[cgk]

XDA developers has some discussion about what 6.0 requires OEMs to do if they want to comply with King Google's wishes.

The whole article is interesting but the bit that catches my eye is:

Pre-Installed Apps can’t Bypass Permission Management

If you’ve already updated to Android Marshmallow on a Nexus device, you might be wondering why apps like Google Calendar need to request permission to access your calendar. Can’t that just be granted by default? Sure, it might make sense, but you have to remember that Google can’t go around pre-granting crucial permissions to each and every app that you think should be “trusted.” And Google can’t exactly afford to play favorites with any OEMs. Plus, it pays off for permission management to be so transparent. You’ll be training consumers to look out for permissions by introducing them to the concept from the very first apps they’re likely to interact with. From the CDD:Permissions Management

9.1 Permissions

Permissions with a protection level of dangerous are runtime permissions. Applications with targetSdkVersion > 22 request them at runtime. Device implementations:

MUST show a dedicated interface for the user to decide whether to grant the requested runtime permissions and also provide an interface for the user to manage runtime permissions

MUST have one and only one implementation of both user interfaces

MUST NOT grant any runtime permissions to preinstalled apps unless: the user’s consent can be obtained before the application uses it or the runtime permissions are associated with an intent pattern for which the preinstalled application is set as the default handler.

Google is being very strict here. Any apps which target SDK 23 and above (ie. apps made for Marshmallow) must provide an interface to grant/deny permissions on runtime. The only time a permission can be granted without user consent is if the user sets that application to be the default for that specific action (basically, if you set Google Calendar to be the default handler for Calendar events, you’re giving it permission to access your Calendar).

That implications for DTEK right? and also the user can switch off all of the BBRY apps.

[Ukemochi]

Sounds about right.

Posted via CB10

[mavsguy842]

That's how it should be, in my opinion. If someone wants a Priv but doesn't want to use dtek or the hub; that seems ridiculous but why would BlackBerry care? The only issue I can see is if someone gets compromised and they weren't using BlackBerry's security protections, BlackBerry will have to explain that the way Apple had to explain the I cloud hacks were because of people's ****ty passwords, etc. not a flaw in icloud.

Posted via CB10

[cgk]

That's how it should be, in my opinion. If someone wants a Priv but doesn't want to use dtek or the hub; that seems ridiculous but why would BlackBerry care? The only issue I can see is if someone gets compromised and they weren't using BlackBerry's security protections, BlackBerry will have to explain that the way Apple had to explain the I cloud hacks were because of people's ****ty passwords, etc. not a flaw in icloud.

Posted via CB10

The gap there is closing all the time anyway, Android 6.0 requires encryption out of the box, we know the nexus 6 ships with an hardware efuse to detect rooting and google are hardening the kernel. I've mentioned this before, this is the other reason Chen is getting into Android, he realises that within a few years, security on android is going to be 'good enough' for a lot of his existing user base...

[6stringriffs]

All academic at this point. Cause we don't when this Slider will receive the Marshmallow update, especially with a carrier blocking the way.

[skibnik]

All academic at this point. Cause we don't when this Slider will receive the Marshmallow update, especially with a carrier blocking the way.

Which is why I'm buying directly from Blackberry an unlocked device.

[skibnik]

That's how it should be, in my opinion. If someone wants a Priv but doesn't want to use dtek or the hub; that seems ridiculous but why would BlackBerry care? The only issue I can see is if someone gets compromised and they weren't using BlackBerry's security protections, BlackBerry will have to explain that the way Apple had to explain the I cloud hacks were because of people's ****ty passwords, etc. not a flaw in icloud.

Posted via CB10

Actually the flaw in the Icloud was caused by Apple not preventing brute-force attacks on its servers.