4 ms·
Dan is characterizing Rubin's position around security as non-inclusive. Not that "nothing was secure", but that any feature (X) that was prioritized was done s
by m0nastic 14y ago
Dan is characterizing Rubin's position around security as non-inclusive. Not that "nothing was secure", but that any feature (X) that was prioritized was done so not just without taking security into account, but with a belief that security was at odds with said feature (for all examples of X).
Basically, in a bastardized form of the "Good, Fast, Cheap. Pick two."
I don't know who was the responsible party for Android's terrible security track record, but Dan knows a lot more about mobile security than I do, so I'm hesitant to say he's slandering anybody.
- dguido 14y agoheh thanks for the support and, yes, you got my position right. For anyone who might be thinking I'm an iOS fanboy or something, our company is probably harder on Apple than any other in the world with regard to security: http://www.trailofbits.com/research/ http://www.trailofbits.com/research/ http://www.trailofbits.com/books/ http://www.trailofbits.com/books/ That said, Android is objectively a security nightmare.
- pyrocrasty 14y agoAh, criticizing Android security doesn't make you sound like an iOS fanboy. ( Linking to MacRumors is a bit worrying though ;-) )