4 ms·
> Even when using it right, you would have to block third party builds Unless you have an obvious and accessible way of getting secure third party builds white
by franga2000 3y ago
> Even when using it right, you would have to block third party builds
Unless you have an obvious and accessible way of getting secure third party builds whitelisted, this is still a very anti-user approach, which is not justifiable unless the user of the device isn't its owner (like with company-owned work phones).
- lern_too_spel 3y agoThat's up to the service to decide on the appropriate level of security risk in whether they allow unknown builds. They already don't allow custom builds on any other mobile OS, so this is really the best you can get as a user. What is your proposed solution?
- justinclift 3y ago> They already don't allow custom builds on any other mobile OS ... Keep in mind that Pinephones and similar are a thing. Lots of people are hoping they don't fizzle out and die off like previous "open" phone projects. :)
- lern_too_spel 3y agoAnd Pinephones and similar don't have apps for these services that require attestation and never will. If some allow web access without build attestation, that works on custom Android builds as well.
- Dylan16807 3y ago> What is your proposed solution? Ban attestation methods that owners can't control.
- hoffs 3y agoWhat does that even mean? It sounds like your proposal makes attestation pointless since owner can attest in whatever way they want.
- Dylan16807 3y agoIt only makes it pointless for DRM purposes. If a company wants control over devices they own, that's still fine.
- lern_too_spel 3y agoSo regulation. I can get into that. Until such regulation exists, phone manufacturers have no incentive to maintain different SKUs.