9 ms·

Cyanogen Mod: Run in Incognito Mode

114 points by gulbrandr 13y ago

jaryd 13y ago
This looks like it would be an excellent addition to CyanogenMod. Also, for any CM users that might be lurking: Have any of you been able to get SEforAndroid (http://selinuxproject.org/page/SEAndroid http://selinuxproject.org/page/SEAndroid) running? I haven't spent too much effort researching this, but would be very interested to hear some anecdotes/experiences.
- yareally 13y ago
  It's on my list of things to integrate into my own Android Builds, but have not had time to do much AOSP modding lately.
jlgreco 13y ago
> The API provides a simple isIncognito() call which will tell you if incognito is enabled for the process (or the calling process). Third party applications can honor the feature using this API, or they can choose to display pictures of cats instead of running normally. Does anybody know what the logic behind this is? I assume "incognito" modes in browsers don't expose something similar. Is the idea that if this is provided, then application programmers will be less inclined to attempt to subvert the system?
- Xlythe 13y ago
  From what I've read: It always disables access to contacts, location data, and the like. Apps, however, have their own saved state (say, your score in a game). The idea is they can selectively choose to run in Guest mode when incognito is enabled. It'd be cool if they forced apps to run in a temporary directory like how incognito mode saves cookies in the browser. Apps would appear as if you wiped their data. CyanogenMod's implementation seems like something you'd leave on, though, and constantly losing your data would be no fun (no server to backup all changes you make, unlike the web).
- tokenizerrr 13y ago
  It's meant for content providers. Like, you have an app which the users can use to take pictures with and then another app chimes in "Hey bro can I take a look at all this delish data you have there", and the content provider is like "Whoa dude, lemme check if you incognito... Oh, yeah, have some kittens instead."
ac 13y ago
While I think this mode is useful, what I'd really like to see is Cyanogen integrating OpenPDroid [1,2]. OpenPDroid allows for more fine-grained permissions which, I think, is what we need. Because the real problem is not running suspicious programs completely sandboxed from the private data. It's running the otherwise useful apps that request too many permissions that we'd like to keep in check, but still use (which would require allowing them to access some of our data). [1] http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2098156 http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2098156 [2] https://github.com/OpenPDroid https://github.com/OpenPDroid
- kelnos 13y ago
  Frankly I think that level of privacy control has little appeal to the mainstream. You could of course argue that modded Android ROMs also have little appeal to the mainstream, and so adding non-mainstream features to modded ROMs is cool. (And I'd totally agree with you.) But I suspect that Kondik might aspire to get privacy features like this into AOSP. Something like an all-or-nothing incognito mode has precedent in places like Chrome and Firefox, so I feel like something like this would have a reasonable chance of making it in. A fine-grained permissions system likely wouldn't. However, I personally would like a little more fine-grained control. I might trust a location-centric app with my GPS (or at least recognize that the app is useless without it), but not want to give it access to my contacts. Note that CM7 did have a fine-grained permissions system. It wasn't as extensive as OpenPDroid, but you could flat-out reject individual permissions given to apps on CM7. Unfortunately it often caused crashes, as the apps weren't built to be denied so harshly. The fake-/no-data approach of incognito (also one of the options that OpenPDroid offers) probably won't cause any compat headaches.
  - ac 13y ago
    Thanks for an insightful reply. > Frankly I think that level of privacy control has little appeal to the mainstream. One might argue that the whole idea of privacy is of little appeal to the mainstream. > The fake-/no-data approach of incognito (also one of the options that OpenPDroid offers) probably won't cause any compat headaches. The idea of OpenPDroid is to provide fine-grained permissions together with the fake-data/no-data approach to enforcing them, which prevents apps from crashing when access is denied. And that also enables using the apps even when they might have potential violations of your own privacy policy.
guelo 13y ago
Note that Cyanogen Mod has previously rejected features that would cost Google ad revenue because they don't want to anger Google.
- angryasian 13y ago
  Without a citation its complete bs. If you're speaking of cornerstone it was not because of Google its because of stability and apps. If cornerstone was useful some ROM would have integrated it and its not found anywhere.
  - ce4 13y ago
    He probably talks about this rejected 2011 patch: http://review.cyanogenmod.org/#/c/5677/ http://review.cyanogenmod.org/#/c/5677/ The first comment reads: "I am not sure that this is the direction I want to see CM go. This will piss off developers, carriers, and probably Google."
    - angryasian 13y ago
      If you continue reading the thread its primarily because its unfriendly to developers. Seeding dummy data and interfering with developer source of revenue is not something they wanted at the time. Even with this incognito mode, they are attempting to do it in a developer friendly way.
      - ce4 13y ago
        Yep, they want to retain the API's semantic as much as possible. BTW, OpenPdroid and similar are even more invasive and unfriendly to developers and revenue (randomize IMEI on each call,etc.). Regarding the pleas to merge this: That patch will definitely not make it into CM. That's also the reason why the original PDroid has been delivered as both a normal patch for the source and as .smali patch for use with apktool to enable easy integration the way autopatcher does.
Spittie 13y ago
I gladly welcome this. While it's not nearly as powerful as OpenPDroid or similiar, it's a good option designed for the "average user". I know that the average user isn't going to flash a new rom, but that's exactly the feel that I get from CyanogenMod: a polished additional experience over AOSP, that even the average user could use and enjoy. Other custom rom, like AOKP, already include a more featureful permission manager. It gives all the control you'll ever need, but it's not as easy to use and it might cause some applications to crash. And the "advanced" user can always flash OpenPDroid over CyanogenMod, thanks to the auto-patcher it only takes few minutes. Keep also in mind that this is designed pretty much for Facebook, the most hated application on Android.
- magic_haze 13y ago
  I'm not an Android user, so I'm curious: what's so bad about the Facebook app?
  - yareally 13y ago
    If you do a quick search of the Android Forums, a general complaint is just the performance of it while Facebook runs in the background as a service (impacting the currently used app) . Also tends to be a battery hog from all the syncing it does. I don't want to get into the whole privacy debate on it, so I'll let someone else field that part. However, Android Permissions are "all or nothing" when you install an app. Combined with apps being able to potentially access much more than other platforms based on the permissions an app requires (as well as any app can read your sdcard without permission prior to Android 4.1 [though it's still disabled by default on 4.1 so apps not accounting for that permission don't crash]) and the need of some people to install certain apps, they must choose what is more important--potentially giving into whatever permissions this app wants or doing without. I don't personally use it because I don't want Facebook on my rooted Android device (though I'm like that for most apps), but I have seen those reoccurring complaints over the last few years.
    - jjsz 13y ago
      Can I get away with uninstalling the main Facebook app but keeping Messenger to save battery, or will I have to opt for an IM client that doesn't work with Facebook chat groups?
angryasian 13y ago
Another option I've found is xprivacy using the xposed framework http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2320783 http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2320783

