User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Guardian: Better privacy and security for Android

Guardian: Better privacy and security for Android

Posted May 12, 2011 15:17 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242)
In reply to: Guardian: Better privacy and security for Android by bronson
Parent article: Guardian: Better privacy and security for Android

I'm more curious about long term survivability. In addition to wondering if phone makers will try to prevent users from loading projects like this, how well will it adapt to future platforms? Cell phones have a notoriously short consumer life; a lot of people upgrade every time their two year contracts run out, and would upgrade more often if they weren't locked in for two years. Does it take so much effort to port to new phones that the useful life is only half the phone's life?

I suppose the chances of Google merging this back into their mainstream are pretty low ...


(Log in to post comments)

Guardian: Better privacy and security for Android

Posted May 12, 2011 19:12 UTC (Thu) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link]

I think it depends which of the many pieces of tech described here we're talking about :-).

Many of them are just applications, so no reason they wouldn't keep working on future devices, so long as Android itself survives.

Some of the more intrusive pieces seem plausibly usable upstream -- IIUC, iPhones support whole disk encryption as a standard feature, no reason Google wouldn't want to do the same. OTOH, that doesn't mean that they'd want to merge any particular third-party implementation. On an analogous note, CyanogenMod includes a patch to add an "incognito browsing" mode to the standard Android browser. I'm sure Google would be happy to add this *feature* to Android -- they already ship it in Chrome -- but I think there's no way they're going to use CyanogenMod's implementation, which is based on going around and adding 'if (!privateBrowsing) {...}' around all the places they could find where data is stored to disk. I'm not convinced the CM developers even understood what the correct behavior for this mode is, and if they do, then I still wouldn't trust an implementation like that to work reliably.

Guardian: Better privacy and security for Android

Posted May 24, 2011 12:13 UTC (Tue) by robbe (subscriber, #16131) [Link]

> IIUC, iPhones support whole disk encryption as a standard feature,
Last I checked iOS only allows applications to store some (all) their data encrypted. As they have to specifically request it (maybe even with a hard-to-use API), many applications will not do it.

Guardian: Better privacy and security for Android

Posted May 24, 2011 16:08 UTC (Tue) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link]

Huh, a cursory google suggests that you're right, and that's still true.

Though I guess this makes some sense -- if you have the phone turned on but locked in your pocket, then the disk itself needs to be accessible (because the OS is running), but you would like the actually sensitive data to be encrypted with a key that you can throw away when the phone locks.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds