zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. dathin+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-01-28 18:24:14
> privilege escalation in the first place.

it fails to do so in many ways, including not blocking old, no longer maintained, known to be vulnerable android releases

it also has little to do with moding and more with having a proper working free marked which allows alternatives besides Google and Apple

replies(1): >>themac+ym
2. themac+ym[view] [source] 2022-01-28 20:24:10
>>dathin+(OP)
You're right, many secure apps don't go far enough in blocking Android releases that are probably too old & vulnerable. Not all apps are perfect, but blocking rooted and ancient devices is a start.
replies(1): >>dathin+jR
◧◩
3. dathin+jR[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-01-28 23:09:49
>>themac+ym
No, it's starting at the wrong end and not in any relevant way provide an improvement.

Checking for an too old & vulnerable is where you start.

And then you can consider to maybe also block other stuff.

There is nothing inherently less secure about an rooted device.

Sure you can make it less secure if you install bad software, but you can also make it more secure.

Or you just need to lower the minimal screen brightness for accessibility reasons.

Your claiming it's ok to take the agency from people away to decide over a major part of their live (which sadly phones are today) because maybe they could act irresponsible and do something stupid.

But if we say that is ok, then we first need to start to ban cars, because you could drive into a wall with it, and knifes, also no way to have a bath tube you could drown yourself.

And yes that is sarcastic, but there is a big difference between something being "inherently insecure" (driving without belt) or by default is in no way less secure as long as you don't go actively out of your way to make it less secure (by e.g. disabling security protections).

replies(1): >>themac+Ey1
◧◩◪
4. themac+Ey1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-01-29 07:08:16
>>dathin+jR
> There is nothing inherently less secure about an rooted device.

This is clearly wrong, rooted devices are much more insecure because they enable low level access to maliciously alter the system. Malware often requires root and will first try to attempt to attain root, which of course isn't necessary if a user has manually unlocked root themselves.

> Your claiming it's ok to take the agency from people away to decide over a major part of their live (which sadly phones are today) because maybe they could act irresponsible and do something stupid.

No one is taking away any user's agency. Users are free to root their phones if they wish (many Android phones at least will allow it), but companies are also free to deny these users service. Users are free to avail themselves of any company's service on a non-rooted phone. "Not using rooted phones to access anything you like" is hardly a major loss of agency.

Phone insecurity is very dangerous IMO, much more dangerous really than bathtubs or perhaps knives. You could argue that vehicles are similarly very dangerous and I'd agree. I don't think we're very far off from locked down self-driving cars. Unfortunately we're not there yet with self-driving tech and the current utility of vehicles still outweighs their immense safety risks. You can't really say that about rooted phones. The legitimate benefits of a rooted phone are largely relevant to developers, not the average user, and most users never attempt to tinker with their phone.

replies(1): >>dathin+7W1
◧◩◪◨
5. dathin+7W1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-01-29 12:54:22
>>themac+Ey1
You having root access doesn't any arbitrary application on your phone has root access. So no. It is not inherently less secure.

If you can't proceed with a normal life after you root you phone you are NOT free to do so but instead get punished when doing so.

replies(1): >>themac+Ti6
◧◩◪◨⬒
6. themac+Ti6[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-01-31 00:03:05
>>dathin+7W1
For the last time, yes it is inherently less secure. You gain root access by disabling/weakening the OS' built-in protections against root access.

> If you can't proceed with a normal life after you root you phone you are NOT free to do so but instead get punished when doing so.

Freedom to root doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of rooting. Banking apps are hardly necessary for a normal life, and neither is rooting.

[go to top]