• @RobotToasterOP
    link
    English
    783 months ago

    We really need to move away from the idea that a user having control over his/her device is insecure.

    I can use online banking and paypal with windows logged in as administrator or GNU/Linux logged in as root[0], why shouldn’t I be able to use google wallet pay wallet with root?

    [0] yes I know you shouldn’t log in as root, but that doesn’t change that you can do it.

    • Yurgenst
      link
      fedilink
      English
      233 months ago

      “why shouldn’t I be able to use google wallet pay wallet with root?” Because little innocent Google won’t be able to build their advertising profile of you. Can’t have that!

    • @Wes_Dev@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      213 months ago

      No my friend, our overloads have decided that you shouldn’t have control over your desktop either.

      • @x6a61686e@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        83 months ago

        Tried installing the most recent WhatsApp update but it’s failing. I think a virus is blocking the update, better try again with secure browsing off…

      • @dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        63 months ago

        I must be missing something. How would Google be at all liable for restoring funds stolen by software that they themselves didn’t furnish, on a device that’s out of their control?

        • @ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          63 months ago

          A judge may not see it that way. They may perceive it as Google failing to provide adequate protections to their users.

          If user installed the app created by Google and did not share any login credentials. It’s easy to claim Google is liable.

          The equivalent would be a bank leaving the back door to their vault open. An intruder going in and removing your funds. Despite following all the banks instructions, the bank has not replaced the funds.

          The banks is responsible for people gaining unauthorised access to your account. Especially when you don’t share your login credentials with anyone (even unknowingly). If they can’t protect against root access attacks then, they shouldn’t permit use of their app on those devices.

          Apps have convenience features, especially related to easy sign in. Their website logins don’t have these features. They require the user to enter passwords, challenge codes, card reader etc. If someone gets access to a password manager, the user is at fault. The bank likely stated you shouldn’t write down or record your password.

    • Programmer Belch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      103 months ago

      Does rooting your device make you the root user or just gives you access to superuser utilities?

      In linux systems the root user shouldn’t be used for daily use, you just make an user account with permission to use sudo, doas or su.

      • u/lukmly013 (lemmy.sdf.org)
        link
        fedilink
        English
        143 months ago

        If you root your phone, at least with most tools, you don’t become the root user. Apps that use root access have to request it, and you’ll have to allow it in the root tool you flashed.

        Example pop-up from SuperSU:

        • Programmer Belch
          link
          fedilink
          English
          73 months ago

          So google is lying about rooted devices, they seem as secure as an OEM letting an user sideload apps or google themselves letting malware apps inside their store

        • @evo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -83 months ago

          Lol. So if you use an exploit to gain SU what makes you think a malicious app can’t do the same? Or better yet, find a new exploit in the SU management software you installed. As soon as you root, you can no longer guarantee root activities are not taking place unbeknownst to you…

          • @michaelmrose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            153 months ago

            if you use an exploit to gain SU what makes you think a malicious app can’t do the same

            They can. 99% of computer security is still not installing malware or being tricked into taking actions that enable your own harm. That said often rooting methods involve physically pressing keys while booting to access the boot loader, ADB, running things with with expansive permissions. Malicious apps install via play store with reasonable permissions will generally have a much harder time breaking out of the sandbox.

            Or better yet, find a new exploit in the SU management software you installed

            Historically “sudo” tools haven’t been the source of many issues whereas a multitude of problems flowed from complex memory unsafe code.

            As soon as you root, you can no longer guarantee root activities are not taking place unbeknownst to you

            You can never guarantee this however if you are careful what you install you will remain safe same as it was before.

          • @notfromhere@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            03 months ago

            That goes for unrooted phones as well. The danger with rooting a phone comes from the automated software that is doing the initial rooting. It could install anything in there and the user would be none the wiser. Once it’s rooted and permissions are requested via the superuser app, it’s not any more dangerous than a non-rooted phone, assuming nothing malicious was installed during the rooting process, that is.

            • @evo@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -23 months ago

              Once it’s rooted and permissions are requested via the superuser app

              And you expect this piece of community software (that is often closed source to avoid detection by safetynet) is perfect? Never had any bugs or exploits?

              it’s not any more dangerous than a non-rooted phone

              The SU software itself is an attack vector. One with the ultimate payoff (root access). When you root the device you install a window in what was otherwise a solid wall. It is inherently less secure and I can’t understand how a knowledgeable person would argue otherwise.

              • @michaelmrose@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                23 months ago

                SU software has been a thing for about as long as android about 20 years or about. Has otherwise legitimate su been a source of unattended exploiting?

                The obvious risk factors are that users shall be tricked into granting inappropriate permissions to otherwise malicious or compromised software that they have deliberately installed. Outside of mobile platforms this is considered an acceptable risk that competent users can consistently successfully manage on their own hardware.

                In fact if you look at actual users even those with very limited technical know how the primary thing that

                The secondary risk is that users with no legit source of tools to root

              • @notfromhere@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                0
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                I agree with what you’re saying, but all software is insecure and it should be up to the user what their risk tolerance is. Instead, users’ control of their equipment is whittled down and before long the only choice will be deal with it or don’t play. Pinephone comes to mind as a phone with root access that is somewhat secure, but it also has latent vulnerabilities that could be exploited as its version of sudo is also an attack vector. Everything is a trade off especially in software/tech.

                • @evo@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  13 months ago

                  but all software is insecure and it should be up to the user what their risk tolerance is

                  Yes. And app developers/companies should in turn do the same. A banking app and a lemmy app probably don’t have the same security requirements. Each needs to apply the appropriate security constraints, and if that means not allowing rooted decices that’s fair imo.

    • BoofStroke
      link
      fedilink
      English
      103 months ago

      I’m not even rooted and gpay keeps breaking on crdroid for me, despite passing safetynet. I’ve given up and just got another credit card that I can use with my garmin watch that works every time without the hassle.

    • @umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      how would an unrooted but old, deprecated version of android be any better than an updated custom rom?

      those things baffle me, they just want to take away control dont they?

    • @evo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -53 months ago

      Yeah, I’m going to get downvoted into oblivion for this…

      I’m sick and tired of reading this same uneducated argument. Your desktop browser and an app on your phone are entirely different paradigms security/development wise.

      Your desktop browser is expected to be insecure. Nobody stores data there besides cookies. Most processing happens somewhere else on a server.

      Apple and Google have changed this stance entirely because they knew apps could be a lot more powerful if they did. The API’s that exist to build apps on your phone are designed around the concept of having a secure, sandboxed environment per app. Apps can run offline and manipulate data quickly because data can be synced down and stored locally. I know it sucks for rooted users, but I don’t blame developers for refusing to support those devices one bit.

      • @Norodix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        23 months ago

        We all get that the design paradigm is “a secure, sandboxed environment per app”. We just know its a retarded design.