Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


This user doesn't have any awards


About Trixanity

  • Title

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2,144 profile views
  1. Depends on what you mean by vouch. I don't think any intelligence has any reason to be friendly to Huawei or any other company for that matter. However some intelligence agencies have come out and said the equipment they've looked at was clean and with no reason to suspect foul play. It's just as likely that the US are pressuring allies to avoid Chinese equipment so they can buy American instead with the added bonus of free surveillance of the very same allies. Something which the US has been caught doing on multiple occasions.
  2. Some intelligence agencies say they're dirty, some say they're clean. So either some places get different equipment, some agencies are more competent than others or someone has an agenda.
  3. Trixanity

    Google officially ended support for Android 4.0 ICS

    Pretty much all of what you just said is either completely false or at best inaccurate.
  4. Trixanity

    PewDiePie fans strike yet again, Sonos speakers hacked.

    At this point I think it's more about not giving the number one spot to a corporation rather than PewDiePie zealotry. It would be a huge precedent to set that corporations would surpass the content creators that built up YouTube. Many consider it to be hijacking. It's hard for a single person (or small team) to compete against a media corporation who theoretically has an audience of one billion (my understanding is it's the vevo of India) and billions in financial backing.
  5. A cache between the SoC and RAM to reduce the amount of memory transactions. Should reduce power consumption as well. It increases latency when accessing memory though.
  6. Money outweighs principles. We've seen time and time again legislation or rulings opposing companies and they bent over every time. At best they drag things out in courtrooms but they'll comply if the benefits are still there (namely money). How many times have Americans talked about boycotting the EU with all their regulations and fines? How many companies have actually done anything (besides lobbying and appeals)? I haven't heard of anything. Their shareholders would be livid if they lost revenue and the stock would drop. People still do business in places like China, so I hardly see how they'll somehow do anything differently in Australia. You could argue the market is smaller and that there's more room to maneuver but bottom line is: money trumps ideals and principles. Google actually did do some grand standing in China like a decade ago but it hurt too much economically so as we all know: they're trying to get right back in. As long as whatever issue this causes for the company is contained within the offending market, they'll do it under protest.
  7. Doubt this would cause any company exodus. Money is money. Companies give zeros fucks if they can make money. In regards to backdoors I expect there to be bustling activity in the courts of Australia. Some companies will attempt to argue that any backdoor would be a systemic weakness and the government's lawyers will argue that security is like Schroedinger's cat: things can be secure while not being secure.
  8. Trixanity

    Microsoft to include Chromium in Windows 10

    What will happen to Microsoft's alleged power efficiency advantage if they go Chromium? Chrome itself isn't known to be battery friendly.
  9. Trixanity

    New Nokia flagship?

    Trypophobia. Anyway, the phone has been pushed back and will allegedly not launch at the event. It's very likely DoA anyway.
  10. Trixanity

    Nvidia misses Revenue estimate - Huang says AMD to blame

    Our cards are so much better than AMD's and consumers only want our product but because they're producing more cards for crypto we're selling less gaming cards because we sell the majority of the cards on the market and gamers want our cards. WHAT!?
  11. Trixanity

