Most of the app now require acces to the phone calls..even a news app requires it, sms app such as go sms also requires it. So I want to know after knowing that an app will be able to acces your phone call you still download it? And does anyone in what way the developers use such info?
Sent from my E10i using XDA App
Excellent topic, I'm really troubled by this. The business world makes a whole lot of money based on the average persons inertia - their lack of information or willingness when it comes to the products and services they use and the money they use to pay for them. Particular mobile phone network providers come to mind, who are happy to charge the most expensive prices because people don't know or don't care.
This lazy attitude is seeping into the Android app world. It will be a small per centage of us who will realize this threat and do something about it - exactly like cookies and public wifi privacy etc.
For those of us already interested, are there websites or apps which can guide us on this?
I had thought about it before but it seemed to be all apps out there at least need to access your internet, calls, phonebook and etc.. Not sure really if some of these nasty apps has the evil purpose to steal our vital informations in the phone... say if we're checking our bank account or something similar..
What I practice:
1) Installed AVG pro and do scan regularly, and set to scan every newly installed apps.
2) Use both cache cleaner and history eraser to clean up all traces once a day.
3) Hope they don't see me as a target.
Don't worry.
I think access to the phone calls is just to minimize the running app in case you receive a call. In other case you would not even realize an incoming call?!
Deehee3 said:
Don't worry.
I think access to the phone calls is just to minimize the running app in case you receive a call. In other case you would not even realize an incoming call?!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What about data? When you install an app in most cases you allow data access to it.
Searching for updates or viewing developers homepage maybe?
Sent from my U20i using XDA App
Deehee3 said:
Searching for updates or viewing developers homepage maybe?
Sent from my U20i using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What if not? What if app you´ve installed is spying on you and sending info to hackers. How would you know?
On android we have the luck that there are a lot of applications that are open source. When I have to choose an application, I always choose and support the open projects!
You will notice that most of those applications don't need all that personal information! Makes you wonder...
On other systems, apps usually have an user/administrator scheme, where the 'user' has access to some things and 'administrator' has access to everything.
There is no such thing on Android (except if you have a rooted phone and some app asks for superuser access, but you get a requester asking for permissions as well).
Each app has to specifically ask for permissions or the system will deny it. A spyware has to ask for those permissions or it won't work.
Some permission requests to look out for:
- "Call phone"
can be used by the application to silently dial some "premium" numbers
- "Send SMS"
can be used to send SMS to special "premium" numbers
- "Record phone calls"
can be harmful if associated with "internet access" permission
- "Access fine location"/"access coarse location" and "internet access"
can be used for tracking purposes
Many apps ask for:
- "Phone identity" / "internet access"
they use it for "statistics purposes" (flurry.com mostly) but it is bad. The developer should always inform the user about those.
BTW, that an app is open source makes no difference. Someone can always (willingly or not) tamper with the final build. And not everyone reviews open source apps.
zapek666 said:
A spyware has to ask for those permissions or it won't work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure. But if an app legitimately ask for data transmission and file system access, AND you grant it, how would you know it is not using the granted rights for something else?
ppirate said:
On android we have the luck that there are a lot of applications that are open source. When I have to choose an application, I always choose and support the open projects!
You will notice that most of those applications don't need all that personal information! Makes you wonder...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don´t tell me that you evaluate the source code of each application you load from the market. And even so, how would you know the difference between what is shown to you and the final build, available on the market?
vlissine said:
Sure. But if an app legitimately ask for data transmission and file system access, AND you grant it, how would you know it is not using the granted rights for something else?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Filesystem access are limited to the external memory card. An app with such permission cannot access other apps' private data (which are stored on the phone).
Android apps are all sandboxed into their own homes.
A good example of a suspicious application is HTML5 Reference.
"This HTML5 reference lists all tags supported in the HTML5 specification.", fine. Let's look at the permissions:
Network communication: full Internet access
Phone calls: read phone state and identity
While the first 2 could be produced as a side effect of the developer implementing some "statistics library" (flurry.com or so), the next 2:
Your location: fine (GPS) location
Your personal information: read sensitive log data
Are a giveaway that this app does a bit more than just listing HTML reference tags
zapek666 said:
Filesystem access are limited to the external memory card. An app with such permission cannot access other apps' private data (which are stored on the phone).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, how about a picture viewer, which usually picks pictures from each and every
directory, no matter if you want it (and not only from memory card).
Hey vlissine and zapek666. You both have a point.
One individual cannot review every code he or she uses. And also one does not only uses his or her own builds of the projects. But every now and then, I have to go into a project, mostly to add functionality. During that time, I usually have to go over a lot of code to understand the program. It is no guarantee, but you can imagine that some strange code will stand out.
I'm surely not the only person. So while one individual is not capable of such an endeavor. A lot are.
Your other point is as valid as can be. But here again, builds are comparable.
Surely, one does not have to find himself or herself obliged to use certain kind of projects. But to me, when I have the change, I use and support the open source project. One important reason is because of the concern raised by the original poster!
http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2011/03/update-on-android-market-security.html
Apparently we were not that paranoid, thinking of spying apps
Two options:
1) To avoid being spy and get super paranoid about it... ditch your smartphone and get those early 2000 phones with only calls and sms capable.
2) Use the smart phone eg: X10 mini/pro or any android phones and ignore these spying scene and live with it like nothing ever going to happen since this new technologies really live up our life nowadays..
farsight73 said:
Two options:
1) To avoid being spy and get super paranoid about it... ditch your smartphone and get those early 2000 phones with only calls and sms capable.
2) Use the smart phone eg: X10 mini/pro or any android phones and ignore these spying scene and live with it like nothing ever going to happen since this new technologies really live up our life nowadays..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One more option - stop giving stupid advises when you have nothing to say.
maybe apps need to call functions or need it to run?
write them your self if your that bothered?
...
Sent from my E10i using the XDA mobile application powered by Tapatalk
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
Hey,
When I turned on my phone the RAM it was taking was 300 MB, after a days use it is now 500MB (even after pressing 'clear RAM' button).
I've entered Settings->apps->running and it shows only two small things (the keyboard and some weather widget) which combined take only 20 MB.
So what is the rest of the memory is beign allocated for?
Thank you.
Does your rom have Usage Manager in the app drawer?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda app-developers app
Here is the path to all your applications.
Settings -> Apps --> Swipe left until the menu Running --> On top you see the description "Show cached processes", klick on it --> now you see the rest of the running applications
pc103 said:
Does your rom have Usage Manager in the app drawer?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, the closest I have is "Task Manager".
lenovoOwner said:
Here is the path to all your applications.
Settings -> Apps --> Swipe left until the menu Running --> On top you see the description "Show cached processes", klick on it --> now you see the rest of the running applications
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you, indeed I see some more RAM guzzlers, but It seems like they make up most of the addition but not all of it ... plus funny thing, when I try to close everything (in 'running' and 'cache) and I reenter- here it is there again...
1) Can I see all of the elements that take up my ram (the system as well)?
2) Can I close them properly?
Thank you very much.
PS. Is there some comfortable way to jump between apps? Like in the Iphone where by pressing the 'Home' button will show you a bar with a row of icons of the currently active processes....
For your PS question, it's a long press on the Home button (below the GS3 screen).
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda app-developers app
---------- Post added at 10:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ----------
The closest app I'm running to that option is Android Tuner Free. I got it for its storage optimization functions.
The busy interface has a learning curve, but it is a comprehensive & poweful app. I recommend Advanced mode & the One Click home screen.
For what you want, see both the Tasks & Kill All tiles. The first is a Task Mgr., the second is a quick 1 click. The app can teach a lot about what runs & why. It also offers a lot of fine control.
I also use the root app Startup Manager which is self explanatory & efficient.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda app-developers app
pc103 said:
For your PS question, it's a long press on the Home button (below the GS3 screen).
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL {hit myself on the head}, didn't occur me to try...
pc103 said:
---------- Post added at 10:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ----------
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
pc103 said:
The closest app I'm running to that option is Android Tuner Free. I got it for its storage optimization functions.
The busy interface has a learning curve, but it is a comprehensive & poweful app. I recommend Advanced mode & the One Click home screen.
For what you want, see both the Tasks & Kill All tiles. The first is a Task Mgr., the second is a quick 1 click. The app can teach a lot about what runs & why. It also offers a lot of fine control.
I also use the root app Startup Manager which is self explanatory & efficient.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was hoping there is a way to avoid using apps...
