I posted this in another forum but I want to know what you guys here think about android security.
How worried are you all about security on the android platform? Don't you find it a little unnerving that anybody could upload and app to the android market and there is no verification of the app like on IOS platform. Anybody could write an app that looks legit but does devious things. All this along with there are very very few security applications and they are in the infant state. Don't you find it very dangerous? How do you try to maintain security on your android device? Don't download apps? Only download from known publishers? Or do you roll the dice and download anything? If you use a security app which one?
the_main_app said:
I posted this in another forum but I want to know what you guys here think about android security.
How worried are you all about security on the android platform? Don't you find it a little unnerving that anybody could upload and app to the android market and there is no verification of the app like on IOS platform. Anybody could write an app that looks legit but does devious things. All this along with there are very very few security applications and they are in the infant state. Don't you find it very dangerous? How do you try to maintain security on your android device? Don't download apps? Only download from known publishers? Or do you roll the dice and download anything? If you use a security app which one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are viruses for Android.....right ?
Besides , if you're smart enough you can check whether an app needs such permissions when installing , through the Mart or an .apk .
I don't like the way iOS works , they give too limited functionality .
Forever living in my Galaxy Ace using XDA App
the_main_app said:
I posted this in another forum but I want to know what you guys here think about android security.
How worried are you all about security on the android platform? Don't you find it a little unnerving that anybody could upload and app to the android market and there is no verification of the app like on IOS platform. Anybody could write an app that looks legit but does devious things. All this along with there are very very few security applications and they are in the infant state. Don't you find it very dangerous? How do you try to maintain security on your android device? Don't download apps? Only download from known publishers? Or do you roll the dice and download anything? If you use a security app which one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i dont use a security app, i use common sense.
a game doesn't need access to my contacts...
notepad app doesn't need access to my private information...
this is why android phones are for the power users and shouldn't be used by soccer moms and grandmas - because they have no clue what they are doing with these phones except for when a phone call or text message comes in... let them have the iphones.
but if you are tech savvy, and want to squeeze every bit of user capability out of your phone, a high end android phone is for you.
the people that are tech savvy also have the awareness because they treat their phone like a computer, and not a phone.
just my thoughts.
I think the best thing would be if android embraced that the user can choose which permissions to give to apps. I mean, an app may want to know your location, you denies it, and the app continnues happily without using that functionality, or quits saying its essantial.
cobraboy85 said:
i dont use a security app, i use common sense.
a game doesn't need access to my contacts...
notepad app doesn't need access to my private information...
this is why android phones are for the power users and shouldn't be used by soccer moms and grandmas - because they have no clue what they are doing with these phones except for when a phone call or text message comes in... let them have the iphones.
but if you are tech savvy, and want to squeeze every bit of user capability out of your phone, a high end android phone is for you.
the people that are tech savvy also have the awareness because they treat their phone like a computer, and not a phone.
just my thoughts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
very well put, unfortunately most dont think like this..
It is always a good habit to check the permissions an app needs before installation.I personally think that a system should be implemented in android market where all apps are erquested to give informaation on "Why they need certain permissions?".Certain apps do that.
An antivirus program is also useful in my opinion.I use Lookout antivirus,as i find it simple to use and does not slow down my phone.I tried avg but it slowed down my phone terribly.
hiitti said:
I think the best thing would be if android embraced that the user can choose which permissions to give to apps. I mean, an app may want to know your location, you denies it, and the app continnues happily without using that functionality, or quits saying its essantial.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But, as a matter of degree, this just what we wish. The fact may be far beyond our imagination. Sometimes, malware still run certain functionalities even you cancel it. It's worse that some apps run secretly in system. I'm a little scared about security issue based on my PC.
cobraboy85 said:
i dont use a security app, i use common sense.
a game doesn't need access to my contacts...
notepad app doesn't need access to my private information...
this is why android phones are for the power users and shouldn't be used by soccer moms and grandmas - because they have no clue what they are doing with these phones except for when a phone call or text message comes in... let them have the iphones.
but if you are tech savvy, and want to squeeze every bit of user capability out of your phone, a high end android phone is for you.
the people that are tech savvy also have the awareness because they treat their phone like a computer, and not a phone.
just my thoughts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But a game might ask for internet/network permissions which you would probably accept. How do you guard against this? How can you prevent a malicious app that asks for relavent permissions but abuses them?
I never take the time to study the permissions required when I download an app from the market.
I tend to avoid the low number of d'load apps..... partly as there is less feedback to judge.... and partly as any app thats worth the download will have high stars and many d'loads.
Works for me so far.
Netquins running in the background just in case...... but whose to say they dont upload my contacts for spamming?
Prof Peach said:
I never take the time to study the permissions required when I download an app from the market.
I tend to avoid the low number of d'load apps..... partly as there is less feedback to judge.... and partly as any app thats worth the download will have high stars and many d'loads.
Works for me so far.
Netquins running in the background just in case...... but whose to say they dont upload my contacts for spamming?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But what about new apps that may be legit? They won't have any reviews yet or stars. If everybody did the same as you it would never get reviews or stars? There's got to be a better way, don't you agree?
the_main_app said:
But a game might ask for internet/network permissions which you would probably accept. How do you guard against this? How can you prevent a malicious app that asks for relavent permissions but abuses them?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the only question above that can't be answered by LBE Privacy Guard.
Someone mentioned a game that wants access to your contacts. What if you really want the game? You just don't allow it access to your contacts and then play it anyway.
