new | show | ask | jobs Github

kovek 5 hours ago

What if we asked users if they want extra protection? I think that would be nice..

▲

post-it 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is the status quo. APK installation is disabled by default, and there is a warning when you go to enable it.

▲

scoofy 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The point is "a warning" is not enough to communicate to people the gravity of what they are doing.

It is not enough to write "be careful" on a bag you get from a pharmacy... certain medications require you to both have a prescription, and also to have a conversation with a pharmacist because of how dangerous the decisions the consumer makes can be.

Normal human beings can be very dumb. It's entirely reasonable to expect society to try to protect them at some level.

▲

progbits an hour ago | parent [-]

OK so make the warning more annoying. Have a security quiz. Cooldown period of one day to enable. Require unlock via adb connected to laptop.

There are alternative solutions if the true goal is maintaining user freedom while protecting dumb users. But that is not the true goal of the upcoming changes.

	▲	TeMPOraL an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Require unlock via adb connected to laptop. Fine, just: - Don't reset it every 5 days / 5 hours / 5dBm blip in Wi-Fi strength, because this pretty much defeats end-user automation, whether persistent or event-driven. This is the current situation with "Wireless Debugging", otherwise cool trick for "rootless root", if it only didn't require being connected to Wi-Fi (and not just a Wi-Fi, but the same AP, breaking when device roams in multi-AP networks). - Don't announce the fact that this is on to everyone. Many commercial vendors, including those who shouldn't and those who have no business caring, are very interested in knowing whether your device is running with debugging features enabled, and if so, deny service. Unfortunately, in a SaaS world it's the service providers that have all the leverage - if they don't like your device, they can always refuse service. Increasingly many do.

▲

hbn 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can add 5 layers of "are you sure you want to do this unsafe thing" and it just adds 5 easy steps to the scam where they say "agree to the annoying popup"

▲

mormegil 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You could even make this an installation-time option. If you want to enable the switch afterwards, you have to do a factory reset. Then, the attackers convincing the victims would get nothing.

▲

pmontra an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Or make sideloading available only after 24 hours since enabling it. I would enable it on my new devices and wait 24 hours before installing F-Droid and other apps. Not a problem. Scammers might wait one day too but it decreases the chances of success because friends and family members can interfere.

But I'm afraid that this is security theater and the true goal is to protect revenues by making it hard or impossible to install apps that impact Alfabet bottom line (eg third party YouTube clients.)

	▲	TeMPOraL 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> But I'm afraid that this is security theater and the true goal is to protect revenues by making it hard or impossible to install apps that impact Alfabet bottom line (eg third party YouTube clients.) It's not just them. Every other SaaS, from banks to media providers to E2EE[0] chat clients to random apps whose makers feel insecure, or are obsessed with security [theater] best practices, just salivate at the thought of being able to check if you're a deviant running with root or debugging privileges, all because ${complex web of excuses that often sound plausible if you don't look too closely}. There's a huge demand for device attestation, remote or otherwise. -- [0] - End-to-end Enshittified.

▲

201984 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And now if I want to send a .apk to someone, they have to wipe their entire phone to install it? No thanks.

▲

altruios an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

That's... brilliant. Enough work to not be able to talk it though over the phone to someone not technical. A sane default for people who don't know about security. And a simple enough procedure for the technically minded and brave.

It solves the 'smartest bear / dumbest human' overlap design concern in this situation.

▲

pas 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

then make the unlock cost money

relatively easy for devs, but hard to scale for scammers

	▲	giancarlostoro 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's either that or as suggested, hard require developer validation for specific API permissions.
	▲	3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]