Ok, I suppose it opens another question which I thought about creating a new thread for, but if the opportunity already arose...
How do you actually know if you can trust an app?
I'm kinda new to android and I'm much more used to the opennes of windows, also I'm pretty paranoid (a cellphone contains information 100 times more sensitive than a PC (At least my PC is like that)). I look at the permissions every app want to have and I'm simply aghast, I know of the logic behind those requests (at least for most of those I've seen) but I have zero transparency over what actions the app takes.
That really stress me a great deal...
oy-ster said:
How do you actually know if you can trust an app?. . . (a cellphone contains information 100 times more sensitive than a PC (At least my PC is like that)). I look at the permissions every app want to have and I'm simply aghast, I know of the logic behind those requests (at least for most of those I've seen) but I have zero transparency over what actions the app takes.
That really stress me a great deal...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Digital Privacy
Well it certainly stresses the last remaining fiber of your privacy. I just watched the latest "60 Minutes Overtime" piece on data brokers framing this as a lifestyle issue. Step back from the small screen & consider that your actions on board the PC have a ripple effect on your smartphone. "NAI Opt out" & "Disconnect software" are useful PC search words.
Where it Went
I rarely hear from a tech guru or even a lawyer who can decipher a EULA, TOS or Privacy agreement they didn't author themselves; yet online, we are steeped in the cumulative concessions we have accepted from them and the affiliates and partners they enable for.
The Biggest Brother?
Google is a data harvester, not a broker. They are the custodians of much of our imprint online across all platforms. check your settings accordingly; within each Google service / app/ platform you use and adjust them to taste. Know, for example, that persistent login to Gmail will append any collocated G-Search activity to your G profile if Web Data | Web History remains on. I read recently that simply joining Plus has a similar but more comprehensive effect by default, by unifying the G tracking across your entire electronic imprint.
Android Permissions
Yes. The most invasive part of Android is its permissions free for all. They are demands, not requests that each app poses. The logic is sometimes one sided and self serving to the developers at our disadvantage. What can we do?
1. Know something about your developer. XDA membership in an app developer helps define their role in a community. Check their website, reviews, accessibility, postings etc.
2. Consider lower permission alternative apps listed in the play store.
3. For each app you review in the Play Store, (have you checked play store settings yet?) assess its longevity in the marketplace to decide if you are willing to be an early adopter.
4. Resist resorting to apps to broker built-in functions your system already has. Learn your OS.
5. Weigh the logic of each permission demanded, based on risk / reward and your intended uses. Example: On my phone Google search leads the field with 59 permissions. App Permisssions by FSecure is in the low end group with zero. How do I know? App Permissions. What can I do? More on that later.
6. Debloat. I have frozen over 60 apps/services/processes using a combination of tools ranging from built in (no root) Application Management to Startup Manager and the App Quarantine app.
7. Don't be lazy about toggling settings as needed. One stock default has the GPS always enabled which may not be necessary for you.
8. Learn about the types of location services in your OS. Check location settings in affected apps and consider toggling location services as needed. Apps will prompt if the needed service is off when you use them.
9. Review your synch settings. Mine are off on the OS. I use a 3rd party mail app and manually back up contacts using Super Backup when needed.
10. Review background data settings. they are visible in Settings / Data usage, by selecting Mobile Data, and scrolling to the list of apps to tap through each and set Restrict background data if appropriate. It saves battery by reducing tower hunting and focuses you on which apps pose the highest demands.
I promised more. Learn about App Ops if you haven't. I have the luxury of running a 4.3 version that supports it so I can use a client app to filter and toggle various permissions on a per app basis. There are other, and perhaps more thorough approaches to this but I'm staying with this one for now.
pc103 said:
Digital Privacy
Well it certainly stresses the last remaining fiber of your privacy. I just watched the latest "60 Minutes Overtime" piece on data brokers framing this as a lifestyle issue. Step back from the small screen & consider that your actions on board the PC have a ripple effect on your smartphone. "NAI Opt out" & "Disconnect software" are useful PC search words.
Where it Went
I rarely hear from a tech guru or even a lawyer who can decipher a EULA, TOS or Privacy agreement they didn't author themselves; yet online, we are steeped in the cumulative concessions we have accepted from them and the affiliates and partners they enable for.
