RemixOS -- Android for the PC
-
@Kelly said:
@johnhooks said:
@Kelly said:
@johnhooks said:
@Kelly said:
@johnhooks said:
@Kelly said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Not really, Google doesn't own the Android code and cannot really enforce anything. Anything they put in, someone else can remove. Google oversees the ecosystem but has no means of enforcing control.
True, but they can do more to influence and guide Android than any other single organization. Given the number of security flaws that occur in the Nexus lines they are not doing well enough to put any pressure on the OEMs. If they started marketing Nexus as the most secure Android (and made it so) platform, then there could be pushback from the marketplace.
What security flaws in the nexus line? They're the most secure of all of them. They get the updates immediately and constantly. It's the others who need to rely on carriers that are less secure.
Most secure does not equal secure
That is my point. Google does fix a lot of vulnerabilities, but they don't always fix them as promptly as they seem to expect others to.I get monthly security updates on my Nexus, that's pretty prompt. What current vulnerabilities for the Nexus line are you referring to?
The most recent one is Stagefright: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagefright_(bug).
That's been patched on the Nexus. I guess my point is, you know which vulnerabilities are on android because people can view the source. What vulnerabilities are on IOS or WP? Who knows?
I'm happy you're happy with your Android experience. I'm not making these comments for the sake of tearing Android/Google down and promoting another platform. I want to see Android become better. Yes, Google does a decent job for the most part with patching vulnerabilities in a reasonable timeframe. This isn't about "compared to Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, Citrix, etc." This is in a timely fashion to reduce the attack surface on their devices. I don't ever want to hold a technology vendor to a relative security standard. That sets the bar way too low.
I didn't mean for it to sound like you were tearing them down. It was just this line I was disagreeing with:
If they started marketing Nexus as the most secure Android (and made it so) platform, then there could be pushback from the marketplace.
I was saying it already is, and could possibly be more secure than the other platforms, we have no real way of knowing. I think there is a big push back already though. Look at the other companies like Blu, who are giving you stock android on a great phone for $350.
-
@johnhooks said:
@Kelly said:
@johnhooks said:
@Kelly said:
@johnhooks said:
@Kelly said:
@johnhooks said:
@Kelly said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Not really, Google doesn't own the Android code and cannot really enforce anything. Anything they put in, someone else can remove. Google oversees the ecosystem but has no means of enforcing control.
True, but they can do more to influence and guide Android than any other single organization. Given the number of security flaws that occur in the Nexus lines they are not doing well enough to put any pressure on the OEMs. If they started marketing Nexus as the most secure Android (and made it so) platform, then there could be pushback from the marketplace.
What security flaws in the nexus line? They're the most secure of all of them. They get the updates immediately and constantly. It's the others who need to rely on carriers that are less secure.
Most secure does not equal secure
That is my point. Google does fix a lot of vulnerabilities, but they don't always fix them as promptly as they seem to expect others to.I get monthly security updates on my Nexus, that's pretty prompt. What current vulnerabilities for the Nexus line are you referring to?
The most recent one is Stagefright: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagefright_(bug).
That's been patched on the Nexus. I guess my point is, you know which vulnerabilities are on android because people can view the source. What vulnerabilities are on IOS or WP? Who knows?
I'm happy you're happy with your Android experience. I'm not making these comments for the sake of tearing Android/Google down and promoting another platform. I want to see Android become better. Yes, Google does a decent job for the most part with patching vulnerabilities in a reasonable timeframe. This isn't about "compared to Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, Citrix, etc." This is in a timely fashion to reduce the attack surface on their devices. I don't ever want to hold a technology vendor to a relative security standard. That sets the bar way too low.
I didn't mean for it to sound like you were tearing them down. It was just this line I was disagreeing with:
If they started marketing Nexus as the most secure Android (and made it so) platform, then there could be pushback from the marketplace.
I was saying it already is, and could possibly be more secure than the other platforms, we have no real way of knowing. I think there is a big push back already though. Look at the other companies like Blu, who are giving you stock android on a great phone for $350.
Fair enough. I'll concede that point to you. Nexus is the most secure version of Android at this point.
-
@Kelly said:
I get that you're happy with your phone and Nexus @johnhooks. That is fine with me. I have my platform preference, and I'm happy to explain what it is and why, but I don't think it is germane to this discussion.
Actually I think it is germane. What makes any platform potentially more secure than the Nexus (again assuming that all code it comes with from the factory is 100% open source)?
