Root
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
41 points (95.6% liked)
Privacy
32159 readers
641 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
This. Root allows an app to get any permissions and probably even disable all evidence of having them.
It actually allows the app to run as the OS itself.
Clearly the only right answer is Internet. Who cares about camera, mic or location when the app cannot send the data anywhere anyways?
Inter-app communication can go around it. And most OSes don't block localhost connections either.
Wifi in apps that have no reasonable need for it, because it's basically location.
This depends on what you're trying to defend against. In my opinion (on GrapheneOS):
- "Accessibility" permission (i.e. full control of the device)
- "Network" permission
- "Modify system settings" permission
- "Install unknown apps" permission
- Any permission that allows apps to communicate with one another (such as a reduced sandbox, file permission, or app communication scopes)
Those are the only permissions that I can think of off the top of my head that could potentially allow an app to phone home. Turning off Wi-Fi for the device does little if the app also has the "Wi-Fi control" permission.
App communication scopes isn't the scary thing, it's the solution. Standard Android sandbox allows apps to communicate if they mutually agree to it. Scopes will allow you to limit that.
Internet
Drug dealer : Network - Location - Contacts
Facebook : I'll take all
Facebook? More like FBI. Wouldn't be the first time.
At one time, the bank that i used decided to made an app, and they demand Location, Camera, Contact, Files, Microphone, and SMS, in which they will ask for all of it from the get go and not allowing either one of it will send you in a loop, unable to use the app at all. I bail immediately and continue to use the website.
As for the scariest one, camera. They can see where you are and what your surrounding like if they demand "always allow".
This stuff makes me grateful that my bank and your bank still maintain a fully-featured website. I would be quite upset if I were stuck with such an app and no website.
After the incident they did made some change to only ask permission for the appropriate function and can allow "while in use", and gotten rid of location permission altogether, but that incident kinda open my eye on cybersecurity and privacy, because if bank can hire subpar dev for such an important app, then all those gadget with IoT will not have top-notched dev doing their app. I'd rather be a luddite than lose anything important.
On Android apps connected with a Google account, "Can read, send, and delete emails" scares the shit out of me.
Location.