4 ms·

> But those are by far the minority of apps, and it seems crazy to make a pretty massive security tradeoff for something that 99% of apps don't need to do. Yet

> But those are by far the minority of apps, and it seems crazy to make a pretty massive security tradeoff for something that 99% of apps don't need to do. Yet oddly, I as the user who paid $550 for my device would like to do that. I understand wanting to put a warning on it, but otherwise my device can kindly screw off and do what I've told it to do, or it will be taking a one way ride out the nearest window. The device serves me, not the other way around.

mPReDiToR 6y ago
To play devil's advocate only: If Bob paid $COST for a phone and it got exploited because of this, Bob may throw his phone out of the nearest window. Do you think there are more Bobs than you in the world? Personally, I find this reliance on the GOOG OS awful, but most of it was overcome with Xposed last time I ran LineageOS. I tried Cydia last time I ran IOS and that was worse. I've thrown several phones out of the window (metaphorically) and am waiting on my PinePhone being delivered because I believe in their goals. It sucks that everything in life seems to come down to Coke or Pepsi choices, or Vi/Emacs. Big corps aren't the answer. They monopolise and stifle, giving twoshit sandwiches for consumers to take a bite of.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  > If Bob paid $COST for a phone and it got exploited because of this, Bob may throw his phone out of the nearest window. You and I both know, despite many attempts, there is no hardware or software out there that is unexploitable. From the most locked down chromebook to Apple's walled garden, these devices can and are exploited. The idea that if somehow we take away enough of your freedom we'll make the device safe is basically a bald faced lie. Not once in the history of computing has it worked out. Even my internet connected lightbulbs which literally have only an on and an off exposed are exploitable. No amount of removing user freedom will make users safer. This isn't a rocket surgery level conclusion, which means companies that continue pressing down this road probably have some other reason for doing so.
  - jjuel 6y ago
    Just because nothing is completely secure doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make things as secure as possible.
    - vorpalhex 6y ago
      The question is the cost of making things "secure as possible". Should you harden memory? Setup SELinux? Yeah, do those things, those are good meaningful things to do. Should you prevent users from running apps? Prevent downloads? Restrict third party apps? What about tracking everything the user types in? Tracking every app the user opens and when they open it (eg, Apple)? What about bypassing user firewalls (Apple again)? That's for "security", right? Forcing your own DNS resolver (Google)? User hostility is never an acceptable tradeoff for security.
    - johannboehme 6y ago
      if we give up a huge part of our freedom as the price, i would say lets not.
londons_explore 6y ago
My personal security metric is "how many bitcoins would I leave in a wallet app on this phone". Currently that number is about 1 ($30k) on an up to date android. I believe that if I had more bitcoins on a phone, and told people about it, there's a good chance a targeted exploit would steal those keys. Even if I had them encrypted, at some point I have to type a password in to decrypt, and that would be the point they'd be stolen. However, on an iOS device (which is more robustly locked down), I'd probably happily store 10 bitcoins. (if I had them, hah!) On dedicated hardware (like a trezor wallet), i'd also be confident up to about 10 bitcoins (far less attack surface, but also a less competent security team than Apple can afford). On an outdated android, it would be more like 0.1 bitcoins - there are trivial ways to root them from the web browser and any old website can do it! Considering that for many people, access to all the private data on their phone could ruin their job, relationships, and even put them in prison, I'm sure a lot of people value the security of their phone at multiple years salary. If I have to choose between that and the ability to run an emulated game slightly faster, I'm totally choosing security!
- shawnz 6y ago
  What is so wrong with Android that you trust it 10x less than iOS? What attacks are possible on Android that aren't possible on iOS? There are also trivial ways to root ancient iOS versions with a web browser, too. In fact, I think that technique was more common among iOS devices than it ever was among Android...
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    A bunch of things that add up...: * Lack of things like w^x enforced across the OS. (the root of this post). * The quality of SoC and OEM provided drivers being very very poor - there are lots of kernel exploits to be found. * Very slow/no updates. Time from an exploit being reported to Google to it being patched by a typical user is usually 6 months or more. That means for any random device you find on the street, there is probably a viable exploit buyable on the black market. * Less strict review process on apps - means there is more dodgy code with access to /dev/exploitabledevice...
Daho0n 6y ago
>The device serves me, not the other way around. While I agree with you this is not the world we live in. We live in a world with Apple and iOS.
Groxx 6y ago
You're entirely able to purchase a different phone that doesn't enforce this. Or not install the OS update that will enforce this. Or install an old version of the app, e.g. from fdroid. --- I think it's safe to say Android is more "the device serves me" than iOS, but even now it's pretty far from actually achieving that. Maybe install a different OS that actually has that goal?