-
I feel like we've had this discussion before. What makes open source fundamentally more secure than closed source? The fact that more eyes can be on it? But like my example of Open SSL, it was out there, for 15 years, and no one looked at it, at least, no one reported it.
For that case I'd argue that closed source is more secure because at least you have to hack on it to find the problems, with open source, you can go digging for problems in the code directly, and then exploit them.
It's probably a tit for tat type thing.
-
@Dashrender said:
I feel like we've had this discussion before. What makes open source fundamentally more secure than closed source? The fact that more eyes can be on it? But like my example of Open SSL, it was out there, for 15 years, and no one looked at it, at least, no one reported it.
What you are missing is that that example in no way whatsoever disputes the point that open source is more secure. Open source is simply a more secure method. There is no means of disputing it with examples. It covers every possible means of making closed source secure and adds more. No number of examples are relevant.
-
@Dashrender said:
For that case I'd argue that closed source is more secure because at least you have to hack on it to find the problems, with open source, you can go digging for problems in the code directly, and then exploit them.
That's not the correct logical assumption. People have access to the code of closed source, just not the right people.
-
@Dashrender said:
It's probably a tit for tat type thing.
Not really. Open source is critical for good security. Closed source is fundamentally abhorrent to security.
-
Any argument that closed source has a benefit, is simply a rewording of a belief in security through obscurity. If you want to argue that obscurity is the premier security methodology, do so openly discussing it as obscurity. Trying to hide it in a discussion of closed source is misleading and confusing.
Unless you disagree with the idea that obscurity is the enemy of security and that security through obscurity is a myth, then I don't see how closed source could be seen as in any way logically security minded.
-
@Dashrender said:
I feel like we've had this discussion before. What makes open source fundamentally more secure than closed source? The fact that more eyes can be on it? But like my example of Open SSL, it was out there, for 15 years, and no one looked at it, at least, no one reported it.
For that case I'd argue that closed source is more secure because at least you have to hack on it to find the problems, with open source, you can go digging for problems in the code directly, and then exploit them.
It's probably a tit for tat type thing.
What if the shoe was on the other foot. What if it heartbleed was closed source developed by Microsoft? Would it have been fixed, and how long would it have taken to be fixed?
With heartbleed it was discovered and patched in the same day, and you could update immediately. Would Microsoft send out an update immediately or would you have to wait until patch tuesday?
-
I agree that security through obscurity is a myth.
And that Open Source proves everything closed does plus more.
-
@johnhooks said:
What if the shoe was on the other foot. What if it heartbleed was closed source developed by Microsoft? Would it have been fixed, and how long would it have taken to be fixed?
With heartbleed it was discovered and patched in the same day, and you could update immediately. Would Microsoft send out an update immediately or would you have to wait until patch tuesday?
More importantly... how often HAS THIS HAPPENED and we weren't told? How many times were these same vulnerabilities or ones like them fixed or even ignored internally with closed source?
The idea that open source being open with vulnerabilities and reporting them being bad is way off base. It highlights just how security open source is, not how bad it is. It shows how much risk we are under from closed source not needing to tell us things like this.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
What if the shoe was on the other foot. What if it heartbleed was closed source developed by Microsoft? Would it have been fixed, and how long would it have taken to be fixed?
With heartbleed it was discovered and patched in the same day, and you could update immediately. Would Microsoft send out an update immediately or would you have to wait until patch tuesday?
More importantly... how often HAS THIS HAPPENED and we weren't told? How many times were these same vulnerabilities or ones like them fixed or even ignored internally with closed source?
The idea that open source being open with vulnerabilities and reporting them being bad is way off base. It highlights just how security open source is, not how bad it is. It shows how much risk we are under from closed source not needing to tell us things like this.
And how many times have they been fixed within another patch. You have to trust that the patch is what they tell you it is. Why couldn't they say KB800348 fixes an error in MS Paint when it's actually "oh we accidentally hardcoded leaving port 3389 open?"
-
Here's another good example:
-
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
What if the shoe was on the other foot. What if it heartbleed was closed source developed by Microsoft? Would it have been fixed, and how long would it have taken to be fixed?
With heartbleed it was discovered and patched in the same day, and you could update immediately. Would Microsoft send out an update immediately or would you have to wait until patch tuesday?
More importantly... how often HAS THIS HAPPENED and we weren't told? How many times were these same vulnerabilities or ones like them fixed or even ignored internally with closed source?
The idea that open source being open with vulnerabilities and reporting them being bad is way off base. It highlights just how security open source is, not how bad it is. It shows how much risk we are under from closed source not needing to tell us things like this.
