721–730 of 764 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's ban passwords because you could give me your password
That's why passkeys were introduced. Can not fish them
The industry still doesn't understand the concept of delegation of authority and the fundamental role it plays in everyday life.
It also doesn't understand the idea of people making mistakes and the need to have robust recovery paths either.
Just to put out what Google actually said in their blog post [0]: > We appreciate the community's engagement and have heard the early feedback – specifically from students and hobbyists who need an accessible path to learn, and from power users who are more comfortable with security risks. We are making changes to address the needs of both groups. > We heard from developers who were concerned about the barrier to ent…
How can they count the number of devices you install the app on without being the ones to give a permission to install it?
They took nothing back, they are still putting in place the requirement that Google gives permission to install apps on your phone. They are misleading us about it too which is also terrible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, leaving aside the discussion about whether someone wants to use their bank's application or not, what's the bank response if their application just doesn't work in your phone? That you must purchase a new phone or be locked out of using your account? I hope, now that the debate about our excessive reliance on American tech is on the table, that we also put limits on those essential services, like banks, imposing…
> I hope, now that the debate about our excessive reliance on American tech is on the table LOL, you couldn't even place a phone call in Australia without some US technology connecting the call. I should know, we setup the app that calculates your bill. That's from the US too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet the Play Store and App Store are the largest vectors of scams and malware out there, to the tune of billions of dollars a year. We should be prioritizing securing our systems so that they run only what we want them to run, instead of putting all of that trust in gatekeepers who make money when they let you get scammed.
They are the largest vector of scams and malware because they've centralized it and it's hard to deliver malware and scams otherwise. That malevolence will always happen and centralizing it ensures a single avenue that can be controlled and measured and importantly sued when they fuck up. I can't sue f-droid when they allow malware on my device, that's one of many reasons why I don't use it, that's why nobody uses it…
People can learn about links to payment websites, self-signed apps/updates and unlocked bootloaders, because anything less is restricting computers for idiotic reasons.
[flagged]
Google has been clear that installing apps through sideloading and from other app stores will continue to work as long as the developer went through the verification process to get their app signed. Source: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-...
I'm always baffled why there are obviously enough people (not only here in particular; but also here; and sure, it's not a majority, but it's enough people to actually have some influence) who can formulate all these claims, but the actual movement is quite disappointing. As long as everybody knows that you are just talking, but in the end you are basically fine with everything and declare "pragmatism" and all those…
The value is in awareness, it's easier to switch for some than others, but that comes after awareness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It comes from a history of using mostly trusted application sources like Debian/Ubuntu package archives with manual review being the norm. And few supply chain attacks. What most of these people do not seem to get is that proper sandboxing does not only protect against attacks from the inside (rogue developer, supply chain attack), but also from the outside. Most desktop apps probably have a good number of security v…
I think you are mistaken. Just like neither Windows nor MacOS have really solved the desktop app sandboxing story, so neither has Linux. Because, as I said in a sibling comment and cosmic_cheese notes further below, this requires rethinking the usage model altogether: files and folders, and even file types, don't work anymore. If an app needs to access any related files, it basically needs access to my entire $HOME,…
All these things make security substantially better than the Linux model of every app gets access to your full home directory.
Sure, a capabilities-based OS or whatnot would work better, but would even be harder to implement in the current desktop Linux. Instead of gradually improving security, you are basically throwing away the baby with the bathwater.