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

Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8

sammyguru.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 254 posts

Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8

#171

Post by sva_ »

nunez wrote: post #79

As someone who roots single-purpose Android devices, this is one of those things that sucks big-time but makes total sense. The only reason one would unlock a bootloader is to root the system partition. It is impossible to protect data on rooted phones and makes data exfiltration attacks significantly easier to do. This is a huge problem for banking and music apps that absolutely rely on this capability. Samsung is,…

> music apps

It is so silly though. Someone who knows how to root a phone can probably also figure out how to download songs from Spotify (librespot wink wink.)

Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8

#172

Post by sva_ »

bjord wrote: post #47
sn0n wrote: post #4

dont worry, samsung knows only 300 people will actually care. As for me, I already swore off Samdung for their whole Samsung account bs and apps they bundle and won't let me remove (or disable).

samsung is the only smartphone manufacturer that still makes phones (though not many) with all the features I want: microSD slot, dual physical sim, side-mounted fingerprint reader, headphone jack, nfc, and regular (long-lasting) security updates they also have service centers pretty much everywhere in the world, so I can always get my phone fixed (for a reasonable price, as a result of their ubiquity) if and when I…

> microSD slot

That stopped from S21 on.

> side-mounted fingerprint reader

It is in the screen since S10?

> headphone jack

Not since S20.

Just speaking of the Galaxys of course.

Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8

#173

Post by palata »

nunez wrote: post #79

As someone who roots single-purpose Android devices, this is one of those things that sucks big-time but makes total sense. The only reason one would unlock a bootloader is to root the system partition. It is impossible to protect data on rooted phones and makes data exfiltration attacks significantly easier to do. This is a huge problem for banking and music apps that absolutely rely on this capability. Samsung is,…

> The only reason one would unlock a bootloader is to root the system partition.

This couldn't be more wrong. You need to unlock the bootloader if you want to install an alternative OS. Which is a completely valid use-case.

Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8

#174

Post by charcircuit »

cesarb wrote: post #122
charcircuit wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's too risky to make CPUs without microcode. Being able to fix bugs, or at least disable things so you don't have a complete paperweight is still important even for ARM.

Disabling things can be done through "chicken bits" on configuration registers, no microcode necessary. Do you know of any ARM cores used on smarphones which actually have updatable microcode? I've never heard of any. All errata fixes I've seen are of the "set this bit in a specific register" kind.

After looking further into it, you are right.

Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8

#175

Post by eddythompson80 »

DoctorOW wrote: post #160
sugarpimpdorsey wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was anyone else shocked to see Microsoft in the top tier of their list of unlock-friendly phone manufacturers?

I mean for the Microsoft Android phones it kinda makes sense, since they're not exactly shipping Android by choice. They'd much rather you use the Windows Phones which this says ARE locked down.

Wasn’t windows phone discontinued like 10 years ago?

Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8

#176

Post by aeblyve »

Hackbraten wrote: post #170
aeblyve wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not seriously, IMO.

I have been daily driving one for two years.

Did you spend a few thousand on a purism, tolerate the woeful hot and slow character of a pinephone, or something else?

Less sardonically: I am a Linux Person but couldn't imagine really using one of those things today. It would probably kneecap my whole life in subtle ways; in the US using android already does.

Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8

#177

Post by fcpk »

ACCount36 wrote: post #92
ranger207 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is impossible to protect data on rooted phones What makes securing rooted phones different from securing rooted PCs?

Phones are portable, and thus more likely to suffer from a physical attack. But that's about it. It is, and always was a flimsy excuse to the strip user of control over his own device. "Secure Boot" isn't actually there to protect the device from an attacker. It's there to "protect" the device from its own user. It's used to "secure" DRM schemes and App Store revenue streams.

This is exactly what it is. Google only implemented playintegrity api to please banks and governments. This is all to lock out users and secure revenue and spying agencies.

Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8

#178

Post by fcpk »

gmueckl wrote: post #167
throwaway39381 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a huge problem for banking and music apps that absolutely rely on this capability. In the case of banking, unlocking the bootloader usually requires a full device reset and leaves a very obvious message when you boot up the phone—you can't grab someone's locked device, root it, and grab their financial data just like that. As for music apps and other apps that download copyrighted content to the user's devi…

The problem with banking isn't rooting itself as an attack vector, but the insecurity and laxk of reliability guarantees of rooted phones so that banks rightfully don't want any liability when something goes wrong with their apps.

which is idiotic as you can have things like locked through adb root that only grants you root if you use adb to connect and you need to approve the request to connect on the phone first. This has nothing to do with guarantees but is just a security theater to sound like they are doing something

Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8

#179

Post by mappu »

wackget wrote: post #99
nunez wrote: post #79

As someone who roots single-purpose Android devices, this is one of those things that sucks big-time but makes total sense. The only reason one would unlock a bootloader is to root the system partition. It is impossible to protect data on rooted phones and makes data exfiltration attacks significantly easier to do. This is a huge problem for banking and music apps that absolutely rely on this capability. Samsung is,…

My response would be it doesn't make any sense. There are so many reasons why blocking rooting is a stupid idea. Just some of them: - If you're capable of rooting a device then you're capable of understanding the risks which come with doing so. - The number of users who root their devices will always be so comparitively tiny that the increased risk of data exfil is incredibly small. Also, similarly to above, if you'r…

The main reason IMO to block rooting is to stop resellers selling phones with preinstalled malware. If the phone has two Amazon/Aliexpress sellers, you're going to pick the cheaper one right? With who-knows-what alterations? It's a really prevalent problem and most people are not going to notice the "insecure" warning at bootup.

Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8

#180

Post by spwa4 »

sugarpimpdorsey wrote: post #146
RealStickman_ wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an updated list of relatively popular phone manufactures and their bootloader unlocking potential. https://github.com/melontini/bootloader-unlock-wall-of-shame...

Was anyone else shocked to see Microsoft in the top tier of their list of unlock-friendly phone manufacturers?

Given that they're a monopolist?

No, that's exactly the sort of tactic you'd expect from them.

Post reply on HN