Most apps ask for access to your IMEI (you'd be surprised how many!) With LBE they don't get it.
Antivirus software is all well and good, but it's not the same as on a PC where pattern matching can be used. AV software on Android basically opens the apk file and has a look round to see if anything looks suspicious. Other than that, there's nothing it can do to stop a clever developer bypassing it.
Seriously, if you have concerns then get LBE and start restricting permissions access on an app-by-app basis.
johncmolyneux said:
That's the only question above that can't be answered by LBE Privacy Guard.
Someone mentioned a game that wants access to your contacts. What if you really want the game? You just don't allow it access to your contacts and then play it anyway.
Most apps ask for access to your IMEI (you'd be surprised how many!) With LBE they don't get it.
Antivirus software is all well and good, but it's not the same as on a PC where pattern matching can be used. AV software on Android basically opens the apk file and has a look round to see if anything looks suspicious. Other than that, there's nothing it can do to stop a clever developer bypassing it.
Seriously, if you have concerns then get LBE and start restricting permissions access on an app-by-app basis.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this.
i was JUST about to say the same thing about the android "anti-virus" scam... not really a scam, but a false sense of security. as you said, not the same at ALL. people need to get out of the PC mindset with these phones. this is not windows, it's linux.
and i'm going to give LBE a shot. seems pretty legit.
for all of those running antivirus "software" on your phone, how many of you have actually run a virus scan and had it give a detailed description of a malicious "virus"....
Liking lookout
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App
ummm, anyone ever heard of antiviruses (Kapersky, maybe?)? Or at least look up the app's access to things... If it accesses something you don't want it to access (or think the app doesn't need to access it), don't install it!
I know out-of-the-box Androids aren't so vunerable to viruses, compared to rooted ones... So...?
First look up the developer of the app, then if you trust him, install, if you never heard of him, google it (or look at the comments at where you're downloading from), and if you had experience with the developer before (and if the experience is bad, like trojans, etc.), don't install!
(I don't understand half of what I'm typing XD...Don't blame me for misspellings, please )
Cant say I can rave or not when it comes to the anti virus apps.
Have used Lookout in the past and currently using netquin.... neither of which ever flagged up a virus, malware or whatever.
Its nice to think its running in the background but dont know whether it will do anything if its needed.
I was tempted to download a load of apps in a zip file but 20 secs in my Avast siad there was a virus. I'd like to think the market would have its own precautions but having searched the site, cant see any mention of its security for the apps we download.
Its a different thing altogether but we cant take the fact that its the market and relax...... the worst virus my laptop ever had came in an update from Microsoft...... and another directly from google tools.
Kapersky for Android then? You can pick up free full non-trial versions on the web...
About the Market - yes, that's true. You'd expect them to check if apps are infected or at least leave a bot to do it...
Sorta lame...
The best security is the brain.akp just like brain.exe is on windows - best thing it's free, godgiven and everyone got a copy
Zeze21 said:
The best security is the brain.akp just like brain.exe is on windows - best thing it's free, godgiven and everyone got a copy
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah but not everyone got the full version. A few of my friends got a corrupted exe and then this girl I know got the 30 day trial
not that good
Prawesome said:
It is always a good habit to check the permissions an app needs before installation.I personally think that a system should be implemented in android market where all apps are erquested to give informaation on "Why they need certain permissions?".Certain apps do that.
An antivirus program is also useful in my opinion.I use Lookout antivirus,as i find it simple to use and does not slow down my phone.I tried avg but it slowed down my phone terribly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have both Lookout and AVG, neither has stopped my phone from getting up to 10 junk downloads, you have won an ipad, iphone etc., a day, not sms or email, I have to have every form of external contact turned off, the moment I get wifi or mobile access it starts downloading spam.
If anyone knows of a way to stop it I would appreciate the feedback
Moved to proper section
Just purchased SGS3 and SGN10.1, havent downloaded any apps as of yet because I am not comfortable with the permissions issue.
I also have not rooted as I am waiting for my sandisk extreme pro sd cards, but i have some clarity i need in moving forward.
How can i best protect my phone and the info in it - mostly for the protection of my clients contact info and just the general fact that nobody needs to know my info without my knowing why.
I have been online for the last 5 days trying to understand what i need to worry about and what i dont.
I have a copy of whispercore 0.5.2 and would like to know if i can use it on my sgs3
Do i need to root my device to give optinal protection PROS/CONS
How is the avast protection
And most importantly - are these protections necessary or have i been sidewiped by chicken little?
How can i determine the best app for me - preferrably with no permissions
I really need a good mail app, document editing app, pdf app, and possibly a CAD app
I have been overwhelmed with info over the last 5 days and need some help with clarification and facts.
Thank you in advance for your help,
Confus-ed:silly:
An app with no permissions has the ability to access nothing so in essence will be of little use. Contacts are synced with Google unless you opt out that decreases security. Personally if your clients details are that sensitive use a dumb phone for work and keep your S3 for less sensitive tasks.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
Are you trolling me?
Just running through the threads trying to increase your reply and post count?
I would appreciate that if you dont have any real information to share, dont waste my time with your non-answer.
confus-ed said:
Are you trolling me?
Just running through the threads trying to increase your reply and post count?
I would appreciate that if you dont have any real information to share, dont waste my time with your non-answer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What?
He answered your question, an app that asks for no permissions can't do much, apps need to have permissions to do various tasks.
