Big tech security
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 109 points 1 year ago (19 children)

Do they have any evidence that F-droid serves more malware than Play Store?

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 82 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I was curious of the same a few days back, and my research couldn't find a single instance of malware being distributed by the F-Droid store.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    But even if it does, what's it to them if something they have no say over affects people not using their stuff?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Oh yeah, it's bullshit that reduces user agency and choice either way, I just don't believe for one second that it will improve security as Google is claiming. Its just about control and google consolidating power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Like Bluetooth requiring location permissions?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    That's actually good since bluetooth alone can be used to estimate your location. If the app can see all other bluetooth names, thet can be correlated to other user's data where the oosition is known.

    And if you hit "pair new device", you phone will likely blast it's name out to all other bluetooth devices, givingyup it's position to any other nosy device/app.

    Same goes for wifi.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    Since they force everything to be open source and i think has strict rules, no

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (8 children)
    1. Write an open source malware
    2. Freely publish it everywhere because everyone assumes someone checked it, because it's open source, you know?
    3. ???
    4. Profit
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    That's the thing though if it's open source and 99.9% don't check that 0.1% checking it will be enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The trouble with smaller open source software is that there's no 0.1% checking it. And from time to time a small projects becomes widely used and everyone assumes someone already checked it; it's a widely used open source software, after all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I think most early users do check further than open source licenses. It's possible they'll add things later, but if they add after it has enough users we have significant number of users to have some people check. And if the user base is small then they're probably more involved, or are reading/modifying code for their use cases.

    Of course it's not foolproof, but it has worked for a long time because of things like that

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    By definition in order to have . 1% then the sample size must be greater than 1,000. The vast majority of open source projects will not get to this level.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    According to them, when they added a similar registration process and requirements for the playstore they saw a SIGNIFICANT drop on malware.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    I don't find that shocking, and to be honest, I don't really see too much of a problem with forcing people to give that information to be on the play store. But to let people make programs that run on the hardware at all is crazy. Forbidding third party app stores is the most anti competitive bullshit ever.

  • source
  • parent