TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

F-Droid: how it weakens Android's security model

40 pointsby ysnpabout 3 years ago

12 comments

dTalabout 3 years ago
&gt;The issue with F-Droid is that all apps are signed by the same party (F-Droid) which is also not the developer. You’re now adding another party you’ll have to trust since you still have to trust the developer anyway<p>This is fallacious for several reason.<p>Firstly, <i>no I do not</i> &quot;have to trust the developer anyway&quot; - I can always <i>not install the app</i>. I&#x27;m not starting with an app, adding my trust of the developer, and adding my trust of F-Droid - I am starting with F-Droid, and only installing apps which F-Droid trusts, because F-Droid&#x27;s criteria for accepting apps are far more stringent than Google Play&#x27;s - more stringent even than I could feasibly audit myself.<p>Secondly, trust is not binary. Maybe I trust the developer enough to run their published source code, but not quite enough to run their precompiled binary that they might have slipped some tracking library into. Indeed this is <i>very</i> common and F-Droid strips a <i>lot</i> of such libraries. So even if we take it as a given that I am definitely going to install an app, and my only choice is between installing it from Google Play or from F-Droid, F-Droid is <i>still</i> superior because the builds on F-Droid are built from public source, and I am much more sure that F-Droid themselves won&#x27;t slip malware into the builds because they have a track record of not doing that.<p>Thirdly, Android&#x27;s default app store, Google Play, also trusts a third party by default - Google, who insist on running a tracking rootkit on your computer, which is so much more egregiously invasive than trusting any one app that it renders any comparison with F-Droid moot.
评论 #30462571 未加载
评论 #30460700 未加载
prophesiabout 3 years ago
Not to discredit the article, but it would be nice to know from the get-go that it&#x27;s written by a contributor to GrapheneOS and gives a plug to their upcoming App Repository at the end.
评论 #30460836 未加载
评论 #30461430 未加载
评论 #30461110 未加载
评论 #30462455 未加载
评论 #30461757 未加载
selfhoster11about 3 years ago
1) In the FOSS culture, there are higher standards around keeping devices functioning for longer, compared to commercial ecosystems. Enforcing a higher target SDK version improves &quot;security&quot; (whatever threat model that&#x27;s supposed to protect me against), at the cost of turning more old Android phones into e-waste. Even Android 4 phones are still usable if permanently plugged in (to counteract battery degradation), and their hardware specs are still perfectly capable of functioning as a 720p YouTube machine, an internet radio, or whatever else comes to mind.<p>2) One person&#x27;s overly broad API permissions are another person&#x27;s gateway to programming an awesomely powerful application. Having my storage API taken away for an entire Android release because &quot;hurr durr, security, we&#x27;ll fix it in the next sprint&quot; and not being able to use a file manager other than the meager thing I had included with my OS showed me how true that is.
kuschkuabout 3 years ago
Yes, you have to trust F-Droid to sign apps.<p>But that doesn&#x27;t weaken the security model — since August2021, (new) Android devs can&#x27;t sign their own apps anymore, Google holds the keys instead.<p>The security model already assumes a third party is signing the apps.
评论 #30461562 未加载
hlbjhblbljibabout 3 years ago
&gt; 3. Low target API level (SDK) for client &amp; apps<p>Yeah well Google fucked up and removed a lot of important API stuff that supported tools.<p>So I&#x27;ll continue to use termux from F-Droid. Otherwise I might as well not have a phone.
评论 #30462483 未加载
评论 #30460964 未加载
评论 #30461356 未加载
upofadownabout 3 years ago
The article links to &quot;The PGP Problem&quot; in an attempt to suggest that GPG signatures are bad somehow. Here are my comments on &quot;The PGP Problem&quot;:<p>* <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;articles.59.ca&#x2F;doku.php?id=pgpfan:tpp" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;articles.59.ca&#x2F;doku.php?id=pgpfan:tpp</a><p>The article also claims that Debian has moved away from GPG signatures. This is not true.<p>This all seems like a pointless distraction from the point that article is attempting to make...
评论 #30466307 未加载
评论 #30462501 未加载
johnx5cabout 3 years ago
F-Droid demands more trust but it is also infinitely more trustworthy than the Play store. It looks like things can be improved (a lot) and I hope it does. F-Droid provides an invaluable service to those who value privacy and open source with very few volunteers.
评论 #30461671 未加载
lucb1eabout 3 years ago
&gt; [in] a third-party Play Store client called Aurora Store [...] I’d recommend against using the shared “anonymous” accounts feature: you should make your own throwaway account with minimal information.<p>Why is that? I&#x27;ve been using the anonymous accounts because I figured sharing an account gives a lot less info to google, and we&#x27;re downloading the apks directly from Google servers in the end. Is there something I should know?
评论 #30461789 未加载
_joelabout 3 years ago
Given the amount of malware in the play store, I&#x27;m not sure about this...
评论 #30460746 未加载
616cabout 3 years ago
This is some lazy &quot;threat modeling without a threat model&quot; kind of stuff IMHO.
评论 #30510138 未加载
Friday_about 3 years ago
