Remix.run Logo
Android May Soon Restrict On-Device ADB(kitsumed.github.io)
401 points by shscs911 6 hours ago | 175 comments
microtonal 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I am generally in favor of security improvements, but I do not really see much of a benefit here. This attack vector requires both that the user enabled developer settings and that they have remote adb enabled. So, this does not seem to be a realistic attack vector for 99.9% of the users and most of the other 0.1% probably know what they are doing.

The other proposed change (to restrict access to certain interfaces or IP addresses) seems good, but why not allow developers to restrict access localhost?

It reeks of trying to block Shizuku, Canta, etc. using a way that only makes it look like a side-effect.

m132 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> This attack vector requires both that the user enabled developer settings and that they have remote adb enabled.

Not just that. A non-development Android build will also prompt the user when a connection is made to authorize the client's key.

This once again isn't about security of users, this is about security of the company's interests.

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

This. I'm a developer, I've published Android apps, & I've still managed to lose access to a device that had dev settings enabled purely because remote adb enablement is a (extremely fiddly) toggle that happened to be off on the device at the time the screen broke. Having these two enabled simultaneously is such a rare case in the wild as to be entirely negligible as a vector.

wahnfrieden 8 minutes ago | parent [-]

Sometimes attacks happen from users being instructed to enable settings in order to achieve something regardless of whether you’d expect them to have a reason to use the setting

atty a minute ago | parent [-]

Sure, sometimes people get social engineered into taking money from their bank account and giving it to criminals. Should banks stop allowing withdrawals?

pigggg 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Isn't this because of the kimwolf (and now 6+ other botnets) that are taking advantage of people running residential proxyware unknowingly on the device which permits outbound connections to 127.0.0.1 on tcp/5555 to auth in and exec wgets or drops a loader that grabs the ddos malware APKs and install it?

crote 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It seems to require the user to:

1. Enable Developer Mode by going to an obscure settings page and tapping the build number seven times

2. Enable USB ADB debugging in the Developer Options

3. Establish an actual USB ADB session

4. Enable TCP/IP ADB debugging in the Developer Options

5. Unknowingly download a malware app from the official Play Store

6. Blindly click "Yes" on the permission prompt.

In other words: this is all but impossible to impact regular users, and it requires a particularly careless developer to be hit by it. And it only works if the Play Store is useless at preventing malware in the first place - but I thought their excellent app scanning was the entire reasoning behind all-but-banning 3rd-party app stores and sideloading???

It is "for safety" in the same sense that governments banning all encryption is to "protect the children" or to "prevent terrorism": flawed justification invented to distract from the real reason they want it.

II2II 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> In other words: this is all but impossible to impact regular users, and it requires a particularly careless developer to be hit by it.

Have you ever worked with someone who barely knows how to use a mobile phone? They will hand their phone over to someone they barely even know to do something they don't understand. They will follow instructions from a stranger over the phone, without understanding what the phone is warning them about.

I have worked with such a person. They did have someone walk them through a dubious process. Thankfully they realized what was going on before the process was complete, but who knows how much damage was done by the initial steps.

There are legitimate security reasons here. Whether there are reasons beyond that is an open question.

realusername 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You are right, better locking them out of the Play Store, there's too much risk using it.

g-b-r 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Can we freaking sell them dumbphones, then, and stop destroying portable computers for everyone else with that excuse?

Which incidentally is often just a pretense for other motives?

If computers have suddenly become so dangerous for normal people, and they want smartphones nonetheless, add to them a dumb-mode encouraged at the initial setup, and requiring some third party assistance to turn it off once enabled..! (and forbid apps to change their behavior if it's not enabled)

mlrtime an hour ago | parent [-]

"Can we freaking sell them dumbphones"

Nothing is stopping the guy at Walmart or Tmobile from selling them dumbphones, or are you implying they are forced to?

RunSet 8 minutes ago | parent [-]

Try letting the blame trickle down from the pyramid's apex instead of blaming the footman.

Here is the first iPhone ad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bvfs4ai5XU

The ad depicts it as a mere phone instead of a potentially hostile Turing machine. There is equivalent messaging in the android ecosystem but its advertising is not so ubiquitous.

franga2000 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You haven't been able to connect to an android device on port 5555 for yeeears. Every time you enable adb/IP it generates a new random port, or you need to use the QR/PIN pairing thing. On top of needing to enable developer options, adb/IP, confirm the fingerprint.

pigggg 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Millions of Superboxes and various digital picture frames say different.

https://synthient.com/blog/a-broken-system-fueling-botnets

microtonal an hour ago | parent [-]

Kimwolf exploits vulnerable Android Debug Bridge (ADB) services. Many low-cost TV boxes come "pre-infected" with proxy SDKs; Kimwolf then scans these residential proxy networks and exploits the devices within minutes as it propagates.

https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ddos/glossary/aisuru-kim...

This is like saying that SSH is insecure because some device vendors install SSH, permitting root login with a default password of 'root'.

BiteCode_dev 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

Yeah let's block port 80, too many people expose unprotected api.

xg15 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Hadn't thought about that additional attack vector those proxies are enabling. In addition to "internet access from residental connection" privileges, the attacker also gets access to loopback on the device that does the proxying...

But even then, shouldn't this show the same permission prompt for the user that anything else trying to connect to port 5555 would?

londons_explore 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, but users are told to allow it if they want to get free coins etc.

