11 ms·

Too bad that Google does not offer this same “Lockdown Mode” as Apple does. Instead, they (Google Play Store) removed our ability to see what “app privileges”

Too bad that Google does not offer this same “Lockdown Mode” as Apple does. Instead, they (Google Play Store) removed our ability to see what “app privileges” that an app would required BEFORE we do the installation step from the Google Play Store. What we got instead was an obfuscated “Data Security” section that is pretty much always “blank”. My flashlight app should not require GAZILLION app privilegeS nor hide that fact before I can determine whether I can safely install it, much like Apple App Store can do by doing the CRUCIAL pre-reveal of any needed app privilege(s) … for our leisure perusual and applying any applicable but personalize privacy requirement BEFORE we do the app install.

andrewia 4y ago
Google removed the install-time permissions dialog because they replaced it with runtime permissions. This makes sense - some users wants PayPal or WhatsApp to access their contact list, and others won't. It also fixes "permission blindness", where users blindly accept a long list of permissions because they need the app, or just stop caring because it's too much to comprehend all at once. Obviously, this isn't perfect, especially since Google removed the internet permission and allowed all apps to access it. Allowing advanced users like us to toggle off internet access in the "App info" permission page would be a good compromise, and I hope and Android team does so to match Apple on their security efforts.
- egberts1 4y ago
  Fixes “permission blindness”? So, the current form of Google Play (app) Store “Data Security” section of each app being shown as “(blank)” is surely yet another form of “permission blindness”. Google Play Store being proactive in protecting these end-users from their own form of stupidity (or “permission blindness”, as you have eloquently pointed out) is just opening themselves to potential liability ramifications instead of deferring to end-user’s responsibility of maintaining their own privacy. I think that the term “permission blindess” is better referred to as an app having zero privilege. And “App Privileges” should have referred to runtime permissions and should have been displayed in the first place at the Google Play Store instead of install-time privileges.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    Your apps have no permissions until you allow them. If you install spyware and it wants all your contacts and files it has to ask. You simply select "no" and then remove it. Apps would force you to consent to eg contact permissions "in case you want to share something to a contact" and then harvest all your contacts. Apps can no longer use that pretense.
    - egberts1 4y ago
      you get prompted for such granularity of privacy AFTER it gets installed but not before you could preview such app settings.
      - vorpalhex 4y ago
        Yes. It has no access after being installed and before prompting. What exactly is the issue?
        egberts1 4y ago
        “Permission blindness” still remains at the stage BEFORE app installation. Perhaps we can call what it is now as “trust me first, then we will let you verify”. When it should be “trust but verify first”.
- cmroanirgo 4y ago
  It's taken a decade, but it's pretty much moved back to the permission model that j2me had, which iOS and Android deliberately removed & sold as better UX. Seems like the original devs of j2me knew what they were doing - only the joe public's weren't ready for permission popups then like they are now. :sigh:
- varispeed 4y ago
  You should be able to review the list of required permissions before installing the app anyway. I find it frustrating when I install a simple app and it asks me for every permission possible. Waste of time.
javajosh 4y ago
Google hiding information about apps in the app store is a big problem - but its not as big a problem as not having a Little Snitch equivalent built into Android. This alone is a reason for real capital to be spent on startups in the alt-android space. Imagine a company that lets you use your current Samsung or Google or Sony or ASUS or whatever flagship phone, but with a truly open-source fork of Android with a Little Snitch built in, and security updates guaranteed for as long as you stay current with your subscription, which is like $5/mo. (Maybe that's too low). Maybe you could even wipe your device and mail it in to have the software installed if you can't be bothered to do it yourself. Or maybe even a partnership with a phone repair chain. (And if you don't want to pay the fee you can always install updates yourself manually, from source.)
- ignoramous 4y ago
  > Imagine a company that lets you use your current Samsung or Google or Sony or ASUS or whatever flagship phone, but with a truly open-source fork of Android with a Little Snitch built in, and security updates guaranteed You describe the direction CalyxOS / DivestOS are going. And of course, there's the Pixel phones on GrapheneOS which arguably is more security-focused.
  - javajosh 4y ago
    >CalyxOS I just read their homepage, and they don't have Google Play support. The requirement to run Google Play Services to access and run apps represents a serious anti-trust concern to me (and to the DoJ under any administration, I would imagine). Perhaps more importantly, I see no mention of any facility for network monitoring. >DivestOS Hadn't heard of this LineageOS fork, thanks. TBH I can't really tell how it differs from either Calyx or Divest. None of these tools have the top-line features I mentioned.
    - ignoramous 4y ago
      > Perhaps more importantly, I see no mention of any facility for network monitoring. CalyxOS intends to build a comprehensive netmon: https://gitlab.com/CalyxOS/calyxos/-/issues/349 https://gitlab.com/CalyxOS/calyxos/-/issues/349 Right now, they've got an ebpf-based firewall: https://calyxos.org/docs/tech/datura-details/ https://calyxos.org/docs/tech/datura-details/ > TBH I can't really tell how it differs from either Calyx or Divest. The lead developer is pretty active on github and fdroid forums: https://forum.f-droid.org/t/10105 https://forum.f-droid.org/t/10105
okneil 4y ago
Whilst not quite the same, Google does offer the Advanced Protection Program for accounts. https://landing.google.com/advancedprotection/ https://landing.google.com/advancedprotection/
- acdha 4y ago
  I’ve been using that for years but was wondering whether the documentation is current about Chrome - they offer things like disabling the JIT (nearly half of Chrome’s exploits last year) as a group policy option on Windows, for example, but it doesn’t appear that APP does anything for Chrome users other than mandatory Safe Browsing.
einpoklum 4y ago
> they (Google Play Store) removed our ability to see what “app privileges” that an app would required Don't use Google Play Store, then. There are other APK repositories.