mPReDiToR 6y ago

To play devil's advocate only: If Bob paid $COST for a phone and it got exploited because of this, Bob may throw his phone out of the nearest window. Do you think there are more Bobs than you in the world? Personally, I find this reliance on the GOOG OS awful, but most of it was overcome with Xposed last time I ran LineageOS. I tried Cydia last time I ran IOS and that was worse. I've thrown several phones out of the window (metaphorically) and am waiting on my PinePhone being delivered because I believe in their goals. It sucks that everything in life seems to come down to Coke or Pepsi choices, or Vi/Emacs. Big corps aren't the answer. They monopolise and stifle, giving twoshit sandwiches for consumers to take a bite of.

vorpalhex 6y ago
> If Bob paid $COST for a phone and it got exploited because of this, Bob may throw his phone out of the nearest window. You and I both know, despite many attempts, there is no hardware or software out there that is unexploitable. From the most locked down chromebook to Apple's walled garden, these devices can and are exploited. The idea that if somehow we take away enough of your freedom we'll make the device safe is basically a bald faced lie. Not once in the history of computing has it worked out. Even my internet connected lightbulbs which literally have only an on and an off exposed are exploitable. No amount of removing user freedom will make users safer. This isn't a rocket surgery level conclusion, which means companies that continue pressing down this road probably have some other reason for doing so.
- jjuel 6y ago
  Just because nothing is completely secure doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make things as secure as possible.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    The question is the cost of making things "secure as possible". Should you harden memory? Setup SELinux? Yeah, do those things, those are good meaningful things to do. Should you prevent users from running apps? Prevent downloads? Restrict third party apps? What about tracking everything the user types in? Tracking every app the user opens and when they open it (eg, Apple)? What about bypassing user firewalls (Apple again)? That's for "security", right? Forcing your own DNS resolver (Google)? User hostility is never an acceptable tradeoff for security.
  - johannboehme 6y ago
    if we give up a huge part of our freedom as the price, i would say lets not.

londons_explore 6y ago

My personal security metric is "how many bitcoins would I leave in a wallet app on this phone". Currently that number is about 1 ($30k) on an up to date android. I believe that if I had more bitcoins on a phone, and told people about it, there's a good chance a targeted exploit would steal those keys. Even if I had them encrypted, at some point I have to type a password in to decrypt, and that would be the point they'd be stolen. However, on an iOS device (which is more robustly locked down), I'd probably happily store 10 bitcoins. (if I had them, hah!) On dedicated hardware (like a trezor wallet), i'd also be confident up to about 10 bitcoins (far less attack surface, but also a less competent security team than Apple can afford). On an outdated android, it would be more like 0.1 bitcoins - there are trivial ways to root them from the web browser and any old website can do it! Considering that for many people, access to all the private data on their phone could ruin their job, relationships, and even put them in prison, I'm sure a lot of people value the security of their phone at multiple years salary. If I have to choose between that and the ability to run an emulated game slightly faster, I'm totally choosing security!

shawnz 6y ago
What is so wrong with Android that you trust it 10x less than iOS? What attacks are possible on Android that aren't possible on iOS? There are also trivial ways to root ancient iOS versions with a web browser, too. In fact, I think that technique was more common among iOS devices than it ever was among Android...
- londons_explore 6y ago
  A bunch of things that add up...: * Lack of things like w^x enforced across the OS. (the root of this post). * The quality of SoC and OEM provided drivers being very very poor - there are lots of kernel exploits to be found. * Very slow/no updates. Time from an exploit being reported to Google to it being patched by a typical user is usually 6 months or more. That means for any random device you find on the street, there is probably a viable exploit buyable on the black market. * Less strict review process on apps - means there is more dodgy code with access to /dev/exploitabledevice...

Daho0n 6y ago

>The device serves me, not the other way around. While I agree with you this is not the world we live in. We live in a world with Apple and iOS.

Groxx 6y ago

You're entirely able to purchase a different phone that doesn't enforce this. Or not install the OS update that will enforce this. Or install an old version of the app, e.g. from fdroid. --- I think it's safe to say Android is more "the device serves me" than iOS, but even now it's pretty far from actually achieving that. Maybe install a different OS that actually has that goal?