TeMPOraL 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You can't fully protect people from the risk of taking bad advice from malicious strangers.

Not the least because most of our industry relies on it to make money. Marketing and advertising themselves are institutionalized forms of "do this thing that's actually harmful to you to get free coins / be safe / get laid".

xg15 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Not the least because most of our industry relies on it to make money.

I mean, this seems more like one of the root causes for a lot of bad things in the industry me...

xg15 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Told by whom though? If it's through proxyware, then there are three parties who mostly don't know each other:

- the app embedding the proxyware SDK for money

- the proxy operators

- the attackers/botnets using the proxy to access ADB.

The botnet has no access to the app, so it can't show any messages.

The app can show messages, but probably has no connection to the botnet. (I hope)

The proxy operators could show a message by abusing the SDK even more, but that would mean they actively colluded with the botnet. Is that likely? Then they could just give the botnet direct access to the app, no need to do the whole proxy thing.

londons_explore 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It isn't being done behind-the-back of proxy operators.

It's one more revenue stream to be able to remote control real android phones to pass device attestation checks etc.

It's marketed to users with phrases like "earn money from your phone whilst you sleep".

xg15 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Ok, that makes more sense. Hooray for stuff getting even worse...

TeMPOraL 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Remote attestation itself being a questionable idea at best, so it's bad things creating a market for even worse workarounds.

xg15 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No objection there.

Also telling that advertising and locking down devices are driven by the same companies...

PunchyHamster 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not because of security. It's to slowly close any avenues for side-loading stuff

izacus 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The bug literally describes how they're avoiding OS security restictions by going through the debug port.

This is a CVE by any definition and you'd be screaming your head off if any other OS would allow this kind of permission bypass (or even if another app did it).

But sure, Google evil.

gnfargbl 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You, and may of the people in the thread here are at cross purposes, I think.

The CVE mentioned in the article is https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-0073. That's a real CVE: logic error leading to auth bypass. Fix can be seen at https://android.googlesource.com/platform/packages/modules/a....

Separately, a number of people here are attempting to argue that the availability of On-Device ADB should be regarded as a "CVE" in and of itself. Google does not appear to share that view.

dns_snek 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Separately, a number of people here are attempting to argue that the availability of On-Device ADB should be regarded as a "CVE" in and of itself. Google does not appear to share that view.

This was proposed by a Google employee: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/526109803#comment3

gnfargbl 2 hours ago | parent [-]

That link is mentioned in the article. To quote it:

> Connection to localhost has also been the source of exploit where app are using that socket to adbd to escalate their privileges. What about we restrict to always only binding to wifi interface wlan0 ?

Nowhere in that text do I see a proposal to assign an additional CVE for this behaviour. Personally I think it would be unusual to assign a CVE for intended-but-potentially-harmful functionality, although I expect people have done that in the past. But, I think overall we're agreeing here.

dns_snek an hour ago | parent [-]

Yeah, they didn't claim that it's a CVE, just behavior that they wanted to change. Miscommunication then.

TeMPOraL 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> This is a CVE by any definition and you'd be screaming your head off if any other OS would allow this kind of permission bypass.

Or perhaps they wouldn't? CVEs aren't holy scripture, and "security" isn't the most important consideration in computing. This theatre has gone too far IMO.

dns_snek 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Allowing strangers to run adb commands on your phone without your consent is about as bad as a compromise can get. Your keyboard can be replaced with a keylogger and all of your data can be stolen without your knowledge by simply connecting to the wrong wifi network.

TeMPOraL 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, but what about allowing me to run adb commands on my phone with my consent, and especially delegating that privilege to "strangers", again, with my (one-time) consent - by which I mean authorizing apps to run with elevated privileges and/or reestablish the debugging bridge once it invariably disconnects (for other more or less legitimate security reasons)?

It's not like those threats silently turn on ADB on people's phones without their knowledge. You have to opt in to a rather obscure, hidden by default, and very fickle feature to become potentially vulnerable in the first place.

dns_snek 3 hours ago | parent [-]

They're 3 separate issues. There's a genuine vulnerability (CVE) which has been fixed, there's a follow-up proposal to allow the user to choose which interfaces to bind to, and there's another proposal to disallow ADB over loopback which would cut you off from using ADB on-device.

Your problem is with the last one which has nothing to do with the CVE itself.

TeMPOraL 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Correct.

That, and security maximalism displayed in 3. and some comments in the HN thread.

theplumber 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Depends how you define a CVE. If owning and controlling your device is a CVE/bug then sure you need a tight box with anti tempering as well.

dns_snek 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Can you provide a reasonable definition where an authentication bypass in ADB doesn't qualify as a vulnerability? Is there a use case for allowing anyone on your network to run adb commands without your approval?

There are 3 things which I feel like are being confused here:

1. There was a genuine authentication bypass vulnerability in ADB (bad)

2. Initial proposed change wants to add an option to limit the ADB server to certain IPs or network interfaces (good - it doesn't affect you)

3. Response to the original request, proposing that ADB shouldn't be allowed to listen on loopback interfaces (bad/nefarious - it breaks functionality)

[1] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-0073

[2] https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/526109803#comment1

[3] https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/526109803#comment3

izacus 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"An app can bypass OS security system with certain setting enabled" absolutely fits into CVEs. There's no "depends: on it.

