• Wispy2891@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Can someone “redpilled by corporate” explain me how this policy actually increase security?

    It’s trivial for a malware developer to pay $25 with a stolen card and a stolen id

    Look at the “verified” bots on xitter, they didn’t solve the bots problem, rather just monetized it

    • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      The vast majority of malware isn’t delivered via play store because of the existing measures and protections they have. Same reason you see very little app-store-based malware on iOS. DISCLAIMER: YES MALWARE EXISTS ON APPLE HARDWARE PLEASE DON’T SHOUT AT ME. Talking specifically about anything installed via first party stores on both platforms.

      Their main issue is this: dumb people install apks from spurious website and infect their phones. The least controllable and most pervasive factor here is the intelligence and knowledge of the user which cannot be controlled for by Google. So by eliminating the ability to exploit this entirely, it will eliminate that specific vector.

      It’s a sledgehammer solution that naturally comes with many downsides like disrupting intelligent and knowledgeable users that just want to hack around with FOSS and such.

      Google is relying on It being too expensive for malware creators to have to guide each individual user through adb installation and usage process just to get access to their phone. Most scammers only do that level of interaction to extract actual cash/gift cards from the target.

      I am personally and directly affected by their decision in many negative ways, but I’m not so dense as to not understand why they’re doing it.

      /corpodronespeak

      EDIT: bots help Xitter maintain inflated usage figures which justify people’s jobs, share prices, etc. Bots are a feature, not a bug.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        53 minutes ago

        Their main issue is this: dumb people install apks from spurious website

        No they don’t. Most people don’t even know what an apk even is.

        • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 minutes ago

          Most people don’t know what a bootloader is. They still turn their devices on and off every day.

          This whole conversation is about adding obstacles to prevent non technical users from doing things they don’t fully understand.

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            19 minutes ago

            The overwhelming majority of Android users don’t even know where to start to install software outside of the Play Store. If they’re even aware that it’s possible.

            • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 minute ago

              Yes you’re right. If they knew, it would likely come with the knowledge that, if someone asks you to do this, you’re probably being scammed.

              That’s what makes them most vulnerable to these kinds of scams.

      • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        yes, of course malware is distributed via apk.

        But what’s the difference between:

        1. malware that is signed anonymously and then, when its signature is identified, it’s removed via play protect
        2. malware that is signed with a stolen identity and then, when its signature is identified, it’s removed via play protect

        ?

        Isn’t exactly the same stuff? Or there’s someone that is actually thinking that criminals will use their real ID card for the verification?

        Does not change anything for malware distribution, except bother them for a dozen minutes meanwhile they “verify” their stolen ID

        • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Because it can be invalidated. That’s the difference.

          It’s absolutely not foolproof, but nothing is. Most actions corps take for this stuff only slows down the spread. Hackers and bad actors innovate way faster than companies can keep up with. So companies cast a wide net with their solutions. And the cycle continues.

    • Reginald_T_Biter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I presume they are implying that the play store review process will catch compromised apps? Not likely considering how many dodgy apps have been found on play store. It’s just another controlling act.

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Google is doing this to comply with EU regulations supposed to increase security. Now imagine that Google was pushing back against this instead of complying. As per usual, Lemmy would be up in arms against Google for failing to protect people’s data and not complying with our laws and culture. You’d be downvoted to oblivion for asked that question and called a corporate bootlicker.

      I think these rules come from German legal culture, which traditionally has a strong need to control information exchange and processing.

      • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        the way they originally phrased it, it was seemingly because of authoritarian governments like singapore wanting to exert more control (hey google, can you revoke the certificate or doxx this dev for us?) and then they realized that they could make more money if they extended this block worldwide

    • FreedomAdvocate
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      I would assume that you won’t just be able to register with a stolen id and stolen card.

      • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        if scammers can open a bank account with stolen identities, i’d assume google, which is entirely run by bots without any human oversight, wouldn’t have a better detection

        • FreedomAdvocate
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          39 minutes ago

          You don’t think Google have better tech than banks?

          Oh boy. You have no idea how old and bad the underlying tech that banks work on is.