- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- android@lemdro.id
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- android@lemdro.id
You must log in or register to comment.
Google’s primary aim with these changes is to improve app security for everyone
Bullshit. Google’s primary aim is to make sure that Android builds which aren’t Google-approved and may not integrate Google’s profitable services as deeply are not commercially viable.
Remember to leave one-star reviews for any apps that use this shit.
I mean, both things can be true? I know banks are pushing on Google to improve Android security, to avoid malicious apps with root access from messing with banking apps.
The fact is that a rooted phone can definitely be less secure if the user doesn’t 100% know what they’re doing, in the same way that always logging in as root on a Linux system can be.
I know banks are pushing on Google to improve Android security, to avoid malicious apps with root access from messing with banking apps.
How do you know this? Do you have a link to a source that says it?
I’ve tried (not especially hard) to find sources in the past citing actual incidents where end-user devices running non-stock Android or with root access led to bank fraud or data breaches. I didn’t find anything to suggest that’s a problem in the real world.
The main malware problems I have seen reported for Android are:
- Malware in the Play Store. This is the only way I’ve seen Android malware in the wild, on a family member’s device.
- Zero-click exploits. The best prevention for these is an up-to-date OS. On an older device, that means a third-party build that won’t pass Google’s checks.
How do you know this? Do you have a link to a source that says it?
From a friend that works at a big bank. I don’t want to dox then so I can’t really say which one.
Thanks for the (partial) citation. That’s enough for me to believe someone important outside Google actually believes there’s a security concern rather than Google just using it as an excuse to be controlling.
That doesn’t mean I actually accept the concern as legitimate. I’d find a postmortem of a real data breach where that was a factor at least a bit persuasive, and there are enough countries with disclosure laws I’m inclined to think there would be some if it was a problem in reality.
GrapheneOS is more secure than Google stock.
I don’t disagree with this. Maybe I should get a phone that runs it.
Configuring one’s system to always login as root in Linux is significantly easier than rooting an Android phone. One needs to know their way to root their phone and spend significant amount of time tinkering with it so that everything works properly.
As for malicious apps, there are many such apps on the Play Store as well. In fact, I would argue that the safest distribution channel is F Droid and not Play Store.
I can’t speak for foreign banks but for banks in my country, they have a problem that is way way worse than any Android stuff can solve ( read: giving access to your account only via SINGLE password and only asking for SMS OTP when transaction is done; and of course no hardware key support). I don’t wish my banking data to be less secure than a WordPress account!
Should browser startups be authenticated by biometrics?
In fact, I would argue that the safest distribution channel is F Droid and not Play Store.
I agree with this too! I don’t think I’ve seen any other app stores (on any platform) focus on reproducible builds.
giving access to your account only via SINGLE password and only asking for SMS OTP when transaction is done
This was a problem with US and Australian banks too. It’s still an issue in Australia, but some of the major banks in the USA have moved to sending 2FA requests to their mobile app, and either allowing OAuth or app-specific passwords to allow other services to get data from your bank account.
I mean, both things can be true?
I don’t think that’s true. They could both be aims, but one would be secondary (or at least not primary).
I don’t think they’re both true at all though. I don’t believe for a second the risk posed by/to users invested enough to root their phones is high enough to warrant this nonsense. The cynical/profitable explanation seems a whole lot more likely, imo.
“While I wouldn’t say Google is actively hostile towards these power users”
i sure fuckin would. there has been a huge surge on degoogle and related subs after trump, and they want to stop this.
Bunch of fucking losers. They’re so goddamn pissed that I’m still using my P3XL instead of buying their ever evolving lineup of phone.
It’s unlikely they care much about a handful of people staying on old devices nor make all that much direct profit from phones sales. People who use old devices usually don’t spend huge amounts in the mobile ecosystem anyway.
What they really don’t want is OEMs selling non-Google-approved Android phones to the mass market. If important apps won’t run, those devices won’t sell.
That’s not security
So, it’s not just banking, payment apps etc. but all of the apps will eventually go there? Does this mean all of the custom ROMs have to become more device specific like GrapheneOS rather than just the devices using the same peripherals to solve an issue like this? (if it’s solvable by devs)
Apparently older devices that don’t get updates with their stock ROMs will also face problems because of this, even though they can be used as up-to-date with custom ROMs.
Is Google play even required…?
If you want most commercial apps, yes.
Reason number 24784 to stay on Android 12.