I love how quickly you all forget about security and privacy when it gives a chance to angrily rant.

TeMPOraL 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Anything can fit into CVE.

"An app can bypass OS security system with certain setting enabled" is absolutely a valid CVE. We have countless examples every day of vendor apps bypassing OS security systems because they're allowed to do so.

"A device can bypass protective layers and cause soft tissue damage when thrown" is an absolutely fine CVE, too.

Whether it matters or is something that should be addressed, is the depends part. Here we're talking about CVE that's at risk of trying to address a feature.

You are forgetting the most important questions of security, without which the whole discussion becomes pointless:

Who is securing what, and from who?

CVEs seem much less like holy writ when they're aimed at protecting the device for commercial interests and from the device owner.

izacus an hour ago | parent [-]

Apps being able to bypass a restriction put on them by the OS always matter.

Whether that means there's a _feature_ lacking there, is another question.

rcxdude 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When half that security is aimed against the user it's pretty easy to cheer for cracks in it.

vrighter 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

a lot of cves are of the type "if you leave the keys in the door, then anyone can unlock it and get in! We must destroy all doors, they are insecure!"

This is one of them

dns_snek 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is not one of them. This is "the lock accepts any key" type of CVE.

> In adbd_tls_verify_cert of auth.cpp, there is a possible bypass of wireless ADB mutual authentication due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to remote (proximal/adjacent) code execution as the shell user with no additional execution privileges needed.

Patch: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/packages/modules/a...

Docs:

> EVP_PKEY_cmp() return 1 if the keys match, 0 if they don't match, -1 if the key types are different and -2 if the operation is not supported.

The original code cast the integer return value to boolean, and -1 and -2 cast to "true", therefore authentication would succeed if the key types were different or the operation wasn't supported.

TeMPOraL 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You jest, but passkeys seem to have literally been invented to address something like: "Keys to your doors can be used by anyone to open those doors, regardless of your knowledge or presence".

Which is a problem only if the third party acquired those keys without your permission, but the industry decided to "fix it" regardless.

crote 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sounds like the Settings panel is a CVE, we should immediately get rid of it. And don't forget the Play Store!

J-Kuhn an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I changed the sudo settings to not require a password.

Now an application on my computer can obtain root without user interaction.

Where is my CVE?

roer 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The original issue is proposing letting the user assign the debug service to a specific interface, one of which would presumably be loopback. This article is about the proposal from a developer that it should only ever be assigned to wlan0, which would break a lot of apps.

Letting applications bypass permissions with this feature is the exact usecase they don't want to lose. If anything, I don't see them being against the original proposal possibly restricting non-loopback access, which would enhance security.

izacus 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It would break exactly 0 apps because none of the apps should be using this API to access your private data and phone call audio.

microtonal 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So why do Google Play Services, etc. have full privileged access to a phone, including private data and phone call audio, but the user doesn't?

It is tech feudalism - you don't own anything anymore, you just get to live on the digital land of a bunch of ~trillion dollar companies.

At least, that is the goal.

IMO either everyone gets access at the user's discretion or Google has to sandbox their own GMS services as well.

TeMPOraL 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why? What other APIs should my apps (or the apps I explicitly want to authorize for this purpose) use to access my private data and my phone call audio?

microtonal 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I am not sure I follow. Are you referring to the original CVE (?), I fully agree that it should be fixed, and it is not what my comment was about.

If you are talking about allowing listening on localhost - remote ADB requires enabling in the developer settings. It is a developer feature, similar to ADB over USB. If I'm charitable, it is possible that they are seeing too many people that are using Shizuku without understanding the security implications. But Shizuku has a lot of useful applications and they use ADB because the Android APIs and permission system are lacking and do not make these applications possible.

3form 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because you know, the actual solution would be to have more granularity in authentication process than "allow whole device to attach to ADB", but that would be like, difficult... so they're not going to so that.

Right now any app on my PC connected to ADB could manipulate my phone then, and that's somehow not a CVE?

dminik 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Is it a CVE that an app running on my PC could actually be running under GDB? It's the entire purpose of these tools.

yyhhsj0521 36 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

New CVE found in Bank of America app that may cause user to transfer money to hackers if they press certain combination of keys.

phoghed 20 minutes ago | parent [-]

More like if you have some settings enabled someone on your network can do it for you without your permission

spaqin 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In this case, the OS security restrictions should be questioned in the first place as excessive if a "backdoor" is necessary for normal function.

mrsssnake 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"...avoiding OS security restictions by going through the debug port..." the user delibretry opened and paired to app with clear visual confirmation in order to use it.

zmmmmm 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Even if you have to deliberately enable a setting and enter a pairing code?

It's like saying that the fact the user knows their own password is a vulnerability because they might enter it to log into their account.

redeeman 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

no, its a cve if the app can just do it automatically, it is NOT a cve that user goes through 5 steps that they very explicitly do, including unlocking hidden menus to open up developer options, and then allow it.

seriously, get real, please explain how your train of thought works here

0x_rs 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Limiting ADB is the obvious next step. Even if this one specific feature request does not come to pass, Google has cornered everyone into relying on a developer interface for any normal personal computing tasks, whether running on-device or through USB/wireless. It's quite clear at some point in the future you will either be required to surrender your identity to them and pay a yearly fee or be severely limited to continue using it in any meaningful capacity, because Google does not want you to develop applications on Android outside their controlled channels -- and it's a developer bridge, the battle was already lost when they did not back down from the changes forbidding normal, legitimate ̶s̶i̶d̶e̶l̶o̶a̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ installation.

