• SavvyWolf@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    They 100% would stop you if they could.

    It’s why Google’s website DRM thing was so scary.

  • gbzm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I actually heard something about that in class not long ago

    The story is that Android’s security heavily relies on the compartmentalization of apps that lives in the android layer, over the Linux kernel. Apparently, that functionality works in part because only this layer can perform operations that require root access, no app or user can. So software that allows you to root your phone apparently breaks this requirement, and makes the whole OS insecure. He even heavily implied that one should never root their phone with ‘free’ software found on the internet because that was usually a front for some nefarious shit regarding your data.

    I’m just parroting a half-understood and half-remebered speech from a security expert. His credentials were impressive but I have no ability to judge that critically, if anyone knows more about this feel free to correct me.

    • johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Isn’t saying that allowing apps to have root lets them access anything just describing what root is? A rooted phone doesn’t have to give superuser access to every app.

    • superfes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I wouldn’t even feel compelled to root my phones if Google would actually back up my phone instead of whatever 1/4 baked shit they’ve done thus far.

      • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’ve been using android since 2010, and it’s gotten significantly better over the years. There’s only a few things it doesn’t back up, like text messages and app data, most of which you don’t need.

  • UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    The reason is very simple: They rely on Google Safetynet (basically self-diagnosis). And that will immediately tell you off if it notices your device is rooted. And while you can have a lengthy discussion regarding whether this makes your phone less secure or not, this is another simple argument from Google’s POV: The device has obviously been tampered with, we don’t want to put any resources into covering this case. As far as we are concerned, you shouldn’t use our OS like this.

    So basically laziness.

    • huginn@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      SafetyNet is dead.

      They rely on Play Integrity API.

      That covers:

      App Binary signatures App source corroboration - Was it actually installed from the Play Store? Android device attestation - Is it a genuine device powered by Google Play Services Malware detection - Google Play Protect is enabled and has not seen known malware signatures.

      They can choose to ignore any number of those but they do not. It’s part of their security reporting requirements to use attestation I expect.

      Beyond that - a device that doesn’t meet Play Integrity is more likely to be a malicious actor than it is to be a tech enthusiast with a rooted phone: One of them is far more prevalent than the other in terms of device usage.

      Android apps are trivial to reverse engineer, inject code into and generally manipulate. That lets apps like ReVanced work the way they do… but that also means that blue team developers have a lot more work to do to protect app code.

      Source - Android App Developer, worked on apps with high level security audits (like banking apps).

  • cley_faye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Because they want to “protect” you from “yourself”. Imagine, you could scrape your own data that you can already see.

    I’d be really worried if the security of server operation for my bank depended on the client-side. But playing devils advocate, some people will most likely point out that a root exploit on a phone may be unintentional and used to spy on people, to which I answer:

    • show me a big scary box where I can “accept the risk” and move on
    • keep in mind that if I am root on my phone, I can hide the fact that I am root on my phone and you’ll be none the wiser

    Currently, option 2 is in effect, sadly.

    • eluvatar@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      The issue with option one is that scammers get old (or not technical) people to do stuff when they don’t know what they’re doing and click the box not knowing what they just did. So yes very frequently they need to protect people from themselves because they’re dumb, but I still expect banks to do business with those dumb people, sooo… Option 2 it is.

        • iso@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I think I just figured it out, hang on with me.

          It’d be the tech literate person in the family. The nephew that’s working as a programmer or something like that. Now, if that nephew has some interest in stealing their uncles money, they now have access to their bank account through a freely rooted phone.

          This gives them a lot of options, which I don’t have to explain.

          Given that a lot of scams actually happen between presumed family and friends…

          Yeah I kinda get why banks are doing this