4 ms·

I guess I'm so used to dismissing the "Play Protect" dialog I completely forgot about it, you're right about it, it is annoying. But I think asking the user to

• bogwog 6y ago
  > But I think asking the user to signal agreement before installing and especially allowing another app store is the right way, given how sensitive it is. Maybe it should be made easier, but it's far less onerous than the Apple case. I don't think so. That's mostly FUD in my opinion, since apps installed from Google Play can do the exact same amount of evil stuff as anything downloaded from an external site. Since Android/iOS already have sandboxing and per-app permissions, the only benefit to having a single distributor is the potential of having that application scanned for malware before you downloaded it. The same thing can be accomplished without a separate antivirus app, like you'd see on Windows. In fact, I think Windows Defender is a good model for how Google and Apple could provide the same (purported) security guarantees while still allowing third-party stores. Play Protect (I think) does that already, but it also mainly functions as a wall of scary warnings/deterrent to competition. > Steam doesn't do the API review/sandboxing component of App Stores. An installed game technically has access to everything. Even Linux packaging has API review (due to open source) and modern packaging often has integration with AppArmor/SELinux. Steam are essential for Linux gaming, but I wish they improved their deployment to be more secure. True that Steam is kind of questionable when it comes to security, but that's more the fault of the desktop operating systems which don't have sandboxing built-in. I too would like to see increased usage for things like SELinux/AppArmor, but that seems a bit hopeless. Valve can't just ship a kernel module alongside Steam, and I doubt Canonical is going to start shipping SELinux with Ubuntu Desktop (the support forums would explode). I think Microsoft added sandboxing features to UWP apps, but that's its own can of worms. If you make a UWP app, you need to distribute it through the Microsoft app store, and you need to deal with a lot of the same BS that Apple and Google are being sued for.
  • yyyk 6y ago
    > Since Android/iOS already have sandboxing and per-app permissions, the only benefit to having a single distributor is the potential of having that application scanned for malware... Well, if a malicious app store application existed, I'd imagine it would work via social engineering and sending the user a different package than the user wanted. The user will be convinced to override the sandboxing, e.g. by giving permissions to install a 'new version of WhatApp', but the store app will actually be installing something else with the given permissions. That's a bit easier compared to other apps where the user doesn't expect to install anything. (Perhaps I'm missing a clever way to deal with these possibilities?) I don't think that the risk requires banning 3rd party app stores. In practice we see the risk is very low. I have little worry about F-Droid, and I'm sure that the Samsung/Amazon stores are as secure as Apple/Google. But I think a bit of warning is justified. >True that Steam is kind of questionable when it comes to security, but that's more the fault of the desktop operating systems which don't have sandboxing built-in. Debians/Ubuntus have (optional) AppArmor, and latest Windows 10 Pro+ has an sandbox which will work with Win32 apps. It's starting to become built-in, even if not yet. It'd would still take a lot of work.