• notfromhere@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    That goes for unrooted phones as well. The danger with rooting a phone comes from the automated software that is doing the initial rooting. It could install anything in there and the user would be none the wiser. Once it’s rooted and permissions are requested via the superuser app, it’s not any more dangerous than a non-rooted phone, assuming nothing malicious was installed during the rooting process, that is.

    • evo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Once it’s rooted and permissions are requested via the superuser app

      And you expect this piece of community software (that is often closed source to avoid detection by safetynet) is perfect? Never had any bugs or exploits?

      it’s not any more dangerous than a non-rooted phone

      The SU software itself is an attack vector. One with the ultimate payoff (root access). When you root the device you install a window in what was otherwise a solid wall. It is inherently less secure and I can’t understand how a knowledgeable person would argue otherwise.

      • notfromhere@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I agree with what you’re saying, but all software is insecure and it should be up to the user what their risk tolerance is. Instead, users’ control of their equipment is whittled down and before long the only choice will be deal with it or don’t play. Pinephone comes to mind as a phone with root access that is somewhat secure, but it also has latent vulnerabilities that could be exploited as its version of sudo is also an attack vector. Everything is a trade off especially in software/tech.

        • evo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          but all software is insecure and it should be up to the user what their risk tolerance is

          Yes. And app developers/companies should in turn do the same. A banking app and a lemmy app probably don’t have the same security requirements. Each needs to apply the appropriate security constraints, and if that means not allowing rooted decices that’s fair imo.

      • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        SU software has been a thing for about as long as android about 20 years or about. Has otherwise legitimate su been a source of unattended exploiting?

        The obvious risk factors are that users shall be tricked into granting inappropriate permissions to otherwise malicious or compromised software that they have deliberately installed. Outside of mobile platforms this is considered an acceptable risk that competent users can consistently successfully manage on their own hardware.

        In fact if you look at actual users even those with very limited technical know how the primary thing that

        The secondary risk is that users with no legit source of tools to root