    Samsung's latest still lagging behind the iPhone

    Antutu is absolutely useless. It doesn't test much of anything. Its only use is leaking new SoC releases.
  12. That's what can make flights so scary: human error can quickly result in hundreds of deaths . Especially these maintenance issues and whether or not the aircraft is allowed to remain grounded or land shortly after take-off. I'm quite sure that money and time is a huge issue in every regard: costs money for a plane to be grounded and it takes time (therefore money) to meticulously go through everything on a plane so skipping or overlooking something due to constraints is possible and then we get to the crew noticing something and calling it in but having to take logistics of the airport, the dissatisfaction of everyone with a delayed/grounded flight etc and it seems like sometimes the call is just to try to work around any issue because in most cases it's probably a minor issue that can be fixed later. I can't imagine how many times these things happen and are usually okay so it becomes standard procedure to the point where the grey area between OK and not OK is so small that it's hard to see when you should stop everything or carry on.
  13. YouTube finally acknowledges that students exist - but only in the US; they still don't anywhere else in the world. FTFY.
  14. Modern phones (and apps) don't ask for permissions during install but as you go when required. That nobody cares isn't the same as apps suddenly having root access at will or even just having access to files. That apps can get permissions is essential to functionality. How would a file manager work if it couldn't access local storage outside of its own domain? How would a navigation app work without access to location? How would a video chat app work without access to camera and microphone? There's some sort of disconnect here. Unless you imply that apps should have a very limited scope by its very nature. Many apps don't require any permissions at all precisely because they don't need anything but what it can do within its sandbox. Conversely malicious or lazy app developers can make an app that requires all permissions available to function. However you can't even make an app now to abuse old target APIs like was previously possible because any developer making a new app needs to target Oreo as minimum (current version - 1 in essence). I wasn't aware that software bugs or privilege escalations were unique to Android? Got a source? If I'm reading this right your points boil down to: user error = insecure = unique to Android. Also, apps can have advanced functionality = bad. Finally: security issues exist on Android period. No context. That leaves the implication that it's unique to Android or at least that Android is plagued by it to a degree not seen elsewhere. My opening point implies I'm well aware of how things work. It's indicates that I'm not being disingenuous in my argument. The flaw is Android was designed to be open and to run on anything you can imagine because you can modify it to your heart's content (within reason if you want to pass Google's CTS for Play Services). That doesn't mean devices can't be updated if the ecosystem wanted to. The ecosystem being the various parties involved in each device. Locking things down limits what Google's partners can do. That limits what can be accomplished outside of Google's influence. That would make it supremely difficult for partners to add things to it and Android wouldn't have involved the way it has. It's quite evident how much the likes of Samsung and Sony (as examples) have contributed to Android. The same would not be possible at all with a closed ecosystem. At best they could develop within the parameters of whatever APIs Google would allow. The only way for Google to correct things would be dropping Android. Modifying Android itself would be a huge undertaking and takes a long time to the point where you'd risk breaking things before you actually fixed anything. In fact Fuschia seems to be a potential contender to supplant Android but I suspect they'd have to have some form of Android framework as a compatibility layer in a transition phase. You can't just abandon one million apps and the ecosystem behind it over night. Ultimately the lack of support is separate from Google. Google continues to give better and more comprehensive and easier tools to make updating a device easy. It's just a matter of throwing a few resources at the problem but OEMs would rather sell you a new phone than sinking money into a device not netting them money anymore. They don't make money off existing devices. At best their incentive is to have customer retention but I don't think the likes of Samsung has much of an issue despite the lack of timely OS updates. They do however do monthly security updates because they have enterprise customers to appease. Funnily enough the very same enterprise customers properly hate the feature updates. Maybe that's your answer. Just look at Microsoft to see how enterprise likes that. Google have some clout but not entirely. This isn't a zero sum game. They have to give partners some leeway or they'll start questioning the soundness of continuing the relationship. The Pixels aren't a success story by any means. They rely on Samsung and Huawei to secure their business model. You don't bite off the hand that feeds you. Google does slowly improve things through various initiatives but you can't do sweeping changes without pushback. I don't think anyone wants Android turning into iOS. Yes, the model you desire would pretty much put Google most of the way there. They'd have to ban a lot of stuff that makes Android good. Could Android continue to improve? Yes and it does that. Over the last 4 years a ton of changes has been made both to policies, app development and security models (and more). Just out of curiosity: was it Microsoft's fault that Lenovo, Dell and Sony installed rootkits on Windows PCs? Or was it perhaps the vendors in question? That's the crux of the problem.
  15. I have not heard of any permission or API to leave the sandbox nor have I heard of any user prompt to do so as you suggest. Unless you mean standard user permissions which require user interaction to access specific functions or data on the phone in which case: really? Giving permission to retrieve one thing is not the same as breaking the sandbox eg location permission does not give access to make phone calls or to interact with data in another app (which is why autofill required some funky workarounds to work prior to Oreo). As for any vulnerabilities: that goes for any piece of software, doesn't it? If there are any they can be exploited. Either way: some sources needed on that. It's Android specific in the sense device manufacturers using the OS but not specific to the OS itself. So if you want to use that terminology you should qualify your statement. In other words it's a cultural or a policy issue, not an OS issue as you implied. Major OS updates and security updates are not the same. Many devices receive regular security updates. Solution: buy a device that receives updates. There are problems with the update model on Android and it's clear that the OS design had some major flaws in its foundation that are hard to fix but that doesn't mean that's it's not entirely the fault of the device manufacturer. It's only inherent in the sense that manufacturers avoid their responsibility to their customers and that Google's policies and enforcement of them aren't strict enough. Essentially the complaint is that Google aren't locking it down enough which would be against the wishes of its partners. Locking it down would mean reduced ability to modify Android which many manufacturers take advantage of. Ideally Google shouldn't have to police the ecosystem when it's no longer their product (to a certain extent). Ideally the support window would be 10 years. Ideally there would be timely monthly updates and timely feature updates. One of the problems with security updates are hardware vendors not patching vulnerabilities and making them available (likewise not releasing new BSPs for feature updates). Similarly another issue on both fronts was Linux kernel support being only two years before it was discontinued. Google took it upon themselves to extend that window to six years. It takes time to test and validate a new kernel version so sticking to one and patching it helps that. Don't know why Google haven't increased their update window accordingly unless it's hardware vendors making it impossible. I'm quite sure you only have a window of like six months to release a device when a new Android version is launched before certification fails. Certainly not more than a year. While vendors know Google's schedule, it takes time to bring a product to market and delaying to validate a new feature update could be costly. It's difficult to compare Android to iOS or even Windows. Very different ecosystems. Apple has to support devices made entirely in-house and quite deep vertical integration and otherwise very controlling of their partners. They have like 30 devices and many with a shared platform to update. You have thousands of Android devices from many different vendors with many different platforms with many different modifications to core systems. I don't think I need to say much more on the topic. It's a lot more complex than people think. It was a business decision to make it so open. Both consumers and developers are paying for that today. However it's a double edged sword. The very same are arguing that they like for device manufacturers to modify the OS.