>Don’t even get me started on OEMs that force an audio warning such as “This call is being recorded,” when it’s in places where it’s not legally required.

This is also Google's fault. Their dialer--that OEMs increasingly pick over their own, despite their always being much better, see old MIUI one for example--just blanket applies the rule almost everywhere. Especially annoying on all MediaTek SoCs that do not support the feature on an hardware level at all through proper, reliable third-party applications. As if you didn't need any more proof you don't own "your" devices. But maybe in a couple years Gemini will be able to listen to the calls and summarize them for you, just need to go through the approved surveillance channel.

eviks 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Spamming the thread will only cause Google developers to lock the issue, ignore valuable community feedback, or stop sharing public updates about this change entirely.

So nothing would change (they can also lock away your "valuable community feedback" because what bothers them is the criticism itself), thus feel free to express your approval

AussieWog93 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> because what bothers them is the criticism itself

I think there's a difference between criticism of a policy and being brigaded by a reddit mob.

jeroenhd 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The moment an article like this hits HN or Reddit or any other such forum, any hope of changing anyone's mind is lost. The same happens to Github issues too. I haven't checked the isue myself, but seeing it here means it's probably already too late at this point, it'll probably get flooded.

Google does take feedback from app developers every now and then, but obviously their own teams' feelings on the subject are more important to them than some open source developers relying on a hack like in this article.

I think it should be quite obvious that the ADB daemon wasn't designed to enable call recording from an app initiating an adb session over a loopback address. https://xkcd.com/1172/ strikes again.

That doesn't mean the developer who wrote this is wrong to dislike the change: Google themselves have added call recording to their dialer a while ago so it's clearly a feature they stand behind. That doesn't mean the adb team shouldn't do a little security hardening, though.

p-e-w 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The implication in the blog post that Google developers somehow “overlooked” or “misunderstood” important use cases here, and if only they were informed about them they would reconsider, is frankly insulting.

light_hue_1 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Every single time any story has the words "Google developers" in it, they're behaving like arrogant, disconnected, anti-consumer jerks. From constant GCP breakage, to not acknowledging obvious Android bugs, to intentionally braking Chrome. It's a stark contrast to behind the scenes interactions with them.

lII1lIlI11ll 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, my favorite one is how Chrome users are not smart enough to handle case-aware web-page search toggle. Although to be fair their Chrome team is very arrogant even by Google standards.

izacus 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, fixing severe security issues that allow apps to bypass security, how arrogant of them.

lII1lIlI11ll 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You keep spamming variations of this comment without explaining how could apps actually bypass security without several steps that the user needs to take in order for it to work. Are you just farming down votes for some weird reason or will you finally get to the technical details instead of one-sentence snarks?

izacus an hour ago | parent [-]

The linked bug explains exactly how. The fact that you angrily slam downvotes when you hear something doesn't like doesn't make it "farming", just like rage and rants and bizarre accusations of conspiracy in this comment thread won't change the underlying issues that this is going to fix.

TeMPOraL 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You forgot to ask yourself whose interests are being secured, and who/what is the threat being secured from.

Security is not an unqualified good. It's just mechanism of control.

izacus an hour ago | parent [-]

The users.

userbinator 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm sure Google considers users having freedom to be a "severe security issue." /s

satvikpendem 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Of course this was bound to happen, next you're telling me people will be surprised that the 24 hour limit for side loading will turn into some indefinite time period.

devsda 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It can and will most probably turn to indefinite time depending on the answer to the question "will we have a viable alternative to jump ship before that happens ?".

We don't need anything to completely capture the market, it has to be just enough to make Google hesitate or make it hard for Google to do it for legal reasons. Like how Firefox is ideally supposed to be for Chrome.

microtonal 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Many alternative AOSP-based systems work fine today and do not have the new Android Developer Verifier (wow, already rolled out to 500M+ devices [1], though still dormant).

To be honest, it is quite scary that Google is able to remotely roll out an app like that to all GMS Android phones. Of course, we all knew that, but it highlights again that Google can remotely take away functionality that you had before, brick your phone, etc.

[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...

RobotToaster 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We used to call programs like this, that allow someone to remotely break your system, a Trojan horse...

bpavuk 4 hours ago | parent [-]

and now people install Remote Access Trojans just to let GPT and Claude think and work for them, granting them shell and a11y access. really? after seeing that, nothing surprises me

TeMPOraL 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, really. The obvious answer that security maximallists deny even exists is, who is doing it and why. In LLM case, users are doing it themselves to allow a way of computing they want and find useful, in spite of platform locks designed to deny users just that.

izacus 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Wait till you hear that your OEM can remotely rollout full OS updates with full access to all your data and drivers... carrying Google software and most of it Google code.

microtonal 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Snarks do not lead to productive discussions. You also know that there is has always been an implicit social contract between users and vendors. The vendor rolls out updates as part of the service attached to the device (typically included in the purchase price) and that the vendor does not abuse the update mechanism to make things worse for the user.

If vendors use updates to restrict functionality that the user had before, puts existing features behind paywalls, etc. people are rightfully outraged, because it breaks the social contract.