&quot;There&#x27;s no such thing as a system being secure, only being secure against a particular adversary.&quot;
评论 #30460511 未加载
lucb1eabout 3 years ago
&gt; [devs] have to maintain a slightly different version of their codebase that should comply with F-Droid’s requirements<p>Perhaps that&#x27;s because I&#x27;ve got half a foot in the foss community and you don&#x27;t hear a lot of &quot;fml why is f-droid so strict about not using secret code&quot;, but to me it seems much more often that people complain about Google&#x27;s policies than about F-Droid&#x27;s. Especially since F-Droid&#x27;s<p>&gt; “quality control” offers close to no guarantees<p>because there are no restrictions on things that just work with root, donation links for open source open geo data contribution platforms[1], roll your own payment scheme without giving anyone a cut, put ads in it if you like...<p>... and yet I have no qualms letting my grandma browse around f-droid but am terrified of what bank phish she might be shown in an ad after roaming the google store. Technically the author is correct here, of course, but in practice this turns out to be a total non-issue. The rules are also not set in stone if it were to become one suddenly.<p>--- (edited to add)<p>&gt; Their client also lacks TLS certificate pinning<p>As does every web browser, but somehow banking on websites seems to very rarely be intercepted? I don&#x27;t get the fuss about this and I work in the security industry. We recommend the most secure solutions, but sometimes there are trade-offs here:<p>- Historically it has been recommended to turn off autocomplete in browsers &lt;input&gt; fields. I think we all agree on that one.<p>- Historically it has been recommended to turn off backups in Android because, gee, someone could make a backup of your app data and what if that&#x27;s an attacker somehow! An auth token might get out! Nobody cares that this makes it physically impossible to backup your data at all anymore on Android (Apple is doing <i>very well</i> on that front, I am very much impressed there even if it&#x27;s not enough to make me buy into Apple by a long shot). This is one of the reasons I root my device and make fairly extensive use of it.<p>- These days it&#x27;s being recommended to use cert pinning which is a huge pain in the arms for anyone wanting to toy around with what the app does. Now in this case it&#x27;s open source anyway, but think of, uh, yeah how about what the article mentions: &quot;unlike Play Store which does that for all connections to Google&quot;. Wouldn&#x27;t it be nice if you could actually see what this app sends to Google about you? Previously you&#x27;d add a cert to your OS and you&#x27;d be good to go. Now you have to modify the compiled application: a steep learning curve for anyone not working with app pentesting on a regular basis. For a high-security app like your banking app, alright, but for most other things I (as a tech nerd, clearly, I&#x27;m not an average user) think it&#x27;s more harmful than beneficial.<p>&gt; their website has (for some reason) always been hosting an outdated APK of F-Droid, and this is still the case today<p>Part of this sentence is a link to the forum. If you actually click that link, the &quot;for some reason&quot; becomes perfectly clear: f-droid-the-apk releases are shipped whenever it is ready, there is no beta channel in that sense. Whatever is on the homepage should work for everyone with any setup, and from there you can try to upgrade. If that fails, no biggie, you can just use the older version that works. Is what the forum says. (Not that I ever had a broken f-droid version myself, so not sure how important this really is.)<p>&gt; F-Droid is not the only way to get and support open-source apps. [...] Most of the time, releases are available on GitHub, which is great since each GitHub releases page has an Atom feed.<p>Hah, the author just spent ~2800 words criticizing the liberal inclusion policy, missing api target enforcement, outdated (now slightly misleading) permission listings, lagging signature scheme update, and then concludes with &quot;just download the apk from github <i>because it has an Atom feed</i>&quot;! If only f-droid knew that this was the requirement for an endorsement by OP :D (jk)<p>No really, use f-droid instead of github please or make sure you know how to check pgp signatures and have a chain of trust to the developer somehow. Or trust microsoft&#x2F;github blindly, that&#x27;s okay too (many of your apps come from there indirectly anyhow, if I&#x27;m being fair). But as blanket advice for a source of apps? That&#x27;s... interesting in this context.<p>&gt; &gt; Should I really care?<p>&gt; If security (and privacy, as they overlap) matters to you [then yes]<p>It depends.... <i>how much</i> does security matter to you? Is this to the exclusion of all other values?<p>It&#x27;s a bit black-and-white. But then, yeah, as others said, the author works on their own security-oriented Android flavor (which is very good work by the way!).<p>[1] see &quot;un-features&quot; <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;streetcomplete&#x2F;StreetComplete&#x2F;releases&#x2F;tag&#x2F;v40.1" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;streetcomplete&#x2F;StreetComplete&#x2F;releases&#x2F;ta...</a><p>Edit: was this marked as off-topic or why is it stuck to the bottom despite upvotes? Usually neutral comments float somewhere around 2&#x2F;3rds of the page, this comment is not neutral but upvoted and is at rock bottom.
评论 #30461426 未加载
评论 #30467397 未加载