3 ms·

Seems more like they are unwilling to update VLC on Android, as they don't want to use the Play App Signing feature.

gkbrk 3y ago
> they don't want to use the Play App Signing feature It's not a feature that you enable with a button and it's good to go. It's basically giving up control of your own app, even for people getting this app from non-Google app stores. You need to give your signing key to Google and accept that Google employees (or any government asking Google nicely) can release updates to your own apps without going through you, and the user phones will accept those updates as being from the original developer because the signatures match. With an update installed with matching signatures, the system doesn't wipe existing data from the storage and the fake update can read all of it. As a user of VLC I would not want them to use app signing keys that Google has access to.
- m-p-3 3y ago
  I believe it's the only way that Google can make the App Archive feature works within the current architecture: the replace the existing app by a small shim with the same AppId to save space, and that allows the system to retain the local user-data since it's not actually uninstalled. And when you load the shim, it redownload the app to be used again. The only way to achieve that currently is to "upgrade" or replace the app by a shim with the same digital signature, on the system will block it.
  - eYrKEC2 3y ago
    You can but a 1TB microsd card for $21 on amazon.com. Maybe app archiving feature should be eol'd.
    - acidburnNSA 3y ago
      Seems like many phones these days come kneecapped with no SD card reader.
    - _ea1k 3y ago
      It is fairly uncommon for phones to come with SD card slots. It is hard to blame them, as cheap unreliable cards must lead to a lot of support issues.
      - crtasm 3y ago
        I believe it's more to do with the people making the phones wanting to sell you cloud storage.
    - rasz 3y ago
      I dont think those ~$20 listings are for legit cards :) Real 1TB cards are ~$100
  - fahhem 3y ago
    It seems another design could have been used, that would likely have been more work but wouldn't rely on getting private signing keys. For instance, the OS could have a carve out for these shims that allows a Google-signed app to overwrite an app, but without access to its local data. Then that overriding app could delete itself when the original is re-downloaded.
    - m-p-3 3y ago
      It's the only design they could do that was backward-compatible though.
  - gkbrk 3y ago
    So not only do they have the theoretical ability to publish their own code with your private key that has full access to your apps private data, they even do it in practice? They don't need to do any of this to keep your local data without keeping the entire app. Android phones have had the ability to uninstall apps without removing their data for some time. Any time you can install the application again and if the keys match, it has access to its data. But that wouldn't create a good excuse for Google to ask for private keys from developers.
  - chuzz 3y ago
    That does not sound reasonable, why would the shim ever need to be signed with the same key? why can't a system supporting App Archive make an exception for the shim? if it can't for hardware reason, why can't they ask key owner to sign the shim app? That would degrade security but is not as bad as requiring to give away the private key.
    - Karliss 3y ago
      If they implemented this properly there wouldn't be any need for shim. So talk about ignoring signing requirements is meaningless. Adding single flag in the installed application table not to erase the application settings+icon cache would have been enough. Using a shim application is a giant hack, allowing to implement this feature by updating only the Google Playstore without modifying the base OS and how it handles application installation and managing process. This is only relevant only because most android phone manufacturers are bad at providing Android updates. Some Google engineer probably felt very clever, that he came up a with a trick which in theory allows adding this feature to older phones that probably won't receive any Android system updates. Google could have also allowed application developer to sign the shim. That way getting the benefits of archiving feature on older phones, without forcing app developer to give up the key.

> they don't want to use the Play App Signing feature It's not a feature that you enable with a button and it's good to go. It's basically giving up control of your own app, even for people getting this app from non-Google app stores. You need to give your signing key to Google and accept that Google employees (or any government asking Google nicely) can release updates to your own apps without going through you, and the user phones will accept those updates as being from the original developer because the signatures match. With an update installed with matching signatures, the system doesn't wipe existing data from the storage and the fake update can read all of it. As a user of VLC I would not want them to use app signing keys that Google has access to.

m-p-3 3y ago
I believe it's the only way that Google can make the App Archive feature works within the current architecture: the replace the existing app by a small shim with the same AppId to save space, and that allows the system to retain the local user-data since it's not actually uninstalled. And when you load the shim, it redownload the app to be used again. The only way to achieve that currently is to "upgrade" or replace the app by a shim with the same digital signature, on the system will block it.
- eYrKEC2 3y ago
  You can but a 1TB microsd card for $21 on amazon.com. Maybe app archiving feature should be eol'd.
  - acidburnNSA 3y ago
    Seems like many phones these days come kneecapped with no SD card reader.
  - _ea1k 3y ago
    It is fairly uncommon for phones to come with SD card slots. It is hard to blame them, as cheap unreliable cards must lead to a lot of support issues.
    - crtasm 3y ago
      I believe it's more to do with the people making the phones wanting to sell you cloud storage.
  - rasz 3y ago
    I dont think those ~$20 listings are for legit cards :) Real 1TB cards are ~$100
- fahhem 3y ago
  It seems another design could have been used, that would likely have been more work but wouldn't rely on getting private signing keys. For instance, the OS could have a carve out for these shims that allows a Google-signed app to overwrite an app, but without access to its local data. Then that overriding app could delete itself when the original is re-downloaded.
  - m-p-3 3y ago
    It's the only design they could do that was backward-compatible though.
- gkbrk 3y ago
  So not only do they have the theoretical ability to publish their own code with your private key that has full access to your apps private data, they even do it in practice? They don't need to do any of this to keep your local data without keeping the entire app. Android phones have had the ability to uninstall apps without removing their data for some time. Any time you can install the application again and if the keys match, it has access to its data. But that wouldn't create a good excuse for Google to ask for private keys from developers.
- chuzz 3y ago
  That does not sound reasonable, why would the shim ever need to be signed with the same key? why can't a system supporting App Archive make an exception for the shim? if it can't for hardware reason, why can't they ask key owner to sign the shim app? That would degrade security but is not as bad as requiring to give away the private key.
  - Karliss 3y ago
    If they implemented this properly there wouldn't be any need for shim. So talk about ignoring signing requirements is meaningless. Adding single flag in the installed application table not to erase the application settings+icon cache would have been enough. Using a shim application is a giant hack, allowing to implement this feature by updating only the Google Playstore without modifying the base OS and how it handles application installation and managing process. This is only relevant only because most android phone manufacturers are bad at providing Android updates. Some Google engineer probably felt very clever, that he came up a with a trick which in theory allows adding this feature to older phones that probably won't receive any Android system updates. Google could have also allowed application developer to sign the shim. That way getting the benefits of archiving feature on older phones, without forcing app developer to give up the key.