5 ms·

>> "Doesn't it make sense for Google to try and stop rooting through vulnerabilities, just like Apple tries to stop jailbreaking with every update?" The proble

>> "Doesn't it make sense for Google to try and stop rooting through vulnerabilities, just like Apple tries to stop jailbreaking with every update?" The problem is that Apple doesn't position iOS as 'open'. Google does. That's been one of their big selling points for years.

mtgx 13y ago
If you're talking about the standardization "issue", maybe Google realized that what it wants is not for Android to turn into another highly fragmented ecosystem of "distros" (like in the Linux world), that have little in common with each other except the kernel, and even file extensions aren't the same. Google is positioning Android as an ecosystem that can compete against iOS and Windows - a (more or less) unified ecosystem. The more unified it is, the better it is for consumers, in general. But I think a middle ground can be created between super open/fragmented/anyone can fork and do whatever they want with it and super-closed/nobody can do anything with it except its vendor. However, Google could probably achieve the same thing, if they treated Android, like they do with Chromium and Chrome. Keep Chrome/some version of Android for themselves - while keeping Chromium/AOSP as open as possible. As for this rooting issue, I don't really see what it has to do with being "open". They're just trying to secure it. And as I said, they can still allow bootloaders to be unlocked by the user. It's up to companies to do so, or they can take Samsung's route and try to lock them down as much as possible, even at the region level (which I disagree with, because in this case, there's zero benefit for both consumers and hackers. The benefit is only for the company).
kelnos 13y ago
Google positioning its OS as "open" doesn't mean they have to make it easier for script kiddies and hackers to find vulnerabilities in your phone and exploit them. The fact that it makes it harder for modders to (legitimately) root some (some!) phones is unfortunate, but I think is just going to have to be a casualty in the name of better device security. As another poster said, we should be taking this up with the Samsungs who ship devices with non-unlockable bootloaders.
- atmosx 13y ago
  Being open in this context is like being pregnant, you either are or not. You can't be half-pregnant or half-open. The remark about the script-kiddie able to find vulnerabilities is ridiculous for a wide variety of reasons. Script-kiddies are not able to find vulnerabilities in any kind of system. Computer hackers obsessed with security do that and (most of the times) it's not easy by any means, i.e. Saurik.
  - fastball 13y ago
    Firstly, you meant "e.g.", not "i.e." In addition, I'm not sure what Saurik, the creator of Cydia, has to do with this discussion at all. Finally, and most importantly, you don't seem to understand the current mobile market. Most users are the end-all-be-all of end users. Many people I know think that most of the apps on the iOS App Store are developed by Apple. People install apps without thinking. Tons of personal information is stored on your phone and in these apps, such as contacts and banking information. Google/Android is open in the sense that Android is open source, so hypothetically anyone can hack on it. You are the person who is half-pregnant. You want the normal end user experience, where you don't have to worry about compiling the operating system yourself, but you want it to be "hackable". That is not the definition of open. That is the definition of insecure. Because most Android users are not sophisticated computer users like yourself, a hackable operating system is just a bad idea. If you want an OS that you can do whatever you want with, and is incredibly insecure, then fork Android and have at it. Do that, instead of complaining whenever Google makes changes that you don't understand and affect your somewhat specific and not very common use case.
    - anon1385 13y ago
      >In addition, I'm not sure what Saurik, the creator of Cydia, has to do with this discussion at all. He has found various security bugs in Android (most recent example: http://www.saurik.com/id/19 http://www.saurik.com/id/19 from the other day) and he is also the developer of http://www.cydiaimpactor.com http://www.cydiaimpactor.com atmosx's point was that it isn't 'skiddies' who are finding these security holes, it's experienced developers and security researchers.
sangnoir 13y ago
I don't think having a exploitable kernel counts as being 'open' by any measure. I cannot understand how people are ignoring the security side of this.

mtgx 13y ago

If you're talking about the standardization "issue", maybe Google realized that what it wants is not for Android to turn into another highly fragmented ecosystem of "distros" (like in the Linux world), that have little in common with each other except the kernel, and even file extensions aren't the same. Google is positioning Android as an ecosystem that can compete against iOS and Windows - a (more or less) unified ecosystem. The more unified it is, the better it is for consumers, in general. But I think a middle ground can be created between super open/fragmented/anyone can fork and do whatever they want with it and super-closed/nobody can do anything with it except its vendor. However, Google could probably achieve the same thing, if they treated Android, like they do with Chromium and Chrome. Keep Chrome/some version of Android for themselves - while keeping Chromium/AOSP as open as possible. As for this rooting issue, I don't really see what it has to do with being "open". They're just trying to secure it. And as I said, they can still allow bootloaders to be unlocked by the user. It's up to companies to do so, or they can take Samsung's route and try to lock them down as much as possible, even at the region level (which I disagree with, because in this case, there's zero benefit for both consumers and hackers. The benefit is only for the company).

kelnos 13y ago

Google positioning its OS as "open" doesn't mean they have to make it easier for script kiddies and hackers to find vulnerabilities in your phone and exploit them. The fact that it makes it harder for modders to (legitimately) root some (some!) phones is unfortunate, but I think is just going to have to be a casualty in the name of better device security. As another poster said, we should be taking this up with the Samsungs who ship devices with non-unlockable bootloaders.

atmosx 13y ago
Being open in this context is like being pregnant, you either are or not. You can't be half-pregnant or half-open. The remark about the script-kiddie able to find vulnerabilities is ridiculous for a wide variety of reasons. Script-kiddies are not able to find vulnerabilities in any kind of system. Computer hackers obsessed with security do that and (most of the times) it's not easy by any means, i.e. Saurik.
- fastball 13y ago
  Firstly, you meant "e.g.", not "i.e." In addition, I'm not sure what Saurik, the creator of Cydia, has to do with this discussion at all. Finally, and most importantly, you don't seem to understand the current mobile market. Most users are the end-all-be-all of end users. Many people I know think that most of the apps on the iOS App Store are developed by Apple. People install apps without thinking. Tons of personal information is stored on your phone and in these apps, such as contacts and banking information. Google/Android is open in the sense that Android is open source, so hypothetically anyone can hack on it. You are the person who is half-pregnant. You want the normal end user experience, where you don't have to worry about compiling the operating system yourself, but you want it to be "hackable". That is not the definition of open. That is the definition of insecure. Because most Android users are not sophisticated computer users like yourself, a hackable operating system is just a bad idea. If you want an OS that you can do whatever you want with, and is incredibly insecure, then fork Android and have at it. Do that, instead of complaining whenever Google makes changes that you don't understand and affect your somewhat specific and not very common use case.
  - anon1385 13y ago
    >In addition, I'm not sure what Saurik, the creator of Cydia, has to do with this discussion at all. He has found various security bugs in Android (most recent example: http://www.saurik.com/id/19 http://www.saurik.com/id/19 from the other day) and he is also the developer of http://www.cydiaimpactor.com http://www.cydiaimpactor.com atmosx's point was that it isn't 'skiddies' who are finding these security holes, it's experienced developers and security researchers.

sangnoir 13y ago

I don't think having a exploitable kernel counts as being 'open' by any measure. I cannot understand how people are ignoring the security side of this.