16 ms·

> But on a more technical side, most of those minor projects offer, unlike Android, very little (if any) sandboxing of apps by default, which, alongside the fac

> But on a more technical side, most of those minor projects offer, unlike Android, very little (if any) sandboxing of apps by default, which, alongside the fact that less-known, custom-made apps are quite likely to be vulnerable, the security factor is moved to a lower layer (i.e., requiring very platform-specific exploits) rather than solved. This seems a reasonable, but broad and unsubstantiated claim.

mcc1ane 5y ago
https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux-phones.html https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux-phones.html
- megous 5y ago
  Android is based on Linux, so all the security primitives and defense in depth features are there in Linux kernel, too. How much of that a particular Linux distro will use depends on the distro maintainers. And several of the mentioned issues apply just as well to Android. (attacker waiting with data exfiltration until the network is available, etc.) Some issues are just hand-wavy, like the USB not being the good isolation barrier, citing a link that doesn't have anything about USB.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    Android has a completely reimplemented user space on top of the (se-linux enabled) kernel. Saying that the two is one and the same is simply ignorant. They are as much the same as a human and a fish is. Just because the cells are largely the same doesn’t make them equivalent at all.
    - megous 5y ago
      I think you have problem with reading comprehension. Linux = kernel, in my comment, if you want a hint.
- nsajko 5y ago
  That article is just a load of rubbish. The GP's point still stands. If you check out the other HN submissions from the same site, it becomes clear that the author is ignorant on most of the topics the articles whine about, and also that there's an agenda behind it. The usual anti-user-freedom agenda that supports "modern" stuff like Wayland or Android.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    Any substance to your comment? The article lists quite a few (true) claims and you refuse none of them. Also, it shows your ignorance on the whole topic that you call wayland “anti-user-freedom agenda”.. Let me guess, you also hate systemd with a passion, right?
0xdeadb00f 5y ago
Unsubstantiated? For years Android has been improving its security and app isolation. AOSP by default is effectively more secure than any Linux distro on a laptop by default for a couple of reasons one being that on android every app runs as its own UID. On Linux that's only sometimes the case for daemons, and almost never the case for user programs.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Then native code is frowned upon other than some specific use cases mostly game related, seccomp and LinuxSE are enabled, Project Treble drivers run in userspace with Android IPC, eBPF modules instead of drivers, IPC is now required for file system access outside sandbox,...
- goodpoint 5y ago
  > AOSP by default is effectively more secure than any Linux distro Sandboxing does not protect you from all the binary blobs, closed source components and all the telemetries and other forms of surveillance built in. Not to mention all the homecalling done by applications.
  - 0xdeadb00f 5y ago
    Home calling by applications is literally an issue with the application - an application on Linux can just as easily call home.
    - goodpoint 5y ago
      An application on Linux is very unlikely to do so, especially if shipped in a security/privacy focused distribution. OTOH Android apps are a minefield, making it extremely difficult to protect user data. Also Android itself leaks data or sends telemetries in many places.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    Privacy!=security. It’s not that hard to understand. The pinephone has zero security (as well as most linux distros) - eg. you pick it up at the wrong moment and it fails to put the lock screen on, a single rouge program can do whatever it wants with user privilege only because the old user-root distinction is meaningless, since every valuable thing is stored as the given user, etc. Android does proper sandboxing, MAC-based security, etc. The two are night and day.
upofadown 5y ago
Is there any stuff in existence that even needs to be sandboxed? I had the impression that all the software available on Linux phones comes from whatever Linux distribution is used.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Open source software may not be malicious, but any bug in them can be exploited. Eg, one in firefox can cause arbitrary code execution on your computer without any security barrier. And let’s be honest, everything written in C is no life time guarantee on correctness.
- nsajko 5y ago
  Nitpick: sandboxing also makes sense for anything that executes untrusted code and similar. But the proper solution includes designing the sandboxing into the application, like Chromium does it. So this doesn't have much to do with the confused claims of those claiming that "Linux is insecure" and similar.

mcc1ane 5y ago

https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux-phones.html https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux-phones.html

megous 5y ago
Android is based on Linux, so all the security primitives and defense in depth features are there in Linux kernel, too. How much of that a particular Linux distro will use depends on the distro maintainers. And several of the mentioned issues apply just as well to Android. (attacker waiting with data exfiltration until the network is available, etc.) Some issues are just hand-wavy, like the USB not being the good isolation barrier, citing a link that doesn't have anything about USB.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Android has a completely reimplemented user space on top of the (se-linux enabled) kernel. Saying that the two is one and the same is simply ignorant. They are as much the same as a human and a fish is. Just because the cells are largely the same doesn’t make them equivalent at all.
  - megous 5y ago
    I think you have problem with reading comprehension. Linux = kernel, in my comment, if you want a hint.
nsajko 5y ago
That article is just a load of rubbish. The GP's point still stands. If you check out the other HN submissions from the same site, it becomes clear that the author is ignorant on most of the topics the articles whine about, and also that there's an agenda behind it. The usual anti-user-freedom agenda that supports "modern" stuff like Wayland or Android.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Any substance to your comment? The article lists quite a few (true) claims and you refuse none of them. Also, it shows your ignorance on the whole topic that you call wayland “anti-user-freedom agenda”.. Let me guess, you also hate systemd with a passion, right?

0xdeadb00f 5y ago

Unsubstantiated? For years Android has been improving its security and app isolation. AOSP by default is effectively more secure than any Linux distro on a laptop by default for a couple of reasons one being that on android every app runs as its own UID. On Linux that's only sometimes the case for daemons, and almost never the case for user programs.

pjmlp 5y ago
Then native code is frowned upon other than some specific use cases mostly game related, seccomp and LinuxSE are enabled, Project Treble drivers run in userspace with Android IPC, eBPF modules instead of drivers, IPC is now required for file system access outside sandbox,...
goodpoint 5y ago
> AOSP by default is effectively more secure than any Linux distro Sandboxing does not protect you from all the binary blobs, closed source components and all the telemetries and other forms of surveillance built in. Not to mention all the homecalling done by applications.
- 0xdeadb00f 5y ago
  Home calling by applications is literally an issue with the application - an application on Linux can just as easily call home.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    An application on Linux is very unlikely to do so, especially if shipped in a security/privacy focused distribution. OTOH Android apps are a minefield, making it extremely difficult to protect user data. Also Android itself leaks data or sends telemetries in many places.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Privacy!=security. It’s not that hard to understand. The pinephone has zero security (as well as most linux distros) - eg. you pick it up at the wrong moment and it fails to put the lock screen on, a single rouge program can do whatever it wants with user privilege only because the old user-root distinction is meaningless, since every valuable thing is stored as the given user, etc. Android does proper sandboxing, MAC-based security, etc. The two are night and day.

upofadown 5y ago

Is there any stuff in existence that even needs to be sandboxed? I had the impression that all the software available on Linux phones comes from whatever Linux distribution is used.

kaba0 5y ago
Open source software may not be malicious, but any bug in them can be exploited. Eg, one in firefox can cause arbitrary code execution on your computer without any security barrier. And let’s be honest, everything written in C is no life time guarantee on correctness.
nsajko 5y ago
Nitpick: sandboxing also makes sense for anything that executes untrusted code and similar. But the proper solution includes designing the sandboxing into the application, like Chromium does it. So this doesn't have much to do with the confused claims of those claiming that "Linux is insecure" and similar.