114 points by gulbrandr 13y ago

jaryd 13y ago

This looks like it would be an excellent addition to CyanogenMod. Also, for any CM users that might be lurking: Have any of you been able to get SEforAndroid (http://selinuxproject.org/page/SEAndroid http://selinuxproject.org/page/SEAndroid) running? I haven't spent too much effort researching this, but would be very interested to hear some anecdotes/experiences.

yareally 13y ago
It's on my list of things to integrate into my own Android Builds, but have not had time to do much AOSP modding lately.

jlgreco 13y ago

> The API provides a simple isIncognito() call which will tell you if incognito is enabled for the process (or the calling process). Third party applications can honor the feature using this API, or they can choose to display pictures of cats instead of running normally. Does anybody know what the logic behind this is? I assume "incognito" modes in browsers don't expose something similar. Is the idea that if this is provided, then application programmers will be less inclined to attempt to subvert the system?

Xlythe 13y ago
From what I've read: It always disables access to contacts, location data, and the like. Apps, however, have their own saved state (say, your score in a game). The idea is they can selectively choose to run in Guest mode when incognito is enabled. It'd be cool if they forced apps to run in a temporary directory like how incognito mode saves cookies in the browser. Apps would appear as if you wiped their data. CyanogenMod's implementation seems like something you'd leave on, though, and constantly losing your data would be no fun (no server to backup all changes you make, unlike the web).
tokenizerrr 13y ago
It's meant for content providers. Like, you have an app which the users can use to take pictures with and then another app chimes in "Hey bro can I take a look at all this delish data you have there", and the content provider is like "Whoa dude, lemme check if you incognito... Oh, yeah, have some kittens instead."