If you're that paranoid about safety don't root and just use reputable apps from Google play store.
Edit: in fact the more I read you reply to him the more I see that you have a terrible attitude.
Good luck finding help when you act like that.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
No attitude, i thought that i had explained in my original post that i have just spent 5 days scouring the web (which included xda).
I didnt ask about permissions nor did i ask about contacts being synced with google, I understand what the permissions do, but i also have read where you have control over the permissions when you root the phone.
Not paranoid, I just know the data mining that goes on and i am sure that my clients wouldnt want some random solicitation due to an app that has no need to access my contact list. such as a document editior.
My reply may have been a little short but ghost did not address any of my questions or concerns.
confus-ed said:
No attitude, i thought that i had explained in my original post that i have just spent 5 days scouring the web (which included xda).
I didnt ask about permissions nor did i ask about contacts being synced with google, I understand what the permissions do, but i also have read where you have control over the permissions when you root the phone.
Not paranoid, I just know the data mining that goes on and i am sure that my clients wouldnt want some random solicitation due to an app that has no need to access my contact list. such as a document editior.
My reply may have been a little short but ghost did not address any of my questions or concerns.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes you do have control permission when you root, but rooting is a double edged sword because root apps actually have more "power" when it comes to your system and if there is malicious code in them it will also have superuser permissions if you give the main app superuser permissions.
The safest option is not to root, if you root you are opening your system up to exploitation.
I have rooted every android phone I have ever had and never had any problems but that choice is yours.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
nodstuff said:
Yes you do have control permission when you root, but rooting is a double edged sword because root apps actually have more "power" when it comes to your system and if there is malicious code in them it will also have superuser permissions if you give the main app superuser permissions.
The safest option is not to root, if you root you are opening your system up to exploitation.
I have rooted every android phone I have ever had and never had any problems but that choice is yours.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From the perspective of data mining, you're basically just as vulnerable with a non-root app, then only difference being that the non-root app will specifically ask for permissions to use your contacts.
At the end of the day, if you want decent integration between your personal data and your apps, you're going to need to accept some risk and allow someone elses code to run through your data. If you have sensitive client data, you'll most likely be safe if you stick to mainstream, popular apps, and keep a close eye on comments to make sure no one else has had issues with security. If you're really paranoid though, I would recommend you don't keep sensitive information on any device with internet access.
I would recommend LBE privacy guard it will prompt when an app is trying to access something and you decide to allow it or not, you can manage wich permissions you allow for each app, even cut it from any Internet access.
The app does require root to work
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
Thank you
This is my first post to XDA.
I have been asking this question about various OS's in various forums, for past 18 months, and each time I ask it, the person who answers it spends a few iterations with me bending-over-backwards trying to avoid telling me what I want to know. I hope that this does not happen here.
I have a native C++ application. It currently runs on Linux desktop. It does many things that native C++ applications do, including sending raw Ethernet frames (mesh networking).
Obviously, if one of my customers tries to install this application on his/her Android device, there will be problems, and it won't work.
I am aware that a human being has the ability to root his/her phone.
I am aware that a human being has the ability to root his/her phone.
I am aware that a human being has the ability to root his/her phone.
Please do not send me a reply saying, "But your customer has the ability to root his/her phone!" :cyclops:
What I would like, is a smartphone, that is running Linux, that allows my customer to install a 100% Native C++ application, >>>WITHOUT<<< having to go through the process of rooting his/her phone. Ideally, the barrier-to-installation would be roughly equivalent to what s/he would experience on a desktop computer.
I am not concerned about the presence of X or any particular GUI subsystem, but I will definitely need access to all the normal system-level Linux primitives (multi-threading, asynchronous I/O, etc.)
Please do not send me a reply saying, You can ssh into the phone and install the app that way."
I would like to know if Ubuntu on smartphone allows a relatively naive user to install a 100% native C++ application that interfaces with the system-level primitives of Linux.
And finally, please note that I am not interested in finding a work-around to an engineering problem that I am having. I am trying to determine the maximum permissible degree of nativity of Ubuntu Touch applications when the application is to be installed by a naive user.
If Ubuntu touch does allow such native applications to be installed, I would be interested in getting an idea of the steps that a customer would take.
UT apps can be uploaded as a click app to the UbuntuOne store and then can be installed as easy as any Android app. You should be able to "sideload" click apps, but I never tried.
UT apps - that are not a web app - are written in native C++ using QT5/QML for UI.
UT apps are restricted by apparmour profiles, but that should not keep them from using multithreading or asynchronous I/O. You would have to test, if your specific requirements work.
There is only one way to answer all your questions: give it a try!
Sent from my TF300T using Tapatalk
f69m said:
UT apps can be uploaded as a click app to the UbuntuOne store and then can be installed as easy as any Android app. You should be able to "sideload" click apps, but I never tried.
UT apps - that are not a web app - are written in native C++ using QT5/QML for UI.
UT apps are restricted by apparmour profiles, but that should not keep them from using multithreading or asynchronous I/O. You would have to test, if your specific requirements work.
There is only one way to answer all your questions: give it a try!
Sent from my TF300T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
:good:
Yes, you would need to change the packaging system from debian archives to click packages but that shouldn't be too difficult. If you run into problems with the Ubuntu SDK in connection with C++, have a look at this bug report and the mentioned fixes: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qtcreator/+bug/1215913
f69m said:
UT apps can be uploaded as a click app to the UbuntuOne store and then can be installed as easy as any Android app. You should be able to "sideload" click apps, but I never tried.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any idea at all what the user would see when trying to sideload a click app. [I am trying to set my expectations before diving in.] Would the user download package to a directory, then click on it, or?
