• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Android 9 is the oldest Android version that is getting safety updates. It's worth mentioning that their website has (for some reason) at all times been hosting an outdated APK of F-Droid, and this is still the case today, leading to many customers questioning why they can’t install F-Droid on their secondary person profile (because of the downgrade prevention enforced by Android). "Stability" seems to be the main cause talked about on their half, which doesn’t make sense: both your version isn’t able to be published in a stable channel, or it's and new customers should be able to access it simply. There is little practical reason for developers not to extend the target SDK version (targetSdkVersion) along with every Android release. That they had this imaginative and prescient of every object in the computer being represented as a shell object, so there can be a seamless intermix between information, paperwork, system components, you identify it. Building and signing whereas reusing the package name (application ID) is unhealthy apply because it causes signature verification errors when some customers try to update/install these apps from different sources, even immediately from the developer. F-Droid should enforce the method of prefixing the package deal name of their alternate builds with org.f-droid for example (or add a .fdroid suffix as some have already got).

As a matter of truth, the new unattended update API added in API degree 31 (Android 12) that permits seamless app updates for app repositories without privileged entry to the system (such an method will not be compatible with the security model) won’t work with F-Droid "as is". It seems the official F-Droid consumer doesn’t care a lot about this because it lags behind fairly a bit, focusing on the API degree 25 (Android 7.1) of which some SELinux exceptions had been proven above. While some improvements may simply be made, I don’t think F-Droid is in an ideal scenario to solve all of these issues as a result of a few of them are inherent flaws in their architecture. While displaying a list of low-level permissions might be useful data for a developer, it’s usually a misleading and inaccurate approach for the top-person. This simply appears to be an over-engineered and flawed method since better suited tools comparable to signify might be used to sign the metadata JSON. Ideally, F-Droid should totally move on to newer signature schemes, and will completely part out the legacy signature schemes which are still being used for some apps and metadata. On that notice, it's also value noting the repository metadata format isn’t properly signed by missing whole-file signing and key rotation.

This page summarises key documents regarding the oversight framework for the efficiency of the IANA features. This permission list can only be accessed by taping "About this app" then "App permissions - See more" at the bottom of the web page. To be fair, these quick summaries used to be offered by the Android documentation years ago, however the permission model has drastically evolved since then and most of them aren’t correct anymore. Kanhai Jewels labored for years to domesticate the rich collections of such beautiful conventional jewellery. On account of this philosophy, https://youtu.be/qRXSqV35r6I the principle repository of F-Droid is filled with out of date apps from another period, only for these apps to be able to run on the greater than ten years old Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich. In brief, F-Droid downplayed the issue with their deceptive permission labels, and their lead developer proceeded to name the Android permission mannequin a "dumpster fire" and claim that the operating system can not sandbox untrusted apps whereas nonetheless remaining helpful. While these clients is perhaps technically higher, they’re poorly maintained for some, and additionally they introduce yet one more get together to the combination.

Backward compatibility is commonly the enemy of safety, and whereas there’s a middle-ground for comfort and obsolescence, it shouldn’t be exaggerated. Some low-stage permissions don’t also have a safety/privacy affect and shouldn’t be misinterpreted as having one. Since Android 6, apps must request the usual permissions at runtime and don't get them simply by being installed, so displaying all the "under the hood" permissions with out proper context just isn't helpful and makes the permission model unnecessarily complicated. Play Store will tell the app might request entry to the next permissions: this sort of wording is more important than it appears. After that, Glamour will have the same earnings progress as Smokestack, earning $7.40/share. This can be a mere pattern of the SELinux exceptions that must be made on older API ranges so that you could perceive why it issues. On Android, a better SDK stage means you’ll be ready to utilize trendy API ranges of which every iteration brings security and privateness improvements.