It's just that the repeated offenses have made us insensitive. Imagine Debian rolling out some mechanism that only allows you to install software outside their repos with a 24 hour delay. It would destroy Debian.

stein1946 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> will we have a viable alternative to jump ship before that happens ?

Here is a better question:

"Is the EU going to stop this?"

sunaookami 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No because the EUDI Wallet needs Google Play Services. People need to come to the realization that the EU has no interest in regulating the freedom of devices because the EU itself is benefitting from the closed-down ecosystem.

atif089 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Google is working on a new recaptcha strategy to counter that. Essentially any non Google flavor of Android OS will fail recaptcha validation

Superblazer 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is huge, Android getting locked down to such levels should be sounding alarm bells. They are slowly removing everything that makes Android good.

bayindirh 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When Google first announced sideloading restrictions, somebody told “but we have ADB”, and who disagreed with them was criticized harshly.

Now, I’m waiting for a workaround to enable ADB, so sideloading can be handled now, too.

Android is not more open that iOS for a very long time now. The trend will continue.

Again, this is not a technical problem (the mindset of Google), so technological solutions won’t help.

IvanK_net 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I am worried that this might happen to websites soon.

If you want your website to be openable on Apple devices, you would have to pay Apple a fee each month. If you want your website to be openable on Android devices, you would have to pay Google a fee ecah month, etc.

microtonal 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I am worried that this might happen to websites soon.

You mean the new recaptcha that requires remote attestation?

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/07/googles-new-remote-att...

Obviously, it doesn't have the fee part. But Google can decide soon for a substantial number of websites which devices can visit them and which not.

avian 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I am thinking how this would split the web.

You would have the "new web" consisting of the top n major websites paying this fee.

And then you would have the "old web", accessible only to people still owning their own PCs with unrestricted browsers. And probably heavily scrapped by AI companies to reguritate to the masses through the new web.

IshKebab 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's already the case for Netflix and other video streaming services.

You don't have to pay a fee directly, but you can't use open source web browsers.

tonyhart7 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

we can just fork android

edit: I not realizing that I been replying to wrong comment

rcMgD2BwE72F 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Ah yes, Android without the Play Store.

So you won't be able to use your banking apps, your local transport app, public services apps, health services apps, etc.

But sure, you can do SMS (no RCS though), use the device calculator, and maybe browse the Web… until websites kick you out because your non Chrome/Safari browser isn't supported anymore. Even Signal won't work well due to the lack of FCM.

And I'm a GrapheneOS user happy with Obtainium and without Play Services installed in main user space.

BoxwoodSeed 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I always disable everything Google that comes preinstalled other than maps, including the App store. You can download stuff that you can only get there through Aurora, but really most of what I use comes from F-Droid.

Not that I trust a device running Android enough to do banking, mind you.

tonyhart7 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

the situation is not ideal but this is the best we can do

peheje 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We need Linux on phones. Bank apps not needed as long as I can use browser. But do need some things like wireless cards, popular apps like Sonos and Spotify working.

mnahkies 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Unfortunately many banks in the UK no longer offer a web portal or physical branches.

I'd love to see legislation that mandated a functioning web experience for critical services like this (banking, utilities, etc) - otherwise it will continue to further entrench the current duopoly.

(I suppose this is also an instance where I should do a better job of voting with my feet and supporting services that do offer this)

microtonal 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Good news for EU citizens though, PSD3 will require that authentication methods without a smartphone are provided:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/fr/qanda_...

Require payment services providers to ensure that all users can benefit from methods to perform SCA which are adapted to their needs and situations and, in particular, that those methods do not depend on one single technology, device or mechanism, for instance on the possession of a smartphone.

nh2 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wise in the UK currently is good. You can use it completely without a phone app. It also has good support for passkeys, TOTP, and SMS OTP, allowing to add multiple of each as it should be. If you do choose the Wise app, it currently warns when you run a custom Android ROM, but let's you use it.

Our company also uses Revolut business, but that requires a phone app to verify online payments with cards. And Revolut recently changed the app so it now requires Google Play Integrity so it doesn't work with LineageOS anymore. So I'm looking to move all new things away from Revolut. I have little patience with companies that want to unbank my company, and decide what hardware or software we use.

cryo32 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Huh? Why the hell would you use a bank that doesn't offer a web portal or have branches if there are banks that still do?!?!

I bank with HSBC in the UK and there's still branches (worldwide) and banking via web.

I assume you mean things like Starling and Monzo in this case? Banking with them is simply dangerous.

alightsoul an hour ago | parent [-]

There's mobile payment apps worldwide like yappy and UPI, that don't have a web interface and are local monopolies. Even worse they are sometimes controlled by a single large bank, not a government and not a consortium so you're entirely beholden to their decisions, whatever they might be.

ninalanyon 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> many banks in the UK no longer offer a web portal

Same in Norway.

cynicalsecurity 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Poland, all banks I know offer web portal. Linux, Firefox - works perfectly.

TeMPOraL 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Follow up question: how many of those still let you log in and authorize transfers without relying on their mobile app as required second factor?

cynicalsecurity an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Good point. They don't. Huh, that's really worrying. My bank started requiring phone for web portal only about a few years ago. They don't allow to use an alternative MFA method. This should be made illegal.

juleiie 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is all inevitable direction over long period of time

What’s worrying is that noone protests about it

It doesn’t suprise me that corporations and governments want the laziest, most „protective” laws passed that extend their power. But why noone, absolutely noone puts some kind of resistance to it?

