협성엔지니어링 협성엔지니어링

• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Android 9 is the oldest Android version that is getting security updates. It is worth mentioning that their webpage has (for some motive) always been hosting an outdated APK of F-Droid, and this remains to be the case immediately, resulting in many users wondering why they can’t set up F-Droid on their secondary consumer profile (due to the downgrade prevention enforced by Android). "Stability" seems to be the primary reason mentioned on their part, which doesn’t make sense: either your version isn’t able to be published in a stable channel, or it's and new users should be capable to access it easily. There may be little practical reason for builders not to increase the goal SDK version (targetSdkVersion) along with each Android release. They'd this imaginative and prescient of each object in the computer being represented as a shell object, so there can be a seamless intermix between recordsdata, youtu.be documents, system parts, you title it. Building and signing whereas reusing the package deal identify (utility ID) is dangerous apply because it causes signature verification errors when some users try to replace/install these apps from other sources, even immediately from the developer. F-Droid should enforce the strategy of prefixing the bundle identify of their alternate builds with org.f-droid for example (or add a .fdroid suffix as some have already got).

As a matter of reality, the brand new unattended update API added in API level 31 (Android 12) that enables seamless app updates for app repositories with out privileged access to the system (such an strategy isn't compatible with the security model) won’t work with F-Droid "as is". It seems the official F-Droid shopper doesn’t care much about this since it lags behind fairly a bit, targeting the API level 25 (Android 7.1) of which some SELinux exceptions have been proven above. While some improvements could easily be made, I don’t suppose F-Droid is in an excellent scenario to resolve all of these points as a result of a few of them are inherent flaws of their structure. While showing a listing of low-level permissions might be useful info for a developer, it’s often a deceptive and inaccurate approach for the top-consumer. This just appears to be an over-engineered and flawed strategy since better suited tools reminiscent of signify could be used to sign the metadata JSON. Ideally, F-Droid should totally transfer on to newer signature schemes, and will completely section out the legacy signature schemes which are still being used for some apps and metadata. On that observe, it is also price noting the repository metadata format isn’t correctly signed by missing whole-file signing and key rotation.

This web page summarises key documents relating to the oversight framework for the efficiency of the IANA features. This permission checklist can solely be accessed by taping "About this app" then "App permissions - See more" at the bottom of the web page. To be honest, these brief summaries used to be offered by the Android documentation years ago, but the permission model has drastically developed since then and most of them aren’t correct anymore. Kanhai Jewels worked for years to domesticate the rich collections of such beautiful traditional jewellery. As a result of this philosophy, the primary repository of F-Droid is crammed with out of date apps from another era, just for these apps to be able to run on the more than ten years previous Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich. In short, F-Droid downplayed the issue with their deceptive permission labels, and their lead developer proceeded to name the Android permission model a "dumpster fire" and declare that the operating system can't sandbox untrusted apps while still remaining useful. While these clients is likely to be technically better, they’re poorly maintained for some, and in addition they introduce yet one more occasion to the combination.

Backward compatibility is commonly the enemy of security, and while there’s a middle-ground for convenience and obsolescence, it shouldn’t be exaggerated. Some low-degree permissions don’t also have a security/privateness impression and shouldn’t be misinterpreted as having one. Since Android 6, apps should request the usual permissions at runtime and don't get them simply by being put in, so exhibiting all the "under the hood" permissions without correct context just isn't helpful and makes the permission model unnecessarily complicated. Play Store will tell the app might request entry to the next permissions: this sort of wording is extra vital than it seems. After that, Glamour can have the same earnings progress as Smokestack, incomes $7.40/share. This can be a mere sample of the SELinux exceptions that need to be made on older API levels with the intention to understand why it matters. On Android, a higher SDK level means you’ll be in a position to make use of fashionable API levels of which each iteration brings safety and privateness improvements.