3 ms·

The security changes are nice and needed so well done. Enforcing SafetyNet is probably also a net positive change, and you (and I) are a minority among the gen

The security changes are nice and needed so well done. Enforcing SafetyNet is probably also a net positive change, and you (and I) are a minority among the general user base. Sadly this was always coming, it was nice while it lasted, I guess. I'm not quite sure what I will do once my current phone dies. I don't see myself investing in the Apple ecosphere, so either go with the time (do nothing) or have a second phone for "secure" apps (Banking, Netflix) etc.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
If you have wireless chargers and don't really want paid apps, you can reasonably avoid "investing" much in the Apple ecosphere these days: I have not once since switching bought something with a Lightning connector on it, and I rarely use the charger that came with it either. And the new iPhone SE is more or less the cheapest way to get a phone that's updated and well-supported.
- Vespasian 6y ago
  I might actually take another look at it :)
josephcsible 6y ago
> Enforcing SafetyNet is probably also a net positive change How so? How does SafetyNet make any end-user even slightly more secure?
- blendergeek 6y ago
  It does not. Enforcing SafetyNet only makes it harder for users to use custom ROMs. It provides no benefit whatsoever to the end user. It does provide major benefits to app makers who hope to control the user's device.
  - Vespasian 6y ago
    I agree that DRM, and control is probably the main reason why they are doing this. However, most people do not unlock their bootloaders and install custom ROMs. For them having an unlockeded system is an indication of something "bad" happening (spying, fraud, theft) and given how central smartphones are becoming in users life, I prefer that my mothers banking app refuses to work if her smartphones chain of trust is compromised. I also happen to believe that it is impossible to "out-tech" OEMs in the long run and that the path to a fair app ecosystem is through legislation, regulation and anti trust measures. That approach worked in other aspects of the economy and society.
    - blendergeek 6y ago
      Before we enact new regulations in the hope of forcing corporations to build a 'fair' app ecosystem, I would argue step 1 is to repeal section anti-circumvention laws that give big tech one more stick to hit consumers with.
    - realusername 6y ago
      > For them having an unlockeded system is an indication of something "bad" happening (spying, fraud, theft) and given how central smartphones are becoming in users life, I prefer that my mothers banking app refuses to work if her smartphones chain of trust is compromised. In real life, the main security issue on smartphones right now is dubious quality stock ROMs and checking the bootloader won't help you with that. The move should be in the opposite direction, it should be impossible for security reasons to query if the bootloader is unlocked or not from the device itself.
    - josephcsible 6y ago
      It doesn't matter whether your mother's banking app refuses to work. If her phone gets rooted, the attacker will replace it with an app that steals her credentials and then refuses to work. So even in that case, SafetyNet provides exactly zero security to the end user.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

If you have wireless chargers and don't really want paid apps, you can reasonably avoid "investing" much in the Apple ecosphere these days: I have not once since switching bought something with a Lightning connector on it, and I rarely use the charger that came with it either. And the new iPhone SE is more or less the cheapest way to get a phone that's updated and well-supported.

Vespasian 6y ago
I might actually take another look at it :)

josephcsible 6y ago

> Enforcing SafetyNet is probably also a net positive change How so? How does SafetyNet make any end-user even slightly more secure?

blendergeek 6y ago
It does not. Enforcing SafetyNet only makes it harder for users to use custom ROMs. It provides no benefit whatsoever to the end user. It does provide major benefits to app makers who hope to control the user's device.
- Vespasian 6y ago
  I agree that DRM, and control is probably the main reason why they are doing this. However, most people do not unlock their bootloaders and install custom ROMs. For them having an unlockeded system is an indication of something "bad" happening (spying, fraud, theft) and given how central smartphones are becoming in users life, I prefer that my mothers banking app refuses to work if her smartphones chain of trust is compromised. I also happen to believe that it is impossible to "out-tech" OEMs in the long run and that the path to a fair app ecosystem is through legislation, regulation and anti trust measures. That approach worked in other aspects of the economy and society.
  - blendergeek 6y ago
    Before we enact new regulations in the hope of forcing corporations to build a 'fair' app ecosystem, I would argue step 1 is to repeal section anti-circumvention laws that give big tech one more stick to hit consumers with.
  - realusername 6y ago
    > For them having an unlockeded system is an indication of something "bad" happening (spying, fraud, theft) and given how central smartphones are becoming in users life, I prefer that my mothers banking app refuses to work if her smartphones chain of trust is compromised. In real life, the main security issue on smartphones right now is dubious quality stock ROMs and checking the bootloader won't help you with that. The move should be in the opposite direction, it should be impossible for security reasons to query if the bootloader is unlocked or not from the device itself.
  - josephcsible 6y ago
    It doesn't matter whether your mother's banking app refuses to work. If her phone gets rooted, the attacker will replace it with an app that steals her credentials and then refuses to work. So even in that case, SafetyNet provides exactly zero security to the end user.