UT apps are restricted by apparmour profiles, but that should not keep them from using multithreading or asynchronous I/O. You would have to test, if your specific requirements work.
There is only one way to answer all your questions: give it a try!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK, apparmour seems to be the focal point. I would be really interested (if any knows), how restrictive apparmour will be with a newly-purchased UT phone, and what control a naive user of that phone will have in allowing native C++ applications to run. I would check this myself, but I cannot do any significant coding (porting) until mid-March.
In particular, my app works with WiFi, and will need to interact with stock WiFi drivers (mac80211/etc.). I would like to know what I, and the user, can expect when s/he:
acquires my app from my web site
does something to install it (what would s/he do at this step?)
attempts to execute it (will apparmour block access to mac80211-like drivers)
RareHare said:
Any idea at all what the user would see when trying to sideload a click app. [I am trying to set my expectations before diving in.] Would the user download package to a directory, then click on it, or?
OK, apparmour seems to be the focal point. I would be really interested (if any knows), how restrictive apparmour will be with a newly-purchased UT phone, and what control a naive user of that phone will have in allowing native C++ applications to run. I would check this myself, but I cannot do any significant coding (porting) until mid-March.
In particular, my app works with WiFi, and will need to interact with stock WiFi drivers (mac80211/etc.). I would like to know what I, and the user, can expect when s/he:
acquires my app from my web site
does something to install it (what would s/he do at this step?)
attempts to execute it (will apparmour block access to mac80211-like drivers)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Applications should be installed from the Ubuntu app store. If you've just got the click package, you currently need to use the command line to install it:
Code:
sudo install <path to package>
sudo register --user=phablet <package name> <package version>
I hope that this will change though. (It's name is "click" package. )
RareHare said:
Any idea at all what the user would see when trying to sideload a click app. [I am trying to set my expectations before diving in.] Would the user download package to a directory, then click on it, or?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nikwen said:
Applications should be installed from the Ubuntu app store. If you've just got the click package, you currently need to use the command line to install it:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Technically it should be possible to install a click package just by clicking on a web link, if the web site serves a specific mime type, but this is not implemented.
Not sure about Canonical's policy on that, they might not like the idea. Otherwise they might implement it or at least accept a patch from a community developer.
RareHare said:
OK, apparmour seems to be the focal point. I would be really interested (if any knows), how restrictive apparmour will be with a newly-purchased UT phone, and what control a naive user of that phone will have in allowing native C++ applications to run. I would check this myself, but I cannot do any significant coding (porting) until mid-March.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, have not looked myself into the apparmour profiles too closely and don't have the time to do that right now.
However you can download a recent UT rootfs using the link below and have a look at the profiles yourself:
https://system-image.ubuntu.com/pool/ubuntu-cd4246419c888397c0d8debbd9f945219f40fc670220b7ac86753dc79eb73707.tar.xz
RareHare said:
In particular, my app works with WiFi, and will need to interact with stock WiFi drivers (mac80211/etc.).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think this is possible with any current or future off-the-shelf phone. Any OS will provide an abstract API for WLAN and require root to talk to the drivers directly.
As you say requiring your customers to root the phone is not an option, this seems to leave only one way out: you need to split off the low-level code of your app into a generic and secure API and submit it to Ubuntu Touch. If it is accepted, your app can use the new API.
f69m said:
Technically it should be possible to install a click package just by clicking on a web link, if the web site serves a specific mime type, but this is not implemented.
Not sure about Canonical's policy on that, they might not like the idea. Otherwise they might implement it or at least accept a patch from a community developer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course, it would technically be possible. Recently, I read a Google Plus post on that topic. Here's the link. (The interesting part is in the comments. Read all of them. )
They said that they'll offer those options in the future.
f69m said:
Technically it should be possible to install a click package just by clicking on a web link, if the web site serves a specific mime type, but this is not implemented.
Not sure about Canonical's policy on that, they might not like the idea. Otherwise they might implement it or at least accept a patch from a community developer.[
Sorry, have not looked myself into the apparmour profiles too closely and don't have the time to do that right now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am in the same situation myself - I do not have enough time to experiment with apparmour, so I'm asking Ubuntu so that I do not have to search/guess.:victory:
I don't think this is possible with any current or future off-the-shelf phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So it would seem.
Any OS will provide an abstract API for WLAN and require root to talk to the drivers directly.
As you say requiring your customers to root the phone is not an option, this seems to leave only one way out: you need to split off the low-level code of your app into a generic and secure API and submit it to Ubuntu Touch. If it is accepted, your app can use the new API.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, the low-level code, in my case, is the WiFi drivers. Also, I cannot imagine submitting a new API to Ubuntu Touch every-time a new model for accessing system-level primitives arrive. That would essentially loop Canonical into all of our engineering processes.
Your last comment actually is the crux of the issue. It points to a policy question, not a technical one, and one for which the answer is yes or no. I would imagine that, at this point, Canonical already knows the answer...
Principle:
There are numerous situations where it is good for a native application to not be sand-boxed, but have the same access to the Linux subsystems as a user would have on Ubuntu Desktop. There are situations where the owner of the phone would be sophisticated and comfortable enough that s/he can decide for himself/herself whether an application should be allowed root access to the phone. A fellow engineer called this the "welded-hood" principle:
Do people prefer buying cars that have the hoods welded-shut?
