or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by derekmorr

Knox is based on SE Android, which is being rolled out now. Google, Samsung, and Cyanogenmod are taking their time to make sure they get the policies right, so they're running it in Permissive mode now. Once it's put into Enforcing mode, it should block most privilege escalation attacks. In the meantime, Bouncer + Verify Apps seems to be doing a pretty good job blocking malware.
 I don't know if you can go that far with the data that we have. I'd love to see good, reliable data about which versions have what infections, etc. I'd also love to see how OEMs and carriers compare for patch responsiveness. There's far, far too much hype and fear-mongering when it comes to mobile security and precious little hard data.
 I'm not sure those are relevant to Google's numbers. Yes, it would be good if bugs in the OS could be fixed faster, but given the way vendors customize the OS and the certification processes that carriers insist on, I don't think that'll happen (Nexus/GE and CM devices aside). But if Google's security scanner blocks a malicious app from being installed in the first place, it doesn't matter as much, does it? That's what we see with the master key bug. There are a great...
 That's just demonstrably wrong. Google's Play Store uses Bouncer which scans all uploaded apps for malware. Google Play Services also checks apps on the devices when they're installed; it even checks side-loaded apps.
 Oh, right, because no one who uses Android is capable of independent thought -- we're all just robotic slaves of the evil Google and Scamsung overlords, mindlessly parroting talking points. /s Every thread has to be turned into some hateful ragefest against Android. Android must constantly be painted in a negative light, as must everyone who uses it. We must have hundreds of comments bellowing forth the unmatched unequivocal superiority of Apple, iOS, and their users.
 Sure, there are features in the core OS. But a lot of new functionality is being put into the upgradable user-space components. So my original point still stands - the OS version number is a lot less important that it used to be.
 What? Could you actually respond to my point rather than just make nonsensical posts? And aren't you the one who's been making post after post saying that the switch to 64-bit has nothing to do with addressing more memory?
 It doesn't need to be. Google Play Services will update automatically OTA on anything running 2.2 or later, and the majority of new APIs are available in the support library. Google's apps have been decoupled from the OS, so they're updated independently. Kinda frustrating how we have to keep repeating this on here. The OS version number is a lot less important than it used to be.
Nor does it need to. That's the benefit of their VM-based approach - it isolates app developers from the underlying hardware, so OEMs can choose the best processor for a particular device. Dalvik already runs on 32-bit ARM, x86, and MIPS. While some future devices will benefit from 64-bit CPUs, there's no need for every device to be 64-bit. 
 I'm not sure Dalvik needs to be 64-bit. Android uses a separate Dalvik VM instance for each app, and it's unlikely an individual app will need more than 4 GB of memory. For x86, I'd think Google would use the new x32 ABI. That has the architectural improvements of x64 (more registers, faster syscalls, faster dynamic linking, etc), without the pointer bloat. As for ARM, I agree -- drivers will be stumbling block.
New Posts  All Forums: