this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
40 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37718 readers
545 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemy.lol/post/25062075

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

While I agree with you, the first step for user centric Android flavors regarding security is to support relocking the bootloader, with a custom (preferably the user's own) digital signature. As long as we dont have that, an attacker could flash or just boot a custom bootloader through fastboot that does its own thing.

However that doesn't really depend on Android system developers, I think, as the problem arises from the inferiority of almost every phone's bootloader (chain) (because most phones does not support setting up a custom signature for bootloader verification), and probably that can only be reasonably solved by device manufacturers, because as I understand, bootloaders do a lot of heavily device specific things, so there cant really be a common (primary) bootloader, and making one for each phone is a lot of work that also involves lots of reverse engineering, and maybe the early bootloaders cant even be overwritten on some phones..

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's kind of both Google's and manufacturers responsibility. Google has made available a Dynamic System Updates feature:

https://source.android.com/docs/core/ota/dynamic-system-updates

https://developer.android.com/topic/dsu

...but it requires manufacturer support to allow adding custom keys.

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 2 points 5 months ago

Hmm, this is interesting, it looks like if it was a multiboot solution