Government and citizens are at eternal conflict of interests. It has been this way and it will be this way forever.

Your job as a citizen is to make sure you have greatest amount of liberties

Noone will do it for you.

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

<https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/>

daemin 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Unfortunately these days bank apps are required by the banks for "security", and good luck getting anything done without the bank app installed on your phone.

The only other alternative available is SMS but that is being phased out (rightly so) for being insecure.

BoxwoodSeed 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Currently my bank requires a device where I need to insert my card to get a one time six digit code based on a QR code the banking website serves me that the device scans.

I'm not quite sure why they don't support something like a yubikey with FIDO, but maybe there's a good reason.

Tade0 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

ING supports hardware keys in some markets, so there's no reason not to.

alightsoul an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

because it's so niche it's not profitable to implement

dgellow 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://sailfishos.org/

N_Lens 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Android is Linux on phones ;)

nixass 4 hours ago | parent [-]

And MacOS is Unix on Macs?

SwellJoe 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's only one reason for anyone, or for me, at least, to choose Android, and it's the only reason I've consistently chosen Android from the very first Google Developer Phone: It's more open.

So, they don't want me to even have that one reason to keep choosing Android, I guess.

free652 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Looking what's this is about - Shizuku

https://github.com/thedjchi/Shizuku/wiki/setup

So it requires

* Enable Developer Options if not already enabled (Generally, this is done by going to Settings > About device and tapping Build number 7 times).

* Enable both USB debugging and Wireless debugging. Tap "Allow" if prompted to allow wireless debugging on the current network.

* Tap Pair device with pairing code.

* Downloadd other apps like ShizuCallRecorder

Or seems to be exactly what this user described.

https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=49046291&goto=item%3Fi...

luqtas 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

finally my children will be secure and my bank account impenetrable!

mdp2021 5 hours ago | parent [-]

/s

ddxv 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's this stuff thats caused me to start degoogling as much as I can. I've started using nongmail emails and removing photos.

I Don't know what else I can do though, next up is switching to grapheneOS but I'm a ways off from that for now.

coffee33go 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://archive.ph/gla4i

In case it is made private.

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

LEA, Customs and intelligence agencies regularly use GDB to hack and extract information from an Android phone. So in that sense it may be a valid concern and reason to restrict this.

However, I'm pretty sure these entities will already have negotiated exemptions from the restrictions so in that sense they don't add much security.

felooboolooomba an hour ago | parent [-]

Yeah, and they regularly use USB cables to do that too.

ithadhumor 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Google is going the Apple route. When will we get the year of the Linux Phone?

poetaster 2 hours ago | parent [-]

https://jolla.com/

throw9394999 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This assumes user is the only person with physical access to unlocked phone.

All sorts of goverment agencies, airport security, even teachers now have access. And such attacks can be trivially automated, so even low paid worker can do it.

SXX 5 hours ago | parent [-]

This is solvable by adding big huge warning that ADB is running. Not by removing feature.

xg15 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That huge warning would also be permanently shown for everyone using Shinzuku apps. I think that UX would neither be desirable nor increase security.

_flux 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

..for the very little number of people who use them?

Arguably it would be highly preferable compared to the option of not being able to use them at all.

throw9394999 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Just use opensource phone os!

tonyhart7 4 hours ago | parent [-]

android is open source

gitowiec 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thank you for telling me about Shizuku! Android world is so vast and full of resources

hypendev 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Android had a tradeoff - less vertical integration and more annoyances, a bit worse software quality, for a more open, customisable and utility-like experience. I loved that.

Now, the tradeoff is - less vertical integration, double the integration layer trash (Google & OEM) and a much more locked down experience. But the quality of it hasn't improved, it just got worse.

Doesn't make sense anymore. They can now do 99% of the same things, but iOS has a better quality OS, better apps and better vertical integration.

Not even vertical integration, actually just any kind. FFS it's 2026 and the recommended android way to send a photo to your mac/PC is "upload to google photos and hope it decides to sync".

3form 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What I find most annoying aspect of all software from 2010s onwards is this stupid discourse and associated results:

- some people want A, or A might even be already in use

- A is problematic for $MODERATE_OR_MILD_REASON

- B is introduced and made default

- a config switch between A and B is never considered

So, so tiring. If I want to bind ADB to localhost, _let me_. It's my device and my problem, ffs.

Arbortheus 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Toxic max security.

Not everyone has the same threat model as you, $BIGTECHCORP.

rightbyte 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Isn't security just an excuse to push user hostile features?

Like, if security was a concern we would have simpler systems and still use 2fa devices for banks etc.

SXX 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Sometimes it's truly useful featutes, but having no toggle in settings making it terrible.

Like iPhone idle auto-reboot every 3 days. After a while they added "Allow Idle Reboot" flag but it only accessible via MDM and require device wipe and for switching it to be a managed device.

TeMPOraL 4 hours ago | parent [-]

What would that be useful for anyway? Sounds like something aimed to prevent people from reusing their old/secondary devices for IoT.

RobotToaster 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Hides memory leaks

TeMPOraL 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Right, that too. But that's a reason to recommend regular reboots[0], not to force them, and "3 days of inactivity" is a suspiciously specific time that I also saw mentioned in Android settings somewhere the other day.

