Live data from Hacker News

Android may soon restrict on-device ADB

kitsumed.github.io

81–90 of 535 posts

Re: Android may soon restrict on-device ADB

#82
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

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?

Re: Android may soon restrict on-device ADB

#83
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".

Re: Android may soon restrict on-device ADB

#84
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

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

Re: Android may soon restrict on-device ADB

#85
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Android may soon restrict on-device ADB

#86
post #18

> 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

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.

Re: Android may soon restrict on-device ADB

#87
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?

Re: Android may soon restrict on-device ADB

#88
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"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.

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

Re: Android may soon restrict on-device ADB

#90
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

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.
Post reply on HN