Many people might, but there are a significant number who would prefer not. As it turns out, an automobile can dangerous if the person opens the hood and starts working on things that s/he should not be touching (no pun intended). In the case of the fuel and braking system, it can even be lethal. But in the end, it was decided that, since we are all liberated adults, it is better to allow the customer freedom-of-choice.
What we have, right now, is a situation where the "hoods" on all mobile devices are essentially welded shut. I think that is unfortunate, because there is a huge latent demand for mobile devices that "still have their hoods", but if the user chooses to open the hood, with they key word here being easily, that would be his/her prerogative.
By the default, the system should be sand-boxed, but the user should have a facility that allows him/her access to install some native, system-level applications, easily, just as a user is allowed to tap-off her break fluid or bleed the fuel-line if she so desires, even though there are many warnings about what could happen if the application is installed. The "open-the-hood" operation would come with warnings that the user can choose to ignore, with resulting consequences.
Question:
Will Ubuntu Touch allow the owner of an Ubuntu Touch phone to side-load a native C++ application that interfaces with the various existing WiFi drivers in Linux, if the user decides for himself/herself, that it is OK for the application to interface with such drivers?
I have a feeling that the answer is no, but I am asking here to make sure.
RareHare said:
I am in the same situation myself - I do not have enough time to experiment with apparmour, so I'm asking Ubuntu so that I do not have to search/guess.:victory:
So it would seem.
Well, the low-level code, in my case, is the WiFi drivers. Also, I cannot imagine submitting a new API to Ubuntu Touch every-time a new model for accessing system-level primitives arrive. That would essentially loop Canonical into all of our engineering processes.
Your last comment actually is the crux of the issue. It points to a policy question, not a technical one, and one for which the answer is yes or no. I would imagine that, at this point, Canonical already knows the answer...
Principle:
There are numerous situations where it is good for a native application to not be sand-boxed, but have the same access to the Linux subsystems as a user would have on Ubuntu Desktop. There are situations where the owner of the phone would be sophisticated and comfortable enough that s/he can decide for himself/herself whether an application should be allowed root access to the phone. A fellow engineer called this the "welded-hood" principle:
Do people prefer buying cars that have the hoods welded-shut?
Many people might, but there are a significant number who would prefer not. As it turns out, an automobile can dangerous if the person opens the hood and starts working on things that s/he should not be touching (no pun intended). In the case of the fuel and braking system, it can even be lethal. But in the end, it was decided that, since we are all liberated adults, it is better to allow the customer freedom-of-choice.
What we have, right now, is a situation where the "hoods" on all mobile devices are essentially welded shut. I think that is unfortunate, because there is a huge latent demand for mobile devices that "still have their hoods", but if the user chooses to open the hood, with they key word here being easily, that would be his/her prerogative.
By the default, the system should be sand-boxed, but the user should have a facility that allows him/her access to install some native, system-level applications, easily, just as a user is allowed to tap-off her break fluid or bleed the fuel-line if she so desires, even though there are many warnings about what could happen if the application is installed. The "open-the-hood" operation would come with warnings that the user can choose to ignore, with resulting consequences.
Question:
Will Ubuntu Touch allow the owner of an Ubuntu Touch phone to side-load a native C++ application that interfaces with the various existing WiFi drivers in Linux, if the user decides for himself/herself, that it is OK for the application to interface with such drivers?
I have a feeling that the answer is no, but I am asking here to make sure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, your comparison is not quite correct. On most phones, there is a way for an educated user to open the hood. This is usually referred to as rooting the phone. Some companies will give you a tool to unlock the bootloader and thus open the hood easily, for others it is a little harder. But any user has the freedom of choice to open the hood or leave it closed.
Now, what you are asking for is something completely different. You are asking for a closed-source "black box" app to get access to what is under the hood, without the user ever opening it. This would mean opening the door for all kinds of malware, and I sure hope this will not be allowed by Ubuntu Touch . Let an educated user open the hood and place the black box there, if he feels comfortable about it, but don't make it too easy. A user that is not willing or not able to open the hood himself should also not be required to understand the consequences of installing a black box app with root privileges.
And there is another thing to consider: Ubuntu is heading for convergence, meaning the same app runs fine on a phone, on a tablet and on a desktop. This means apps must be written against an abstract SDK and not have access to the actual hardware.
Well, I am afraid we have hit a dead end now, unless you are willing to disclose more details on the functionality of your app.
Sent from my TF300T using Tapatalk
83594455 676
And there is another thing to consider: Ubuntu is heading for convergence, meaning the same app runs fine on a phone, on a tablet and on a
desktop. This means apps must be written against an abstract SDK and not have access to the actual hardware.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think my native, system-level app would not only run on all versions of Ubuntu, regardless of device, but most versions of Linux, on 100's of different hardware devices, without changes to my code. So actually, I would be accessing a standard Linux software interface.
Well, I am afraid we have hit a dead end now, unless you are willing to disclose more details on the functionality of your app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure. I would like to send and receive raw 802.11 frames from user-space utilizing the various standard Linux 802.11 system-level API's for mesh networking. My application is entirely user-space, and would run on any stock Linux kernel. My field of work is wireless communication, so naturally, if someone were to offer me a mesh-networking packaging as an alternative, I could not use it - my goal is not to have a mesh network for mesh networking sake, but to create a mesh network using my own user-space algorithms. In other words, I really do need access to the 802.11 drivers.