The Biggest Brother?
Google is a data harvester, not a broker. They are the custodians of much of our imprint online across all platforms. check your settings accordingly; within each Google service / app/ platform you use and adjust them to taste. Know, for example, that persistent login to Gmail will append any collocated G-Search activity to your G profile if Web Data | Web History remains on. I read recently that simply joining Plus has a similar but more comprehensive effect by default, by unifying the G tracking across your entire electronic imprint.
Android Permissions
Yes. The most invasive part of Android is its permissions free for all. They are demands, not requests that each app poses. The logic is sometimes one sided and self serving to the developers at our disadvantage. What can we do?
1. Know something about your developer. XDA membership in an app developer helps define their role in a community. Check their website, reviews, accessibility, postings etc.
2. Consider lower permission alternative apps listed in the play store.
3. For each app you review in the Play Store, (have you checked play store settings yet?) assess its longevity in the marketplace to decide if you are willing to be an early adopter.
4. Resist resorting to apps to broker built-in functions your system already has. Learn your OS.
5. Weigh the logic of each permission demanded, based on risk / reward and your intended uses. Example: On my phone Google search leads the field with 59 permissions. App Permisssions by FSecure is in the low end group with zero. How do I know? App Permissions. What can I do? More on that later.
6. Debloat. I have frozen over 60 apps/services/processes using a combination of tools ranging from built in (no root) Application Management to Startup Manager and the App Quarantine app.
7. Don't be lazy about toggling settings as needed. One stock default has the GPS always enabled which may not be necessary for you.
8. Learn about the types of location services in your OS. Check location settings in affected apps and consider toggling location services as needed. Apps will prompt if the needed service is off when you use them.
9. Review your synch settings. Mine are off on the OS. I use a 3rd party mail app and manually back up contacts using Super Backup when needed.
10. Review background data settings. they are visible in Settings / Data usage, by selecting Mobile Data, and scrolling to the list of apps to tap through each and set Restrict background data if appropriate. It saves battery by reducing tower hunting and focuses you on which apps pose the highest demands.
I promised more. Learn about App Ops if you haven't. I have the luxury of running a 4.3 version that supports it so I can use a client app to filter and toggle various permissions on a per app basis. There are other, and perhaps more thorough approaches to this but I'm staying with this one for now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you very much for the comprehensive reply!
Indeed some of the things here are common sense but some were fairly new to me, like the close contact you are suggesting with the developer.
I have to ask though, what reviews are you reffering to? the ones in the app market or the ones on here? Also, from what I have seen in the play market, all of the reviews are about functionality but no one actualy checks the veracity of the code.
Like for instance some song recognition&download software that requires internet access permission (makes sense) and SD card access permission (also makes sense), but besides doing what it does (in a splendid manner, leaving tons of happy customers) it also steals your Whatsapp chat logs (just read an article about that breach 10 mins ago)...
How can people catch on that (otherwise the app will linger for 2 years, giving you the impression you're not an early adopter)?
Hrmph, you have given some very sound advice which I obviously intend to follow through and for that I thank you. However it seems to me like the underlying foundation is still trust in the publisher (not to abuse the permissions you had to enable for functionality sake), and the trust should stem from how well the author presents itself to the community. I suppose it is the nature of the beast, it is just that if I were to sneakily attack someone I would make sure to present myself in th best way possible .
thx.
PS. my version is 4.1 but I'll see what I can do about Appops.
P.P.S I just searched for "Tasks" on google market and all I see is an organizer. Did you mean "Task Killer"?
oy-ster said:
Thank you very much for the comprehensive reply!
Indeed some of the things here are common sense but some were fairly new to me, like the close contact you are suggesting with the developer.
I have to ask though, what reviews are you reffering to? the ones in the app market or the ones on here? Also, from what I have seen in the play market, all of the reviews are about functionality but no one actualy checks the veracity of the code.
Both sources really. There's no hard & fast divide as to what aspect reviewers might respond to at either venue. More often, Play Store reviews have alerted me when my device or my Android version gets poor results from an app. Granted code integrity issues are raised more frequently at XDA.
Like for instance some song recognition&download software that requires internet access permission (makes sense) and SD card access permission (also makes sense), but besides doing what it does (in a splendid manner, leaving tons of happy customers) it also steals your Whatsapp chat logs (just read an article about that breach 10 mins ago)...
