3 ms·

I wonder if they've solved the problem of shipping year old kernels and letting untrusted apps run native code without any explicit permission. Until then, the

I wonder if they've solved the problem of shipping year old kernels and letting untrusted apps run native code without any explicit permission. Until then, the words "Android" and "secure" should never appear in the same sentence.

Mvandenbergh 15y ago
Dalvik is not intended to be part of the Android security model. Security comes from the separation of processes based on user permissions at the Linux level.
- bergie 15y ago
  IIRC, the Access Linux platform was running each app under a different user ID. Is Android doing something similar?
  - wladimir 15y ago
    Yes. That's exactly what android does. So as long as there is no kernel (or set-uid OS) exploit, applications run with perfect separation.
- forgotusername 15y ago
  I don't see how this statement addresses what I said. I am referring to the fact that applications can be installed from Market (or otherwise), receive no explicit user-granted (or visible) permission, and yet have unfettered access to the largest chunk of native code in the system, which more often than not is a year behind the latest security updates. No amount of userspace virtualisation can work around that.
  - zobzu 15y ago
    If you didn't know that, anything that sounds like a negative comment of a G. product on HN is down voted. It's like a meme. No need to worry. The kernel vulns are still there in most phones and exploitable from user space. Have a look at the very new Android security review, by "experts" and official: http://source.android.com/tech/security/index.html http://source.android.com/tech/security/index.html While its a good start (user separation among others), it doesnt address any core security issue, like timely kernel updates (and many phones don't even support OTA properly/don't get updates pushed, so no timely Android core updates either), sdcard security, drivers fully communicating in user space (this one won't be fixed as its a work-around to avoid GPL).

Mvandenbergh 15y ago

Dalvik is not intended to be part of the Android security model. Security comes from the separation of processes based on user permissions at the Linux level.

bergie 15y ago
IIRC, the Access Linux platform was running each app under a different user ID. Is Android doing something similar?
- wladimir 15y ago
  Yes. That's exactly what android does. So as long as there is no kernel (or set-uid OS) exploit, applications run with perfect separation.
forgotusername 15y ago
I don't see how this statement addresses what I said. I am referring to the fact that applications can be installed from Market (or otherwise), receive no explicit user-granted (or visible) permission, and yet have unfettered access to the largest chunk of native code in the system, which more often than not is a year behind the latest security updates. No amount of userspace virtualisation can work around that.
- zobzu 15y ago
  If you didn't know that, anything that sounds like a negative comment of a G. product on HN is down voted. It's like a meme. No need to worry. The kernel vulns are still there in most phones and exploitable from user space. Have a look at the very new Android security review, by "experts" and official: http://source.android.com/tech/security/index.html http://source.android.com/tech/security/index.html While its a good start (user separation among others), it doesnt address any core security issue, like timely kernel updates (and many phones don't even support OTA properly/don't get updates pushed, so no timely Android core updates either), sdcard security, drivers fully communicating in user space (this one won't be fixed as its a work-around to avoid GPL).