You can run every system command from your app using C++: http://askubuntu.com/questions/288494/run-system-commands-from-qml-app
The sudo password is "phablet". You could also ask the user for it if it was changed. You can pass it like this:
Code:
echo phablet | sudo -S <my command>
That might help you.
You could also ask in the IRC channel for Ubuntu app development (search the internet and you'll find it). Some Canonical people as well as some awesome community members will surely answer your questions. (But tell us the result, please.)
nikwen said:
You can run every system command from your app using C++: http://askubuntu.com/questions/288494/run-system-commands-from-qml-app
The sudo password is "phablet". You could also ask the user for it if it was changed. You can pass it like this:
Code:
echo phablet | sudo -S <my command>
That might help you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That works for the development images and community ports, but I am afraid if you buy a pre-configured UT phone (once they are available), sudo will not work. At least I would be surprised if a company would give full warranty for a device with working sudo.
Sent from my TF300T using Tapatalk
---------- Post added at 11:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 PM ----------
RareHare said:
I think my native, system-level app would not only run on all versions of Ubuntu, regardless of device, but most versions of Linux, on 100's of different hardware devices, without changes to my code. So actually, I would be accessing a standard Linux software interface.
Sure. I would like to send and receive raw 802.11 frames from user-space utilizing the various standard Linux 802.11 system-level API's for mesh networking. My application is entirely user-space, and would run on any stock Linux kernel. My field of work is wireless communication, so naturally, if someone were to offer me a mesh-networking packaging as an alternative, I could not use it - my goal is not to have a mesh network for mesh networking sake, but to create a mesh network using my own user-space algorithms. In other words, I really do need access to the 802.11 drivers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm, never really used the user-space network link interface, but I believe it would be possible to grant the required capabilities to a click application.
You would have to figure out, exactly what capabilities your process needs to run this as a non-root user. Then the right place to ask for supporting this would be the Ubuntu Phone mailing list.
Just a Tip: You should present a very strong use case to get this kind of capabilities. The benefits of using your user-space algorithms should be plain, even to someone just scanning over your email.
Sent from my TF300T using Tapatalk
f69m said:
That works for the development images and community ports, but I am afraid if you buy a pre-configured UT phone (once they are available), sudo will not work. At least I would be surprised if a company would give full warranty for a device with working sudo.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When nikwen made the suggestion, I was happy for maybe 2-3 seconds, but then caught myself, because I suspected this.
[Notice how I am saving myself enormous amounts of time and frustration by avoiding downloading the SDK, opening my compiler tool-chain, and experimenting., and discovering all the things that you are telling me as we go along (especially about apparmour). Yes, I am very proud of myself for saving myself so much time by asking questions here. :angel:]
So my question still stands:
Under the assumption that my customers (doctors, scientists, etc.) are mature/sophisticated/responsible/whatever enough to know that the application that they are about to install on their smartphone (mine) is potentially very dangerous, but they are still interested in installing my app, and that they are uninterested in going through the manual process of rooting their phone or engaging in any other type of significant manual reconfiguration, what are my options?
Can Ubuntu Phone to be the OS-of-choice for this situation, or am I out-of-luck?
RareHare said:
Under the assumption that my customers (doctors, scientists, etc.) are mature/sophisticated/responsible/whatever enough to know that the application that they are about to install on their smartphone (mine) is potentially very dangerous, but they are still interested in installing my app, and that they are uninterested in going through the manual process of rooting their phone or engaging in any other type of significant manual reconfiguration, what are my options?
Can Ubuntu Phone to be the OS-of-choice for this situation, or am I out-of-luck?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe my second answer and your post crossed? But anyhow, here are the steps you can take:
1) Figure out the minimum set of capabilities your process needs to run as a non-root user.
2) Write an email to the Ubuntu Phone mailing list, describing the required capabilities and a convincing use case that motivates the engineers to have a hard look into it.
Honestly, I think the chances are slim, given the kind of capabilities you probably need. But Ubuntu Touch is probably your best bet of all the OSs out there.
EDIT: Mind that Ubuntu Touch uses a read-only rootfs, with only some config files being writable (via bind mount) and apt/dpkg is not supported. Your app must be running as a click package as a non-root user, but I believe it is technically possible to elevate an app process with certain capabilities. It would be your job to convince Canonical to make the policy decision to support it and to make the effort of implementing it.
EDIT2 (you see, I am giving it some thought): Not sure, how your business plan looks like or if your app makes this approach feasible, but another option could be to open-source your basic algorithms and try to have them included into Ubuntu Touch. Then cash in on an app to make the features easily accessible.
f69m said:
That works for the development images and community ports, but I am afraid if you buy a pre-configured UT phone (once they are available), sudo will not work. At least I would be surprised if a company would give full warranty for a device with working sudo.
Sent from my TF300T using Tapatalk
---------- Post added at 11:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 PM ----------
Hmm, never really used the user-space network link interface, but I believe it would be possible to grant the required capabilities to a click application.
You would have to figure out, exactly what capabilities your process needs to run this as a non-root user. Then the right place to ask for supporting this would be the Ubuntu Phone mailing list.
Just a Tip: You should present a very strong use case to get this kind of capabilities. The benefits of using your user-space algorithms should be plain, even to someone just scanning over your email.
