45000-android-devices/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-unremovable-xhelper-malwar...
dahfizz 7y ago
I don't think you understand how this works. The analog to UAC on Android is permissions, which work pretty similarly to ios. You could argue that the user gets used to just clicking agree and that not much is gained for the average user. Sideloading apps and unlocking the bootloader is much different. It requires the user to actively go through the settings to enable the options, which would only happen if the user knew what they were doing in the first place. And after you try to enable the settings, you are bombarded with warnings before the settings actually apply. An app can't trick you into flipping these switches. Most of them are actually hidden in developer mode anyway. I challenge you to prove these have ever been a vector for attack. It's just not practical. The security lost is zero, and the freedom gained is immense.
- scarface74 7y ago
  I challenge you to prove these have ever been a vector for attack. It's just not practical. https://www.cnet.com/news/fortnites-battle-royale-with-android-security-problems-is-just-getting-started/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fortnites-battle-royale-with-andro...