Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google, Xiaomi, and Huawei affected by zero-day flaw that unlocks root access

thenextweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 236 posts

Re: Google, Xiaomi, and Huawei affected by zero-day flaw that unlocks root access

#141

Post by cjbprime »

telanis wrote: post #114
girvo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And goto being used for error handling is pretty stock standard across most C codebases I’ve worked on or seen over the years, so I’m not sure what the particular gripe is there

Since when is "we do it all the time" the same as "it's a good thing"?

It's both common and a good idea, when used purely internally to a function in order to redirect error paths to a standard set of cleanup code. It helps prevents memory errors and other problems.

This is the sense in which the Linux kernel uses goto.

Re: Google, Xiaomi, and Huawei affected by zero-day flaw that unlocks root access

#142

Post by askafriend »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #128
dodobirdlord wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The position is self-defeating. How can you hold it and at the same time advocate against their choice to use a system that doesn't have the ability to install apps from untrustworthy sources? The availability of such systems is obviously an increase in available choice, not a decrease.

> How can you hold it and at the same time advocate against their choice to use a system that doesn't have the ability to install apps from untrustworthy sources? The availability of such systems is obviously an increase in available choice, not a decrease. Saying "doesn't have the ability to install apps from other sources" is the same as saying "doesn't give you the choice to install apps from other sources" -- it'…

> it's removing a choice.

Not from the marketplace.

If you care about this so much, you can go over to Android. I personally like the way Apple handles their platform with an iron grip and is part of the reason I buy their products.

Re: Google, Xiaomi, and Huawei affected by zero-day flaw that unlocks root access

#143

Post by detaro »

askafriend wrote: post #142
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can you hold it and at the same time advocate against their choice to use a system that doesn't have the ability to install apps from untrustworthy sources? The availability of such systems is obviously an increase in available choice, not a decrease. Saying "doesn't have the ability to install apps from other sources" is the same as saying "doesn't give you the choice to install apps from other sources" -- it'…

> it's removing a choice. Not from the marketplace. If you care about this so much, you can go over to Android. I personally like the way Apple handles their platform with an iron grip and is part of the reason I buy their products.

Yes, it does remove a choice, because choice in the market is not along just one axis.

Re: Google, Xiaomi, and Huawei affected by zero-day flaw that unlocks root access

#144

Post by tmd83 »

telanis wrote: post #114
girvo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And goto being used for error handling is pretty stock standard across most C codebases I’ve worked on or seen over the years, so I’m not sure what the particular gripe is there

Since when is "we do it all the time" the same as "it's a good thing"?

I'm not experienced in C or kernel code but from my understanding they use it almost entirely like a catch/finally clause of many higher level language which is a widely accepted and successful pattern.

Re: Google, Xiaomi, and Huawei affected by zero-day flaw that unlocks root access

#145

Post by askafriend »

detaro wrote: post #143
askafriend wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's removing a choice. Not from the marketplace. If you care about this so much, you can go over to Android. I personally like the way Apple handles their platform with an iron grip and is part of the reason I buy their products.

Yes, it does remove a choice, because choice in the market is not along just one axis.

I want to buy into a platform that is controlled tightly by a single entity that I trust to deliver a good user experience reliably; in this case, that's Apple.

I consider the tight control a feature and I'm glad this philosophy of computing is available in the marketplace.

I think people underestimate this view.

Re: Google, Xiaomi, and Huawei affected by zero-day flaw that unlocks root access

#146

Post by detaro »

askafriend wrote: post #145
detaro wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it does remove a choice, because choice in the market is not along just one axis.

I want to buy into a platform that is controlled tightly by a single entity that I trust to deliver a good user experience reliably; in this case, that's Apple. I consider the tight control a feature and I'm glad this philosophy of computing is available in the marketplace. I think people underestimate this view.

I don't think it's an underestimated view, it's quite common. I just don't think it would be compromised very much if there was an optional escape hatch.

Buying a hypothetical Apple device and never flicking on the sideloading switch would still give you that. Whereas the person who generally prefers the security engineering, design choices and/or integration of iOS but wants some exceptions is now told "If you care about this so much, you can go over to Android.".

Re: Google, Xiaomi, and Huawei affected by zero-day flaw that unlocks root access

#148

Post by jackcodes »

StavrosK wrote: post #81
cryptozeus wrote: post #67

“It’s advisable that you don’t install apps from non-trustworthy sources, ” Unpopular opinion but this is why I prefer walled garden apple for my family then alternative.

I don't understand people who want to remove choice. Don't want the ability to install apps from untrustworthy sources? Don't enable the option that gives you that ability.

He did say ‘for his family’. I don’t expect older people and children to not enable that option if convinced by an advert to the lure of free pirated apps.

Re: Google, Xiaomi, and Huawei affected by zero-day flaw that unlocks root access

#149

Post by mindslight »

markmark wrote: post #79
userbinator wrote: post #22

This is another great chance to root your phone and take complete control of what you should rightly own.

In Android land you can buy a phone where the bootloader can be unlocked and directly flash a pre-rooted ROM rather than relying on people exploiting security vulnerabilities like this.

I agree the pragmatic approach is to research which devices are unlockable, as well as unlock them when you're still well within the return window.

But the general problem isn't whether it is possible for someone to buy an unlocked phone, but rather that it is possible to "buy" a phone and have it turn out to be non-unlockable. The general case is important so that users who run up against manufacturer shenanigans can straightforwardly route around them, and also simply preventing the pileup of more unusable planned obsolescence ewaste.

Re: Google, Xiaomi, and Huawei affected by zero-day flaw that unlocks root access

#150

Post by pnako »

kuzimoto wrote: post #140
pnako wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you submitted a huge patch to Linux that would really improve support for real-time audio, but break many other things like IO throughput, etc. but your argument for accepting it anyway was "yes, but it's for real-time audio support, so it's really important and more important than what everyone else is working on", you'd be laughed out of the mailing list. The fact you use the word "prioritize security" is indeed…

When you're developing such a crucial part of an operating system, wouldn't you want to put security pretty high at the top of the priorities list? If I were an average consumer, I would care much more about my device being secure, than having real time audio.

>If I were an average consumer

If you were, you would behave like one, i.e. not care that much (if at all) about security. What you are saying is "I do care about my device being secure".

Post reply on HN