Sent from my TF300T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hm...it would be a bit weird for me to justify the benefits my user-space algorithms to Canonical. My app is not an open-source app. I guess I should have mentioned that first. In any case, I can say that I am "experienced" in this field, and my colleagues, at least, are experts in the field, so if the question is whether I am mistaken in thinking I need this capability, the answer is probably no.
However, you do have me intrigued regarding the granting of capability for a click application. My guess is that this would have to happen within the context of Ubuntu Store and not any other way or?
I ask because it is not yet definite that we will choose Ubuntu Phone. That is what I am determining now. I would hate to get into a situation where we have to "work with" Canonical to get access to the Linux API that we need, which is why I was suggesting putting the decision into the hands of the user. I would also like to avoid "lobbying" Canonical for a feature. It would be more efficient for us if Canonical would simply tell us whether they are going to allow it or not, to what extent, and what would be involved.
Again, what we are asking for is pretty straightforward - access to the standard Linux WiFi drivers from user-space.
There's really not much more to it. I was hoping that, based upon the assumption that we actually need this, that Canonical would be able to give us an answer.
[P.S. Yes, our posts got crossed. ]
RareHare said:
Hm...it would be a bit weird for me to justify the benefits my user-space algorithms to Canonical. My app is not an open-source app. I guess I should have mentioned that first.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, I somehow guessed it would not be open source, and probably my EDIT2 to my last post (crossed again) is not an option. But make sure to read my first EDIT, it might have helpful information.
I think the question is not, if it is a benefit to Canonical directly, but if it is a benefit to potential users of Ubuntu Touch. The API support you need might be helpful for other applications too.
RareHare said:
However, you do have me intrigued regarding the granting of capability for a click application. My guess is that this would have to happen within the context of Ubuntu Store and not any other way or?
I ask because it is not yet definite that we will choose Ubuntu Phone. That is what I am determining now. I would hate to get into a situation where we have to "work with" Canonical to get access to the Linux API that we need, which is why I was suggesting putting the decision into the hands of the user. I would also like to avoid "lobbying" Canonical for a feature. It would be more efficient for us if Canonical would simply tell us whether they are going to allow it or not, to what extent, and what would be involved.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any decision taken by the user must first be implemented by Canonical, or there is no way for the user to make that decision. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on UT app development and the UT SDK, working mostly on low-level things like porting UT to my own device. But, as an example, it should be possible to have an API that creates a sub-process with elevated capabilities (there might be a more elegant solution). Still Canonical will have to implement that and to do this, they need some kind of motivation. The motivation could be a good use case that shows potential for other applications or indeed "lobbying" them directly (which probably means to send them some money).
RareHare said:
Again, what we are asking for is pretty straightforward - access to the standard Linux WiFi drivers from user-space.
There's really not much more to it. I was hoping that, based upon the assumption that we actually need this, that Canonical would be able to give us an answer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have not really used those APIs, but I assume that the kernel capabilities needed for this are usually granted to the root user only. I am pretty certain that UT will not allow you to run a process as root, but as mentioned above, it should be possible to create a subprocess with certain elevated capabilities.
f69m said:
Well, I somehow guessed it would not be open source, and probably my EDIT2 to my last post (crossed again) is not an option. But make sure to read my first EDIT, it might have helpful information.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK.
f69m said:
I think the question is not, if it is a benefit to Canonical directly, but if it is a benefit to potential users of Ubuntu Touch. The API support you need might be helpful for other applications too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, the API that I need is definitely helpful for other applications. Namely, it is helpful to any application that already uses it. And there are many such applications that use the 802.11 WiFi drivers that come with Linux.
Any decision taken by the user must first be implemented by Canonical, or there is no way for the user to make that decision. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on UT app development and the UT SDK, working mostly on low-level things like porting UT to my own device. But, as an example, it should be possible to have an API that creates a sub-process with elevated capabilities (there might be a more elegant solution). Still Canonical will have to implement that and to do this, they need some kind of motivation. The motivation could be a good use case that shows potential for other applications or indeed "lobbying" them directly (which probably means to send them some money).
I have not really used those APIs, but I assume that the kernel capabilities needed for this are usually granted to the root user only. I am pretty certain that UT will not allow you to run a process as root, but as mentioned above, it should be possible to create a sub-process with certain elevated capabilities.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK.
I am going to send an email to Canonical asking if they could articulate, clearly, in a manner that a Linux C/C++ software engineer can understand, their policy on native application development. Here's what it currently says on their Wiki:
Which applications do run on Ubuntu Touch?
Ubuntu Touch is primarily designed to support web apps, and native apps programmed in qml and javascript or C++. As it is a real linux, of course all non graphical applications run equally as on any other linux system. You can ssh to Ubuntu Touch and run any console based application.
X11 is not supported (so far) so all GUI standard applications will not run.
This is slightly confusing, because it gives the impression that, with the exception of X11, the run-time environment on Ubuntu Touch is equal to the run-time environment on Ubuntu Desktop.
Obviously, that is not true. Native applications on Ubuntu Touch are sand-boxed. My customer can run a console app on Ubuntu Desktop just fine, but on Ubuntu Touch, she cannot not - I guess she could if she rooted or re-flashed her phone, but that is not practical.
I think Canonical should make it clear that native C/C++ applications on Ubuntu Touch will be sand-boxed. Then they should articulate, clearly on their web site, just how that works, at least the part that they know so far.
The reason I feel this is necessary is that there are a lot of developers who read the press releases and see the words open source native C/C++, more open than Android, etc...and they get the impression that it is basically Ubuntu Desktop for small form-factor, but that is not quite true.
