LWN.net Logo

CyanogenMod to disable root by default

The CyanogenMod project has announced that access to the root account will be disabled by default on CM9 installs. "Shipping root enabled by default to 1,000,000+ devices was a gaping hole. With these changes we believe we have reached a compromise that allows enthusiasts to keep using root if they so desire but also provide a good level of security to the majority of users."
(Log in to post comments)

CyanogenMod to disable root by default

Posted Mar 19, 2012 14:39 UTC (Mon) by webmastir (guest, #59528) [Link]

I for one think this is a long overdue change. Sure they should've done it a while ago, but I'm definitely glad they decided to take this route.

CyanogenMod to disable root by default

Posted Mar 19, 2012 15:00 UTC (Mon) by theophrastus (guest, #80847) [Link]

In the wildly unlikely event that you're as out-of-the-loop as me, "CyanogenMod" is an alternative firmware for many Android based phones. Very approximately: think OpenBios for phones, (so one can imagine by the transitive property of projected Feldmannkeys that not permitting easy root access is a consummate "good thing")

CyanogenMod to disable root by default

Posted Mar 19, 2012 15:38 UTC (Mon) by bawjaws (guest, #56952) [Link]

When smartphone folks say "firmware" (or indeed "ROM") they just mean "software". So CyanogenMod is more like a community-led desktop Linux-distro in a world in which the distro that comes packaged with most devices have a layer of proprietary stuff on top.

CyanogenMod to disable root by default

Posted Mar 19, 2012 15:44 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

the term 'firmware' is more of a matter of perception then anything else. It's all software, more or less.

CyanogenMod to disable root by default

Posted Mar 21, 2012 22:54 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

True, but a piece of firmware is supposed to have an OS on top of it, and that OS should host programs. If your "firmware" has a kernel with drivers and mediates hardware (and file) access for other programs, it is pretty much a full OS.

This can also increase their user base

Posted Mar 19, 2012 16:17 UTC (Mon) by jhhaller (subscriber, #56103) [Link]

With more streaming media applications that don't work on rooted devices, it makes this more attractive to people who just want their device to work, and don't want to play cat and mouse games to hide the root capabilities from those applications.

CyanogenMod to disable root by default

Posted Mar 19, 2012 16:23 UTC (Mon) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]

I'm dubious about the value of the bulk of this change.

Before: Applications can ask SuperUser.apk for root privileges. The user must then explicitly grant or deny privileges, and allow subsequent grants (or denies) to be silent by default for that specific application.

After: The exact same, except that first you have to go into a setting dialog and change something to let this work.

The belief here is roughly "Users will have to learn what root means before they enable it, and then they'll be educated and make good decisions" which is the same thinking that led to all those useless dialogs people click through in their web browser warning them of the perils of insecure form submission, partially insecure content, and so on and so forth.

It's futile. The users who previously made thoughtful and cautious decisions using SuperUser.apk will continue to do so. The users who routinely granted privileges to "Fun Fart Noise App" will still do so, and will still blame Cyanogen, Google, the phone manufacturer or their local politicians when their bank account is duly emptied. But now there will be dozens of Youtube videos entitled "How to enable root on Cyanogen" explaining how to click past the annoying setting.

The disabling of ADB root by default I'm OK with. That's a useful extra line of defence in some scenarios. But the main change is essentially theatre.

CyanogenMod to disable root by default

Posted Mar 19, 2012 16:44 UTC (Mon) by slashdot (guest, #22014) [Link]

Huh no.

The problem you describe is caused by asking permission to the user, in a way that lets the user answer "yes" effortlessly.

If the user isn't asked at all, but needs to initiate a complex, obscure and time consuming procedure on its own (e.g. modifying and recompiling the software) to give permissions, it's much less likely they'll do so without thought.

No idea which of these alternatives applies to this case though.

Copyright © 2012, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds