4 ms·

> Provide a rooted phone by default. As a freedom-, privacy- and also security-aware person, I disagree quite strongly. Phones should by default provide a way

> Provide a rooted phone by default. As a freedom-, privacy- and also security-aware person, I disagree quite strongly. Phones should by default provide a way for people to modify their phone as they see fit but they should definitely not be rooted by default. The reason being that root access is, well, the root of all evil. Practically nothing has advanced end consumer device security in recent times as much as Apple and Google enforcing a secure boot chain (in particular: read-only root file systems), implementing heavy sandboxing and cutting down[0] on apps' permissions. All this is worth nothing if apps can obtain root and do whatever they want. People often claim Linux (as a desktop OS) is secure. It's not by any standard. All the apps you use in your day-to-day tend to have full file system access to all your personal files and full network access. You've merely been lucky so far that you (hopefully) haven't gotten pwned by any rogue application. I'm eagerly awaiting a time when my root file system will be read-only, my entire boot chain will be verified[1] and all my day-to-day applications will be fully sandboxed and only very few of them have network access. [0] Granted, one might argue whether this is actually what Google has done. [1] https://safeboot.dev https://safeboot.dev.

nybble41 6y ago
> Phones should by default provide a way for people to modify their phone as they see fit but they should definitely not be rooted by default. You don't see the contradiction here? Root access is synonymous with the ability to modify the device as you see fit. The root of trust starts with the owner of the device, not the hardware manufacturer or operating system developer. This does not imply that any random app should be able to obtain root access, or that you can't have things like verifiable read-only root filesystems and strict sandboxing. It just means that the owner of the device should be in control of the keys—i.e. the "root" user—and that apps should not be able to introspect the system to determine whether or not it's running in a "vendor-approved" configuration. You don't have to use the root account for day-to-day operations just because it's there.
- codethief 6y ago
  A ROM being "rooted" in the Android context has a very specific meaning: Namely, apps can simply request root access and, boom!, they will have it after the mere tap of a button. (It should be obvious that for security reasons this is not something that should be available to everyone and their grandpa.) So no, I don't see a contradiction here. For instance, I'm running LineageOS on my one phone and stock Android without GApps on my other, so in both cases I'd say I have full control over what's running on my phone. But neither of my phones is rooted.
  - nybble41 6y ago
    > (It should be obvious that for security reasons this is not something that should be available to everyone and their grandpa.) If they own the phone and that's what they want then it should be available to them. > Namely, apps can simply request root access and, boom!, they will have it after the mere tap of a button. How easy the root account should be to access is debatable. I agree that one-tap-root by default without some kind of authentication beyond physical access is probably not the best idea, but I don't think that is what the OP was proposing. The point is that the owner should have root access to customize the software if they want it, without begging anyone's permission (e.g. phones requiring a code from the manufacturer to unlock) or having key features disabled (e.g. "SafetyNet").
    - codethief 6y ago
      > > (It should be obvious that for security reasons this is not something that should be available to everyone and their grandpa.) > If they own the phone and that's what they want then it should be available to them. Not if what they want and don't want entirely depends on how well informed they are. Keep in mind that malicious apps do everything to convince their users to grant them the necessary permissions. > The point is that the owner should have root access to customize the software if they want it, without begging anyone's permission (e.g. phones requiring a code from the manufacturer to unlock) or having key features disabled (e.g. "SafetyNet"). Then we agree. :)

nybble41 6y ago

> Phones should by default provide a way for people to modify their phone as they see fit but they should definitely not be rooted by default. You don't see the contradiction here? Root access is synonymous with the ability to modify the device as you see fit. The root of trust starts with the owner of the device, not the hardware manufacturer or operating system developer. This does not imply that any random app should be able to obtain root access, or that you can't have things like verifiable read-only root filesystems and strict sandboxing. It just means that the owner of the device should be in control of the keys—i.e. the "root" user—and that apps should not be able to introspect the system to determine whether or not it's running in a "vendor-approved" configuration. You don't have to use the root account for day-to-day operations just because it's there.

codethief 6y ago
A ROM being "rooted" in the Android context has a very specific meaning: Namely, apps can simply request root access and, boom!, they will have it after the mere tap of a button. (It should be obvious that for security reasons this is not something that should be available to everyone and their grandpa.) So no, I don't see a contradiction here. For instance, I'm running LineageOS on my one phone and stock Android without GApps on my other, so in both cases I'd say I have full control over what's running on my phone. But neither of my phones is rooted.
- nybble41 6y ago
  > (It should be obvious that for security reasons this is not something that should be available to everyone and their grandpa.) If they own the phone and that's what they want then it should be available to them. > Namely, apps can simply request root access and, boom!, they will have it after the mere tap of a button. How easy the root account should be to access is debatable. I agree that one-tap-root by default without some kind of authentication beyond physical access is probably not the best idea, but I don't think that is what the OP was proposing. The point is that the owner should have root access to customize the software if they want it, without begging anyone's permission (e.g. phones requiring a code from the manufacturer to unlock) or having key features disabled (e.g. "SafetyNet").
  - codethief 6y ago
    > > (It should be obvious that for security reasons this is not something that should be available to everyone and their grandpa.) > If they own the phone and that's what they want then it should be available to them. Not if what they want and don't want entirely depends on how well informed they are. Keep in mind that malicious apps do everything to convince their users to grant them the necessary permissions. > The point is that the owner should have root access to customize the software if they want it, without begging anyone's permission (e.g. phones requiring a code from the manufacturer to unlock) or having key features disabled (e.g. "SafetyNet"). Then we agree. :)