Spelling-out, explicitly, Canonical's native C/C++ strategy would save such developers a lot of time and hacking trying to figure out what is feasible and what is not.
To be fair, I just received feedback from a competitor to Ubuntu Touch, giving me assurances that the competing OS will allow the user/owner of the phone to determine whether any software should have root access, etc - basically, like the desktop version of the OS. I will send them an email asking them if they could make public what they have assured me in private.
These are things that should be crystal clear to C/C++ software developers long in advance before committing to a platform. I can only imagine the time that would have been lost if I had misinterpreted what Canonical wrote above, only to find out that there is nothing practical that my customer can do to install my application as easily as they would on Ubuntu Desktop because of the sandbox that cannot be easily turned-off.
RareHare said:
I think Canonical should make it clear that native C/C++ applications on Ubuntu Touch will be sand-boxed. Then they should articulate, clearly on their web site, just how that works, at least the part that they know so far.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course I can't speak for Canonical and I might be wrong, but I would really be surprised, if it was possibly to run applications as root on an off-the-shelf Ubuntu Touch device.
RareHare said:
To be fair, I just received feedback from a competitor to Ubuntu Touch, giving me assurances that the competing OS will allow the user/owner of the phone to determine whether any software should have root access, etc - basically, like the desktop version of the OS. I will send them an email asking them if they could make public what they have assured me in private.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting, but then it might be a difference between the "reference" implementation and what is being delivered on an out-of-the-shelf phone. I can't belive a device vendor to take the risk of allowing root access and still providing full warranty. Most likely the user will have to accept a "no warranty" waiver to get root access, if that feature is not completly disabled by the device vendor. The same kind of holds for UT, as sudo works on the development images as mentioned previously.
EDIT: Make sure the feedback you received does refer to an actual device that is/will be available for sale and not to a development platform. Marketing wording can be tricky about simple issues like that,
RareHare said:
These are things that should be crystal clear to C/C++ software developers long in advance before committing to a platform. I can only imagine the time that would have been lost if I had misinterpreted what Canonical wrote above, only to find out that there is nothing practical that my customer can do to install my application as easily as they would on Ubuntu Desktop because of the sandbox that cannot be easily turned-off.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed, but the same holds for any other platform.
f69m said:
Of course I can't speak for Canonical and I might be wrong, but I would really be surprised, if it was possibly to run applications as root on an off-the-shelf Ubuntu Touch device.
Interesting, but then it might be a difference between the "reference" implementation and what is being delivered on an out-of-the-shelf phone. I can't belive a device vendor to take the risk of allowing root access and still providing full warranty. Most likely the user will have to accept a "no warranty" waiver to get root access, if that feature is not completly disabled by the device vendor. The same kind of holds for UT, as sudo works on the development images as mentioned previously.
Agreed, but the same holds for any other platform.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was very careful in asking the UT-competitor what their policy would be with regard to the subject of this thread, and they assured me that, when they say open, they really do mean open, as in open-like-the-desktop. However, just now, I found clues on the Internet what they said might not be quite true. So I just sent a grab-me-by-the-ears-while-you-are-speaking email asking them to be clear.
However, they have committed to allowing the user to install my application. They know that my application will open a device driver, and they said that it should work fine, that they would allow the user to do it, and that they had already intended to create a feature where the user gets to decide, after a WARNING, though they are not yet certain what this feature will be called. Note that they are not doing this for me alone. They are doing it, in general. In other words, they are doing what I proposed earlier: give the user the choice of whether to "use metal chainsaw".
As far as voiding the warranty goes...honestly, I do not think that will be a problem. As you know, I can write software that will wipe my hard disk clean on Windows, right now, put it up on my web site, and anyone in the world can download that software, and the most that will happen before they install my application is that they will get a brief warning. So the model for allowing the user to do foolish things has been with us for a while, and companies are still very profitable with this model, and despite viruses (I developed anti-virus algorithm that some of you use, btw), most people are happy with the level-of-control they get with their desktop devices. When Windows Vista tried to remove some of it, even moderate users were very angry, as you know.
I think that, especially for cell-phone carriers in the USA (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint)...the reason is not so much to protect the consumer, but to make sure that the user is not able...for example...to remove the bloatware that they put on the phone. It is more about controlling the customer experience for profit than for protection or being liable for damages.
The UT-competitor has probably figured out that there is a market for a truly open mobile platform, one where the decision of what happens to the device reverts to the owner of the device. They are probably counting on all the pent-up demand of C/C++/etc. native software developers who have been trying to escape the Android/Java iOS/* Sandbox, and not only that, the developers who are able to create revolutionary innovations if they had more access to the Linux API. My guess is that, once one OEM takes this path, the others will not have any choice but to follow, because there will be a free-for-all (no pun intended) in the development market. It will be messy, perhaps, but there will no longer be any restrictions on getting the most out of the device.
It will definitely be more efficient to decouple development from deliverance.
Well, sounds good, just hope that they will find an OEM that shares their views. I think Desktop/Windows is not a relevant reference, as nobody will send their PC back to Microsoft, if it is not working. And if you want to use official MS support you are paying dearly. On the other hand support/warranty is a huge concern for phone and tablet vendors.
Again, not being able to run a process as root on a UT device is my personal opinion and I am not speaking for Canonical or their partners.
EDIT: Do the "bad" operations you mentioned work on Windows 8 phone? I suppose not.
Sent from my TF300T using Tapatalk