자유게시판

• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Android 9 is the oldest Android version that is getting security updates. It is price mentioning that their web site has (for some reason) all the time been internet hosting an outdated APK of F-Droid, and this is still the case at present, leading to many users wondering why they can’t set up F-Droid on their secondary person profile (as a result of downgrade prevention enforced by Android). "Stability" seems to be the primary motive talked about on their part, which doesn’t make sense: both your version isn’t able to be published in a stable channel, or it is and new users should be capable to access it easily. There's little practical cause for builders not to increase the goal SDK version (targetSdkVersion) along with each Android launch. That they had this imaginative and prescient of each object in the computer being represented as a shell object, so there can be a seamless intermix between information, paperwork, system parts, you name it. Building and signing while reusing the bundle name (utility ID) is unhealthy observe as it causes signature verification errors when some customers attempt to replace/set up these apps from other sources, even instantly from the developer. F-Droid ought to implement the strategy of prefixing the package name of their alternate builds with org.f-droid as an illustration (or add a .fdroid suffix as some have already got).

As a matter of truth, the brand new unattended update API added in API level 31 (Android 12) that permits seamless app updates for app repositories with out privileged access to the system (such an strategy just isn't compatible with the safety mannequin) won’t work with F-Droid "as is". It turns out the official F-Droid shopper doesn’t care much about this since it lags behind quite a bit, targeting the API stage 25 (Android 7.1) of which some SELinux exceptions have been shown above. While some improvements might easily be made, I don’t suppose F-Droid is in a really perfect state of affairs to resolve all of these issues as a result of a few of them are inherent flaws of their architecture. While exhibiting a list of low-stage permissions could possibly be helpful information for a developer, it’s often a deceptive and inaccurate approach for the tip-user. This just seems to be an over-engineered and flawed method since higher suited tools reminiscent of signify may very well be used to sign the metadata JSON. Ideally, F-Droid should fully transfer on to newer signature schemes, and should fully section out the legacy signature schemes that are still being used for some apps and metadata. On that observe, it is also value noting the repository metadata format isn’t properly signed by missing whole-file signing and key rotation.

This web page summarises key paperwork regarding the oversight framework for the performance of the IANA functions. This permission list can only be accessed by taping "About this app" then "App permissions - See more" at the underside of the web page. To be fair, these quick summaries was once supplied by the Android documentation years in the past, but the permission model has drastically evolved since then and most of them aren’t correct anymore. Kanhai Jewels worked for years to domesticate the rich collections of such lovely conventional jewellery. As a result of this philosophy, the principle repository of F-Droid is filled with out of date apps from another period, just for these apps to be able to run on the more than ten years outdated Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich. In brief, F-Droid downplayed the issue with their deceptive permission labels, and their lead developer proceeded to call the Android permission model a "dumpster fire" and declare that the operating system can not sandbox untrusted apps while still remaining helpful. While these purchasers might be technically better, they’re poorly maintained for some, and additionally they introduce one more occasion to the mix.

Backward compatibility is often the enemy of safety, and while there’s a center-ground for comfort and obsolescence, it shouldn’t be exaggerated. Some low-stage permissions don’t even have a security/privacy affect and shouldn’t be misinterpreted as having one. Since Android 6, youtu.be apps must request the standard permissions at runtime and do not get them simply by being installed, so exhibiting all the "under the hood" permissions with out correct context just isn't useful and makes the permission mannequin unnecessarily confusing. Play Store will tell the app may request access to the next permissions: this sort of wording is extra important than it appears. After that, Glamour could have the identical earnings growth as Smokestack, incomes $7.40/share. This is a mere sample of the SELinux exceptions that should be made on older API ranges as a way to perceive why it matters. On Android, the next SDK degree means you’ll be able to make use of modern API levels of which each iteration brings safety and privacy improvements.