3 ms·

Given the amount of malware in the play store, I'm not sure about this...

• GuB-42 5y ago
  It is addressed in the article. The point is that F-Droid weakens Android's security model, in other words, F-Droid requires more trust on your part. I think it is reasonable to trust the somewhat niche open source community more than the most popular and therefore the most attacked app store. You may also not want to feed Google, but it doesn't change the fact that F-Droid is technically less secure. The article's debatable suggestion is to get your favorite open source apps you trust from the Play Store to get the best of both worlds. The article is interesting because most of the points are actually fixable by F-Droid. So it is good to see from a "how to improve F-Droid" angle than "F-Droid sucks".
  • onli 5y ago
    But it's irrelevant trust. Stuff about signatures and specific practices. What makes F-Droid more secure are the kind of apps that are in it, that the apps are FOSS alone makes it less likely for spyware to be added to them. Sure it can still happen and then F-Droid's security practices become relevant. But each time you install an app, there is more trust you can give to an app in F-Droid, than the basically zero trust you can give to proprietary app in the play store. The article is completely baffling in not really covering that. "strong security and privacy guarantees" mean jack shit when the game from the play store starts leaking all data it can grab or adds bank phishing - and it will have a bunch of permissions anyway, it legitimately needs them to function.