--

[0] - Which I find deeply ironic, in that merely a decade ago, people would laugh at Windows with its "reboot after installs, reboot in case of problems" approach, and now frequent reboots are seen as Standard Security and Stability Practice on *nix systems, both mobile and server-bound...

pirates 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I have no issue restarting my iOS/Mac/Linux machines because the time to get back to doing fun or productive stuff is measured in seconds. And usually you only have to restart one time. Windows used to take ages, and often you’d reboot only find out that something else that requires a reboot only triggered because of the previous reboot, so you were sometimes in for 2-3 restarts.

It’s not like that anymore in my experience at least but the stigma stuck.

SXX 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They dont care about security; only about control.

There are hundreds of millions of outdated Android devices that all Google attestation systems consider secure even though they all running Linux kernel that was never ever updated and can be rooted by anything.

Now try to install your own firmware on them without said outdated kernel... How dare you.

jorvi 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Technically the security works, just for their threat model. An exploit would need root and root means you likely cannot pass attestation AFAIK. The fact that this same exploiter can download all your contacts photos and texts is immaterial to, say, Disney, who want attestation only to prevent ripping of their content.

pjmlp 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ask Jeeves toolbar disagrees.

einpoklum 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not even "max security". We are talking about those big tech corps which are infamous for sharing all of your private information with the government, and analyzing it so as to manipulate you in to buying things, and possibly for other obscure commercial purpuses.

stavros 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Google doesn't want you to be able to skip YouTube ads. It's as simple as that.

altairprime 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No one's requested the config switch from A to B with a restriction that's acceptable to those seeking B. Idealism doesn't tend to offer compromises, and so Idealism tends to lose when it doesn't make a convincing case to regulators. Here's a simple and easy to implement example compromise that could be offered today:

"Changing between A and B requires a device reset."

Most people are going to flat out refuse to wipe their device for a phisher, especially since it'll log them out of everything and trigger all sorts of "new device on your account" warnings everywhere if it's done without their knowledge.

Sure, this is mildly annoying for the 1% that have good reason for A — but it's annoying once per device rather than losing A for good as is happening now. Sure, Google will deny service to A. They're doing that no matter what, either b/c they remove A or b/c they deny A, but this forces them to construct and defend a case for why users who went through the hassle of wiping their device to switch to A ought to be denied access to the app store, and that's a critically absent case in regulatory circles right now. (See also Graphene vs. the EU age check app.)

That's all it would take to protect B from A, but no one asks for it, and no one presses Google publicly for it, and so of course Google isn't doing it. No megacorp will help you walk off the Golden Path without some sort of extrinsic pressure. I see a great deal of clamor around wanting A, but absolutely none of the 'here's a mild annoyance that we came up with as a valid and safe compromise' clamor that would make them look incompetent in the public eye, provide further leverage for EU antitrust steps regarding Android itself, and give them a way to continue to protect users who need B for safety, while allowing those of us who want A to pursue it.

Perhaps other styles of compromise exist, too? As far as I can determine, no one else is thinking about this in terms of "what compromises will developers offer that continue to protect non-developers?", and so I have no other examples to offer. I'd sure love to see more ideas, more effort invested into offering serious and real compromises rather than inflexible resistance of every real safety improvement.

ducktective 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>a config switch between A and B is never considered

And why should modern corpo maintain additional complexity to pander to 1% of privacy-aware tech-savvy users?

dankobgd 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can they ruin it faster i am sick of it already. Need to root the phone to get basic functionality, i need like 6-7 magisk modules to do basic things. I can't access file system on device i paid 250$. I have to use adb to change basic things, i rather use symbian.

ACCount37 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Symbian pioneered this bullshit. Having to sign apps with Nokia keys just to install them was a thing since the days of S60. And it all went downhill from there.

TeMPOraL 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> on device i paid 250$

It doesn't get better even if you pay 2500$, which is extra silly.

minraws 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And I might soon restrict use of Android and iOS in my life. Because of this nonsense, how will I get around the app issue is something I am still trying to figure out but I won't pay money to companies that make my products(I own them after I bought them) worse bit by bit anymore.

mdp2021 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Step back to the other issue (referenced in the page*), that Google would pushing on devices something that blocks applications that do not come from play.google.com . Was it not established that Google can only push that update on devices with a google account?

* https://keepandroidopen.org/

magic_hamster 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is about control, not security. As in, Google's control over your device, your experience, your features and choices. This and Google just isn't interested in supporting an open OS anymore. Maybe they think it makes them liable.

Either way the writing is on the wall, and has been for a while.

OsrsNeedsf2P 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm so done with Android and iOS. I already carry around 2 phones because neither will give me exactly what I want, maybe it's time for a 3rd running Linux..?

BoxwoodSeed 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Linux phone is already a thing that exists and is at a point where it can be used by tech illiterate people within the confines of what is possible normally.

It's just that few people bother using it. But that number might increase if Android continues it's war against its users.

nicman23 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

i am not running stock ROMs and neither should you

NSPG911 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

goodbye shizuku i guess, and maybe termux

Razengan 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Does anyone have any doubt left that we're headed for a future where you need a government ID to use any computing device, and only allowed to do government-approved tasks and view government-approved content?

