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

What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

f-droid.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#571

Post by jonathanstrange »

Akronymus wrote: post #513
kuhsaft wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam is a bit different, since that originated as a PC digital marketplace before complete root-of-trust DRM from HW->bootloader->OS->SW. If anything, I would bet on a shift where Steam on Linux requires a signed OS like Windows Secure Boot. Call of Duty and Battlefield 6 already require Windows Secure Boot. Wait, a signed Linux OS with Secure Boot already exists. It's Android Play Protect. Also on Linux, you only g…

Ironically the drm measures are a huge part in why I tend to go for pirated content, as its more convenient to me AND of higher quality.

I went 100% legit on VST plugins years ago and regretted that decision so much when I had to change systems. It literally takes weeks to transfer hundreds of these, there are so many different DRM schemes and installer systems, it drives you insane.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#572

Post by iggldiggl »

marcprux wrote: post #304
eminence32 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just how Apple cannot block their developer tools from being able to transfer apps onto an iPhone. If I recall correctly (I might be wrong, because this was 10+ years ago), but Apple did exactly this when the iPhone was first released. When the iPhone first came out, Apple released its XCode devtools for free, including an iOS emulator that you could use to test your iPhone app. But you had to pay a $99 USD per yea…

You recall correctly, but that did end in 2015, when Apple ended the requirement that developers sign up for their paid developer program to be able to develop and test iPhone apps. I've written about that elsewhere: https://appfair.org/blog/gpl-and-the-app-stores#fn:3 The adb workaround for Android is essentially on par with being able to use Xcode's tooling to install apps on an iPhone: technically possible without…

> The adb workaround for Android is essentially on par with being able to use Xcode's tooling to install apps on an iPhone

The Apple situation is still significantly worse than ADB, because (at least without a paid-for developer account) AFAIK you're limited to a certain number of in-development app that you can install simultaneously and you definitely need to reinstall them every few days. ADB currently has no such restrictions.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#573

Post by iggldiggl »

qiqitori wrote: post #307
marcprux wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

adb is a developer tool. You need a tethered and trusted computer to be able to transfer an app using adb, and you need to enable "developer mode" on the device, which is an arcane dance that involves navigation through an obscure tree of settings and then quickly tapping a mystery spot 5+ times. Google can't block adb, because that is how Android apps are developed and tested, just how Apple cannot block their devel…

I think your position is valid. Note: Apple restricts apps uploaded with Xcode, (depending on how it is signed I believe) to 7 days or 1 year. adb currently doesn't have this limit. But what if they find that somebody made 'sideloading' 'too easy' again. E.g. somebody could come up with the idea of running adb or an adb emulator on another phone, or even a small hardware dongle, integrating it with a pretty UI that l…

> E.g. somebody could come up with the idea of running adb or an adb emulator on another phone, or even a small hardware dongle, integrating it with a pretty UI that looks like a regular app shop.

That idea already exists and is called Shizuku. You don't even need another phone, because ADB also has a mode for wireless debugging via the network, so you can just use that to locally connect to the ADB daemon running on your own phone.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#574

Post by qwertox »

> Our recent analysis found over 50 times more malware from internet-sideloaded sources than on apps available through Google Play.

Maybe they could make non-Google-Play-Store installed apps become installable only if the device owner toggles a switch which enables doing this risky thing?

Maybe some toggle in the developer options? And make the developer options accessible only if a user taps several times on the Android version label in the settings?

And show a message after every reboot that both of these settings are enabled, as a warning?

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#575

Post by fsflover »

volemo wrote: post #568
fsflover wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also would prefer a smaller phone. However > I understand why the current models are so bulky, but personally I don't really care for modularity and hardware switches These aren't the main reasons. It's more because of the chosen SoC, which came from automotive industry and was the only choice for running free software.

Oh, I didn’t consider that aspect. Is the SoC physically bigger, does it require a bunch of additional components, or is it simply power hungry?

I guess it's all of those. WiFi and modem had to be added separately, too.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#576

Post by kuhsaft »

ErneX wrote: post #509
kuhsaft wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Steam implements its own DRM and takes 30% from game publishers. Also, they don't stop game developers from providing their own DRM which require root-of-trust, like CoD or BF6 which require Secure Boot.

Those are mostly to prevent cheating (which is pretty bad for an online game) rather than piracy.

Which is the same as root-of-trust attestation.

Which is better:

- Having applications provide kernel-level software to provide attestation.

- Or having the OS provide root-of-trust attestation, but also requiring signed binaries, and preventing global root privilege escalation.

The third option would be neither, but players want some sort of anti-cheat.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#577

Post by modo_mario »

gspencley wrote: post #544
bane wrote: post #349

I'm struck with how long the history of Apple's earliest iPhone has shaped and produced long-term damage to the concept of digital ownership. Apple originally didn't allow anybody but Apple to create software for the 1st gen iPhone, and only later was forced "opening" it my market forces. People who realized they actually owned the thing they bought wanted to do what they wanted, which required circumventing Apple's…

> that was never in question on normal computers. One of the things that really worries me is that this seems to be creeping in to desktop OS's as well. It's still possible, for now, to install software on Windows 11 without going through the "Microsoft Store", but I remember having to tweak some security settings to make that possible... and was really alarmed the first time I tried to install software on a fresh in…

The first time this really hit for me was when i had to jump trough so many hoops to get the at the time most popular controller (ps3 controller) at the time to work with a windows pc due to microsofts hardware signing bullshit.

I could order the most random stuff from aliexpress and it would work but not the competitions controller at the time.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#579

Post by spogbiper »

echelon wrote: post #352
o1o1o1 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is mostly a framing war. Calling it "sideloading" makes it sound risky or unusual, but if we called it "installing software on your own device", Apple's and Google's restrictions would seem absurd - like telling homeowners what kind of light bulbs they're allowed to use.

Or what kind of store you can drive to. Imagine if your car was locked to certain manufacturer-permitted destinations. That's what our smartphones have done.

> Imagine if your car was locked to certain manufacturer-permitted destinations.

not to mention paying your car manufacture a 30% cut on anything you purchase

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#580

Post by kuhsaft »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #495
kuhsaft wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And yet the pirates still have all of their content, because DRM doesn't work. One pirate cracks one locked device and can download their entire catalog with it. I know and I'm saying what we are seeing is a push to plug all those holes. iOS, Android, macOS SIP, Windows Secure Boot. All root-of-trust systems, so that only operating systems that prevent copying can download it in the first place. Those pirates aren'…

The pirates still have the media which is only distributed to locked devices. Nobody really knows how to secure a device against a professional who has physical access to the device for as long as they want.

Xbox, post-360, has been very successful at doing so.
Post reply on HN