andrewia 4y ago

Google removed the install-time permissions dialog because they replaced it with runtime permissions. This makes sense - some users wants PayPal or WhatsApp to access their contact list, and others won't. It also fixes "permission blindness", where users blindly accept a long list of permissions because they need the app, or just stop caring because it's too much to comprehend all at once. Obviously, this isn't perfect, especially since Google removed the internet permission and allowed all apps to access it. Allowing advanced users like us to toggle off internet access in the "App info" permission page would be a good compromise, and I hope and Android team does so to match Apple on their security efforts.

egberts1 4y ago
Fixes “permission blindness”? So, the current form of Google Play (app) Store “Data Security” section of each app being shown as “(blank)” is surely yet another form of “permission blindness”. Google Play Store being proactive in protecting these end-users from their own form of stupidity (or “permission blindness”, as you have eloquently pointed out) is just opening themselves to potential liability ramifications instead of deferring to end-user’s responsibility of maintaining their own privacy. I think that the term “permission blindess” is better referred to as an app having zero privilege. And “App Privileges” should have referred to runtime permissions and should have been displayed in the first place at the Google Play Store instead of install-time privileges.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Your apps have no permissions until you allow them. If you install spyware and it wants all your contacts and files it has to ask. You simply select "no" and then remove it. Apps would force you to consent to eg contact permissions "in case you want to share something to a contact" and then harvest all your contacts. Apps can no longer use that pretense.
  - egberts1 4y ago
    you get prompted for such granularity of privacy AFTER it gets installed but not before you could preview such app settings.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      Yes. It has no access after being installed and before prompting. What exactly is the issue?
      - egberts1 4y ago
        “Permission blindness” still remains at the stage BEFORE app installation. Perhaps we can call what it is now as “trust me first, then we will let you verify”. When it should be “trust but verify first”.
cmroanirgo 4y ago
It's taken a decade, but it's pretty much moved back to the permission model that j2me had, which iOS and Android deliberately removed & sold as better UX. Seems like the original devs of j2me knew what they were doing - only the joe public's weren't ready for permission popups then like they are now. :sigh:
varispeed 4y ago
You should be able to review the list of required permissions before installing the app anyway. I find it frustrating when I install a simple app and it asks me for every permission possible. Waste of time.

javajosh 4y ago

Google hiding information about apps in the app store is a big problem - but its not as big a problem as not having a Little Snitch equivalent built into Android. This alone is a reason for real capital to be spent on startups in the alt-android space. Imagine a company that lets you use your current Samsung or Google or Sony or ASUS or whatever flagship phone, but with a truly open-source fork of Android with a Little Snitch built in, and security updates guaranteed for as long as you stay current with your subscription, which is like $5/mo. (Maybe that's too low). Maybe you could even wipe your device and mail it in to have the software installed if you can't be bothered to do it yourself. Or maybe even a partnership with a phone repair chain. (And if you don't want to pay the fee you can always install updates yourself manually, from source.)

ignoramous 4y ago
> Imagine a company that lets you use your current Samsung or Google or Sony or ASUS or whatever flagship phone, but with a truly open-source fork of Android with a Little Snitch built in, and security updates guaranteed You describe the direction CalyxOS / DivestOS are going. And of course, there's the Pixel phones on GrapheneOS which arguably is more security-focused.
- javajosh 4y ago
  >CalyxOS I just read their homepage, and they don't have Google Play support. The requirement to run Google Play Services to access and run apps represents a serious anti-trust concern to me (and to the DoJ under any administration, I would imagine). Perhaps more importantly, I see no mention of any facility for network monitoring. >DivestOS Hadn't heard of this LineageOS fork, thanks. TBH I can't really tell how it differs from either Calyx or Divest. None of these tools have the top-line features I mentioned.
  - ignoramous 4y ago
    > Perhaps more importantly, I see no mention of any facility for network monitoring. CalyxOS intends to build a comprehensive netmon: https://gitlab.com/CalyxOS/calyxos/-/issues/349 https://gitlab.com/CalyxOS/calyxos/-/issues/349 Right now, they've got an ebpf-based firewall: https://calyxos.org/docs/tech/datura-details/ https://calyxos.org/docs/tech/datura-details/ > TBH I can't really tell how it differs from either Calyx or Divest. The lead developer is pretty active on github and fdroid forums: https://forum.f-droid.org/t/10105 https://forum.f-droid.org/t/10105

okneil 4y ago

Whilst not quite the same, Google does offer the Advanced Protection Program for accounts. https://landing.google.com/advancedprotection/ https://landing.google.com/advancedprotection/

acdha 4y ago
I’ve been using that for years but was wondering whether the documentation is current about Chrome - they offer things like disabling the JIT (nearly half of Chrome’s exploits last year) as a group policy option on Windows, for example, but it doesn’t appear that APP does anything for Chrome users other than mandatory Safe Browsing.

einpoklum 4y ago

> they (Google Play Store) removed our ability to see what “app privileges” that an app would required Don't use Google Play Store, then. There are other APK repositories.