Not a rhetorical tinfoil question: Does anyone still believe there's some hope for personal freedoms?

smolder 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

RIP phones

xg15 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Scenario 3: A Developer Using ADB over TCP/IP

- You install a malicious application.

- You enable USB debugging, starting ADBD.

- You connect via USB ADB to enable TCP/IP, then disconnect the USB cable.

- ADBD continues running and listens on all network interfaces.

- The application initiates a connection, causing an authorization prompt to appear on the screen. If the user selects No, the connection is rejected. No silent exploitation attempts are possible.

I understand the author's rationale and think the reasons why that whole ecosystem is accessing ADB are legitimate - but I have some questions here.

The above flow is basically what apps that use Shizuku have to do as well, right? Only that in that case, the user would deliberately install the app and have the knowledge it uses ADB features and therefore would also confirm the permission prompt.

However, ADBD in this situation only sees a connection attempt, not which app made the attempt, right?

So it also cannot remember that a particular app was already authorized by the user and has to display the prompt again on each connection attempt?

Does that mean that a Shizuku-enabled app would prompt the user again for ADB access any time it's started?

This seems honestly like Shizuku itself would increase the risk of a user granting ADB access to a bad actor (i.e. a second app or external connection that is different from the app the user wanted to authorize).

Thinking of "scenario 3" if a Shizuku-enabled app is already running on the device and something else wants to connect to ADB:

- I'm assuming a malicious app was already installed (without privileges) or something tries to connect to port 5555 from outside or via proxyware.

- ADBD is already running and listening for TCP to serve the Shizuku app, so those steps can be taken for granted.

- The malicious app or connection triggers a permission prompt from ADBD. However, by that time, the user has grown used to those prompts, because the Shizuku triggers them frequently, so they are more likely to select "yes".

If ADBD has no information about who is connecting, it also can't show any meaningful information in the prompt. So it cannot really help the user distinguish prompts from the legitimate Shizuku app from malicious prompts. A user still has the timing and context to distinguish prompts, i.e. prompts that appear out of the blue when they aren't using the app are suspicious.

ur-whale an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To quote Scott McNealy, then CEO of Sun microsystems, circa 1999:

"You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it".

It has become truer every year that has passed since then.

The 2026 version : "If you believe you will be allowed to keep any kind of control over the devices you "own", you are deluding yourself".

charcircuit 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

adb connecting a device to itself is just bad design and a hack. Either the capabilities should just be granted directly to the app or it should all be blocked.

qrobit 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Same can be said about loopback device in general. Why do you need to use networking when you are literally on the same device and can use binder/dbus and friends with native apps?

Shizuku uses Binder AFAICS[^1]. Looking deeper it seems that Shizuku does not connect to the device itself per se, but rather it has a privileged server launched manually through adb. Never used Shizuku, so can't say for sure.

[1]: https://github.com/rikkaapps/shizuku#how-does-shizuku-work

LightBug1 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"AI ... please create a very efficient emulator which will take an Android app, and convert it to any other operating system"

Anyone up for the challenge? Or a better solution.

Fuck this bullshit. It's only going to get worse.

shevy-java 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

These are not accidents. Google declared total war against open source. You only need to remember how it declared war against ublock origin. In the long run this will also fail, but until then Google causes a lot of damage. Legislation needs to control this tyrant but unfortunately the oligarchs run the country of the mad orange king right now.

Louis Rossman will have a field day with Google here. I think it is time to end Evil - that is, to end Google. This company serves no more useful purpose on this planet anymore.

ignoramous 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The article overlooks security implications from spyware, which is a huge problem not only for financial applications, but personal safety, too [0].

Per FTC, a stalkerware will: geo locate, read call list & record calls, read notifications, texts, & possibly emails, access gallery, camera, & files, and monitor network activity. [1]

You could do all of those with "on-device adb" (in some cases, with just the appropriate permissions), without root access. Stalkerware & financial fraud enabled merely due to the scale & reach of Android (half of humanity uses it!) and lack of basic security literacy warrants such protective measures, as (Thaler & Sunstein would like to remind us) defaults matter.

With conspiracies abound, we must not lose sight of tech safety and related issues, which almost exclusively affect the most vulnerable & the most disadvantaged.

[0] https://www.techsafety.org/spyware-and-stalkerware-phone-sur...

[1] https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/stalkerware-what-know

returnInfinity 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

bullish on google stock

revenue must go up

throawayonthe 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

that seems pretty reasonable actually

mdp2021 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To only use ADB through a WLAN? No, it is not that reasonable

throawayonthe 5 hours ago | parent [-]

or over USB, from another device? this is about maybe restricting the wireless variant to only work on wlan0

amelius 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

To iPhone users, perhaps.

kasabali 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm afraid in a few years iOS will actually (not as a joke) be the more open and customizable option

hagbard_c 5 hours ago | parent [-]

That seems rather unlikely given the the ways of the fruit factory. They don't stand to gain anything from loosening their stranglehold on their flock while they could lose substantially if someone were to open the gate and let the sheep escape. Nope, keeping them penned in is the best way to reliably fleece them.

throawayonthe 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

i'm running graphene

userbinator 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's frankly amazing how many Google developers will associate their real identities and contact info with such hostility, believing they're invincible.

Perhaps they should be subjected to the full force of the First Amendment.

_davide_ 2 hours ago | parent [-]

lol, keep hoping