And how many times have they been fixed within another patch. You have to trust that the patch is what they tell you it is. Why couldn't they say KB800348 fixes an error in MS Paint when it's actually "oh we accidentally hardcoded leaving port 3389 open?"
Does that really matter?
The days of picking and choosing what updates to install seem over. you should install them all. At least if they are security updates, boy I hope they aren't lying about that!
-
@Dashrender said:
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
What if the shoe was on the other foot. What if it heartbleed was closed source developed by Microsoft? Would it have been fixed, and how long would it have taken to be fixed?
With heartbleed it was discovered and patched in the same day, and you could update immediately. Would Microsoft send out an update immediately or would you have to wait until patch tuesday?
More importantly... how often HAS THIS HAPPENED and we weren't told? How many times were these same vulnerabilities or ones like them fixed or even ignored internally with closed source?
The idea that open source being open with vulnerabilities and reporting them being bad is way off base. It highlights just how security open source is, not how bad it is. It shows how much risk we are under from closed source not needing to tell us things like this.
And how many times have they been fixed within another patch. You have to trust that the patch is what they tell you it is. Why couldn't they say KB800348 fixes an error in MS Paint when it's actually "oh we accidentally hardcoded leaving port 3389 open?"
Does that really matter?
The days of picking and choosing what updates to install seem over. you should install them all. At least if they are security updates, boy I hope they aren't lying about that!
It matters when you start pointing out open source reports. Because the closed source ones don't get reported. So pointing out an open source one forces us to discuss all the ways that this can be buried in the closed source world.
-
Downloaded, unzipped, created USB didn't boot lol.
Will have a play later -
The thing is, you should have reacted to OpenSSH announcing the bug with these thoughts:
- Damn, software is hard and any software could have massive bugs that no one has seen yet!
- It's so awesome that this is open source and this wasn't hidden from the end users!
- Open source is amazing, this was announce and fixed the same day!
- OMG, imagine if this was closed source, we'd be in so much danger!
-
@Dashrender said:
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
What if the shoe was on the other foot. What if it heartbleed was closed source developed by Microsoft? Would it have been fixed, and how long would it have taken to be fixed?
With heartbleed it was discovered and patched in the same day, and you could update immediately. Would Microsoft send out an update immediately or would you have to wait until patch tuesday?
More importantly... how often HAS THIS HAPPENED and we weren't told? How many times were these same vulnerabilities or ones like them fixed or even ignored internally with closed source?
The idea that open source being open with vulnerabilities and reporting them being bad is way off base. It highlights just how security open source is, not how bad it is. It shows how much risk we are under from closed source not needing to tell us things like this.
And how many times have they been fixed within another patch. You have to trust that the patch is what they tell you it is. Why couldn't they say KB800348 fixes an error in MS Paint when it's actually "oh we accidentally hardcoded leaving port 3389 open?"
Does that really matter?
The days of picking and choosing what updates to install seem over. you should install them all. At least if they are security updates, boy I hope they aren't lying about that!
It's not that it matters in this context whether you apply the update, but whether they were forthcoming about it or not. If they say we released a patch for MS paint, you wouldn't think twice. But if they said "oh we accidentally hard coded a backup password for the admin as 12345" then you would most likely be concerned that someone had been in your system.
If that's the case, why even explain what the patches are for, just blindly accept them, and then when it breaks WSUS like it did that one time you can't do much about it, and hope they they give you another fix.
-
@Dashrender said:
@Kelly said:
I get that you're happy with your phone and Nexus @johnhooks. That is fine with me. I have my platform preference, and I'm happy to explain what it is and why, but I don't think it is germane to this discussion.
Actually I think it is germane. What makes any platform potentially more secure than the Nexus (again assuming that all code it comes with from the factory is 100% open source)?
I said that my preferred platform (never referenced relative levels of security) is not germane. Again, relative security should not be a standard we allow vendors to rest on. It doesn't matter which platform is the most secure (from the perspective of trying to be secure, not purchasing), but whether or not a specific vendor has a secure product and is continuing to secure it in a timely and proactive manner.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@Kelly said:
There aren't easy or cheap solutions, but not doing anything is worse. Maybe we should make carriers fiscally responsible for identity breaches provably caused by out of date OS versions.
How would you force the update on the phone, constant prompting, and after so many prompts it's just forced?
I'd rather suck dog farts than have my rooted Samsung phone updated automatically and go back to stock bloatware that I can't rid of.
