I mean, that is saying in effect that the user is a security liability, that rights should be withheld from the user because they can’t be trusted.
This is literally true when dealing with cyber security. And always will be.
And, no, throwing up some scary warning does not magically fix anything. If root access exists - at all - that creates an extreme vulnerability to any kind of malware.
You want Android that is secure? Then say goodbye to root access. You want root access? Then you don’t have a secure OS on your phone.
There is no middle ground. Just doesn’t work that way, sorry.
This is only true with an embarrassingly coarse threat model.
Yes, every avenue that allows a user access in theory allows a hacker possible access. But the entire point of security is to create access that is as close to seamless for the user and as close to impermeable for the hacker as possible.
Think of the physical world. We secure a literal bank vault against thieves, customers and even employees with different threat and access models while officers and executives retain “root” access.
If you simply use an access and threat model that treats the user as a hacker, it’s both lazy and undermines the basic purpose of security. It’s just encasing the bank vault door in concrete.
But I don’t think you even realize what you’re arguing - you’re not advocating that nobody gets root access. You’re advocating that the phone or OS maker gets root access while the user does not. You really are saying we can’t own our phones rather than than we can’t secure them.
This is literally true when dealing with cyber security. And always will be.
And, no, throwing up some scary warning does not magically fix anything. If root access exists - at all - that creates an extreme vulnerability to any kind of malware.
You want Android that is secure? Then say goodbye to root access. You want root access? Then you don’t have a secure OS on your phone.
There is no middle ground. Just doesn’t work that way, sorry.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is only true with an embarrassingly coarse threat model.
Yes, every avenue that allows a user access in theory allows a hacker possible access. But the entire point of security is to create access that is as close to seamless for the user and as close to impermeable for the hacker as possible.
Think of the physical world. We secure a literal bank vault against thieves, customers and even employees with different threat and access models while officers and executives retain “root” access.
If you simply use an access and threat model that treats the user as a hacker, it’s both lazy and undermines the basic purpose of security. It’s just encasing the bank vault door in concrete.
But I don’t think you even realize what you’re arguing - you’re not advocating that nobody gets root access. You’re advocating that the phone or OS maker gets root access while the user does not. You really are saying we can’t own our phones rather than than we can’t secure them.