How can people catch on that (otherwise the app will linger for 2 years, giving you the impression you're not an early adopter)?
Interesting example. I will look for the article. I wonder if the app declared that permission in their Play Store disclosure. If not, it challenged Google's policing system. I read somewhere that SELinux in newer ROMs, set to "Enforcing" brokers applicable policies from each host domain and also restricts apps from exceeding their declared permissions. (See also my note on 4.3+ below)
Hrmph, you have given some very sound advice which I obviously intend to follow through and for that I thank you. However it seems to me like the underlying foundation is still trust in the publisher (not to abuse the permissions you had to enable for functionality sake), and the trust should stem from how well the author presents itself to the community. I suppose it is the nature of the beast, it is just that if I were to sneakily attack someone I would make sure to present myself in th best way possible .
You're welcome! Placing that trust is ultimately a leap of faith, so we ask ourselves:
Does my configuration already offer this function at the OS or existing app level?
Can I justify each declared permission here?
Is there a less invasive equivalent to this app?
Have I gone over the settings thoroughly once installed?
What does my installed anti-virus say about this?
Do I need this to auto launch or only on demand?
Is it using excessive data or uptime as I monitor?
Am I getting all the Android security I could be with my current rom image?
You get the picture. Common sense, best practices & due diligence can go a long way toward closing the security gap.
PS. my version is 4.1 but I'll see what I can do about Appops.
Google only exposed it (to client apps like App Ops Starter) in 4.3 & 4.4.0, before & after that I believe an Xposed Framework module is the main alternative.
P.P.S I just searched for "Tasks" on google market and all I see is an organizer. Did you mean "Task Killer"?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The "Tasks & Kill All tiles" I referred to appear on Android Tuner Free's One Click advanced mode home screen. BTW certain apps on my phone are "frozen" when not in use.
I forgot to mention. 4.3 I'm running is on the 4.1.2 bootloader, completely avoiding lopsided knox security. I hope I didn't appear to recommend the OTA update. That's a personal choice.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda app-developers app
pc103 said:
Quote:
Both sources really. There's no hard & fast divide as to what aspect reviewers might respond to at either venue. More often, Play Store reviews have alerted me when my device or my Android version gets poor results from an app. Granted code integrity issues are raised more frequently at XDA.
Interesting example. I will look for the article. I wonder if the app declared that permission in their Play Store disclosure. If not, it challenged Google's policing system. I read somewhere that SELinux in newer ROMs, set to "Enforcing" brokers applicable policies from each host domain and also restricts apps from exceeding their declared permissions. (See also my note on 4.3+ below)
You're welcome! Placing that trust is ultimately a leap of faith, so we ask ourselves:
Does my configuration already offer this function at the OS or existing app level?
Can I justify each declared permission here?
Is there a less invasive equivalent to this app?
Have I gone over the settings thoroughly once installed?
What does my installed anti-virus say about this?
Do I need this to auto launch or only on demand?
Is it using excessive data or uptime as I monitor?
Am I getting all the Android security I could be with my current rom image?
You get the picture. Common sense, best practices & due diligence can go a long way toward closing the security gap.
Google only exposed it (to client apps like App Ops Starter) in 4.3 & 4.4.0, before & after that I believe an Xposed Framework module is the main alternative.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks again!
I just wanted to note that after spending some time here in the forum( http://forum.xda-developers.com/android/apps-games/ ) looking for some intresting picks, I haven't actually encountered much comments from people that actually went over the code... so I'm a bit bummed out. :silly: :laugh:
pc103 said:
The "Tasks & Kill All tiles" I referred to appear on Android Tuner Free's One Click advanced mode home screen. BTW certain apps on my phone are "frozen" when not in use.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh. Got it.
Anyway, Thank you!!!
oy-ster said:
Thanks again!
I just wanted to note that after spending some time here in the forum( http://forum.xda-developers.com/android/apps-games/ ) looking for some intresting picks, I haven't actually encountered much comments from people that actually went over the code... so I'm a bit bummed out. :silly: :laugh:
...Anyway, Thank you!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're welcome. To be fair, most times I've seen postings by people who background checked code it was in rom threads, or over root exploits or security apps. In most other cases due diligence is our best defense.