So an OS that boasts about the “privacy” it offers… Doesn’t need routine and consistent security updates?
Sure thing bud, keep going on like you know what you’re talking about.
So an OS that boasts about the “privacy” it offers… Doesn’t need routine and consistent security updates?
Sure thing bud, keep going on like you know what you’re talking about.
sudneo@lemm.ee 2 days ago
Generally speaking privacy and security are related but not really linked to each other. Google services might be very secure, but a privacy nightmare for example. In this particular case, even more, because the chances that using a “googled” phone will mean data collection (I.e. privacy issues) are almost certain, while the risks we are talking about are much more niche and - as I elaborated on another comment - in my opinion not really in most people threat model.
I would like to hear your perspective instead, because I am not really into using authority arguments, but as a security engineer I believe to at least understand well the issue with security updates, vulnerabilities and exploits. So yes, I do think to know what I am talking about.
NotForYourStereo@lemmy.world 2 days ago
That’s concerning to hear from a supposed “security engineer”.
If you really are, you should be familiar with the age old adage, “no security, no privacy.”
But even then, you seem very blasé about security, so again, really don’t trust you know what you’re talking about.
sudneo@lemm.ee 2 days ago
So your argument is repeating a cliché? OK.
I don’t need to convince you, but I explained my reasoning. Maybe make some practical examples, show some CVEs that - if left unpatched - severely impact the privacy (or the broader security) of the average users.
Also, as anybody who works in security knows, security is not a binary, and securing often means paying a price (in usability, in Euro, in comfort, in performance, whatever). In my mom’s threat model there is no the APT leveraging a 0 day to breach her worthless phone, there are opportunistic scammers who send her emails. There is also google and the like harvesting her data to sell her shit (hence a deGoogled phone with bootloader unlocked is more important than a Google phone with bootloader locked, for example).
In my threat model there might be some more resourceful attackers (because believe it or not, a financial org trusts me with securing their infra). However, as I also said, a much simpler and cheaper attack that recently has made the news is just to snatch the phone unlocked from my hands on the street, rather than exploiting an android CVE. This is why for example I have app pins for signal, email and everything that supports it, and I need to authenticate at every use. I also store all my TOTP on my yubikey, rather than keeping them on the phone (even with PIN), so my phone is not good as a 2FA device.
What you call blasé is actually just a way I personally assessed the risks and decided to invest accordingly. People whose threat model involve the bots who spam emails do not have to invest in security like if the NSA is after them. Updating android a month later is not going to be even a “low” risk for most people, especially if they adopt the much more important practice (IMHO) of not installing every shitty app under the sun. If you think otherwise, make concrete examples perhaps. Using a cliché is not really building your credibility here.
NotForYourStereo@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Image