ac 13y ago

While I think this mode is useful, what I'd really like to see is Cyanogen integrating OpenPDroid [1,2]. OpenPDroid allows for more fine-grained permissions which, I think, is what we need. Because the real problem is not running suspicious programs completely sandboxed from the private data. It's running the otherwise useful apps that request too many permissions that we'd like to keep in check, but still use (which would require allowing them to access some of our data). [1] http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2098156 http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2098156 [2] https://github.com/OpenPDroid https://github.com/OpenPDroid

kelnos 13y ago
Frankly I think that level of privacy control has little appeal to the mainstream. You could of course argue that modded Android ROMs also have little appeal to the mainstream, and so adding non-mainstream features to modded ROMs is cool. (And I'd totally agree with you.) But I suspect that Kondik might aspire to get privacy features like this into AOSP. Something like an all-or-nothing incognito mode has precedent in places like Chrome and Firefox, so I feel like something like this would have a reasonable chance of making it in. A fine-grained permissions system likely wouldn't. However, I personally would like a little more fine-grained control. I might trust a location-centric app with my GPS (or at least recognize that the app is useless without it), but not want to give it access to my contacts. Note that CM7 did have a fine-grained permissions system. It wasn't as extensive as OpenPDroid, but you could flat-out reject individual permissions given to apps on CM7. Unfortunately it often caused crashes, as the apps weren't built to be denied so harshly. The fake-/no-data approach of incognito (also one of the options that OpenPDroid offers) probably won't cause any compat headaches.
- ac 13y ago
  Thanks for an insightful reply. > Frankly I think that level of privacy control has little appeal to the mainstream. One might argue that the whole idea of privacy is of little appeal to the mainstream. > The fake-/no-data approach of incognito (also one of the options that OpenPDroid offers) probably won't cause any compat headaches. The idea of OpenPDroid is to provide fine-grained permissions together with the fake-data/no-data approach to enforcing them, which prevents apps from crashing when access is denied. And that also enables using the apps even when they might have potential violations of your own privacy policy.

guelo 13y ago

Note that Cyanogen Mod has previously rejected features that would cost Google ad revenue because they don't want to anger Google.

angryasian 13y ago
Without a citation its complete bs. If you're speaking of cornerstone it was not because of Google its because of stability and apps. If cornerstone was useful some ROM would have integrated it and its not found anywhere.
- ce4 13y ago
  He probably talks about this rejected 2011 patch: http://review.cyanogenmod.org/#/c/5677/ http://review.cyanogenmod.org/#/c/5677/ The first comment reads: "I am not sure that this is the direction I want to see CM go. This will piss off developers, carriers, and probably Google."
  - angryasian 13y ago
    If you continue reading the thread its primarily because its unfriendly to developers. Seeding dummy data and interfering with developer source of revenue is not something they wanted at the time. Even with this incognito mode, they are attempting to do it in a developer friendly way.
    - ce4 13y ago
      Yep, they want to retain the API's semantic as much as possible. BTW, OpenPdroid and similar are even more invasive and unfriendly to developers and revenue (randomize IMEI on each call,etc.). Regarding the pleas to merge this: That patch will definitely not make it into CM. That's also the reason why the original PDroid has been delivered as both a normal patch for the source and as .smali patch for use with apktool to enable easy integration the way autopatcher does.

Spittie 13y ago

I gladly welcome this. While it's not nearly as powerful as OpenPDroid or similiar, it's a good option designed for the "average user". I know that the average user isn't going to flash a new rom, but that's exactly the feel that I get from CyanogenMod: a polished additional experience over AOSP, that even the average user could use and enjoy. Other custom rom, like AOKP, already include a more featureful permission manager. It gives all the control you'll ever need, but it's not as easy to use and it might cause some applications to crash. And the "advanced" user can always flash OpenPDroid over CyanogenMod, thanks to the auto-patcher it only takes few minutes. Keep also in mind that this is designed pretty much for Facebook, the most hated application on Android.

magic_haze 13y ago
I'm not an Android user, so I'm curious: what's so bad about the Facebook app?
- yareally 13y ago
  If you do a quick search of the Android Forums, a general complaint is just the performance of it while Facebook runs in the background as a service (impacting the currently used app) . Also tends to be a battery hog from all the syncing it does. I don't want to get into the whole privacy debate on it, so I'll let someone else field that part. However, Android Permissions are "all or nothing" when you install an app. Combined with apps being able to potentially access much more than other platforms based on the permissions an app requires (as well as any app can read your sdcard without permission prior to Android 4.1 [though it's still disabled by default on 4.1 so apps not accounting for that permission don't crash]) and the need of some people to install certain apps, they must choose what is more important--potentially giving into whatever permissions this app wants or doing without. I don't personally use it because I don't want Facebook on my rooted Android device (though I'm like that for most apps), but I have seen those reoccurring complaints over the last few years.
  - jjsz 13y ago
    Can I get away with uninstalling the main Facebook app but keeping Messenger to save battery, or will I have to opt for an IM client that doesn't work with Facebook chat groups?

angryasian 13y ago

Another option I've found is xprivacy using the xposed framework http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2320783 http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2320783