[bb10adopter111]

Yes, that's correct, but not what I was trying to say. I was referring to third party file managers, not Android itself.

Posted with my trusty Z10

Oh. NM. I think I understand you. You're saying it might not work on Nougat.

Posted with my trusty Z10

[conite]

Oh. NM. I think I understand you. You're saying it might not work on Nougat.

Posted with my trusty Z10

No, it works fine on Nougat.

I'm just saying that the latest OS builds complete the proper implementation of locker mode it seems.

AAS212 does the trick, but AAR748 apparently does not.

[bb10adopter111]

No, it works fine on Nougat.

I'm just saying that the latest OS builds complete the proper implementation of locker mode it seems.

AAS212 does the trick, but AAR748 apparently does not.

Got it. Thanks for the explanation. So, the current working theory is that it works as described at least on Nougat and Oreo with the December Android patches from BlackBerry?

I'm just trying to summarize points so others can confirm/refute.

Posted with my trusty Z10

[conite]

Got it. Thanks for the explanation. So, the current working theory is that it works as described at least on Nougat and Oreo with the December Android patches from BlackBerry?

I'm just trying to summarize points so others can confirm/refute.

Posted with my trusty Z10

Dec update on KEYᵒⁿᵉ seems good. Dec update on Motion does not.

[tickerguy]

It sounds like the "locker" is nothing more than a handful of crap modifications to the stock libc.so file on the phone (in the directory routines) and a "locker" app that has the REAL libc.so static-linked.

If true then TCL needs to be hung by its nuts and BBQd as it takes all of 30 seconds with a compiler switch for someone to compile up an app with a static-linked libc and there goes the "inability" to see the files in there.

[conite]

It sounds like the "locker" is nothing more than a handful of crap modifications to the stock libc.so file on the phone (in the directory routines) and a "locker" app that has the REAL libc.so static-linked.

If true then TCL needs to be hung by its nuts and BBQd as it takes all of 30 seconds with a compiler switch for someone to compile up an app with a static-linked libc and there goes the "inability" to see the files in there.

Leaving the technical details aside (for which you may be right or wrong), it is not marketed as an enterprise-grade secure-vault - it is marketed as keeping photos away from friends/kids when they are browsing the phone, and from automatically syncing files/photos with the cloud.

[yohannyphm]

oh my, I'll store this thread on my locker before my wife finds out.

[tickerguy]

Leaving the technical details aside (for which you may be right or wrong), it is not marketed as an enterprise-grade secure-vault - it is marketed as keeping photos away from friends/kids when they are browsing the phone, and from automatically syncing files/photos with the cloud.

Meh.

LG doesn't market their "lock" function as "enterprise grade" either (specifically, exactly how they derive their key is not explained -- at all -- nor whether it could be recovered by, say, the FBI) but their similar function in their gallery app on the V20 in fact encrypts the files using AES128-CBC which at least makes it difficult to recover the contents -- and, if the key is not derivable outside of the device and its current user context, bordering on if not into the "state actor required" realm in terms of who can compromise it.

[conite]

Meh.

LG doesn't market their "lock" function as "enterprise grade" either (specifically, exactly how they derive their key is not explained -- at all -- nor whether it could be recovered by, say, the FBI) but their similar function in their gallery app on the V20 in fact encrypts the files using AES128-CBC which at least makes it difficult to recover the contents -- and, if the key is not derivable outside of the device and its current user context, bordering on if not into the "state actor required" realm in terms of who can compromise it.

Ok, and?

[thegioman]

Leaving the technical details aside (for which you may be right or wrong), it is not marketed as an enterprise-grade secure-vault - it is marketed as keeping photos away from friends/kids when they are browsing the phone, and from automatically syncing files/photos with the cloud.

Ok, from a marketing perspective that may be true, although we were under the impression that it was more than that(hence this thread). Especially when there's an icon to access the Locker requiring your authorisation. What are we meant to think....?
I'm thinking, why bother? Basically any 3rd party file manager can access the directory.

[conite]

I'm thinking, why bother? Basically any 3rd party file manager can access the directory.

That is certainly not true on the KEYᵒⁿᵉ - nor do I suspect soon on the Motion.

Must be a bug in AAR748.

[yohannyphm]

just confirming that on my Motion with December update. ZenUi file manager can search, find and open what's on the locker APP

[Smokeaire]

That is certainly not true on the KEYᵒⁿᵉ - nor do I suspect soon on the Motion.

Yep. I can't find Locker using Solid Explorer on my KEYᵒⁿᵉ.

[thurask]

It seems that this is the case:

Motion pre-AAR748: Locker works
Motion on AAR748: Locker doesn't work
KEYone pre-AAR970: No Locker at all
KEYone post-AAR970 (except Sprint): Locker works
KEYone post-AAR970 (Sprint): No Locker at all

If TCL noticed this quick enough then the January patch for the Motion should put the tarp back over the Locker folder and restore normal function. Until then it's meaningless, only on the Motion with the December patch. The KEYone is fine.

[thegioman]

That is certainly not true on the KEYᵒⁿᵉ - nor do I suspect soon on the Motion.

Must be a bug in AAR748.

Thanks for clarifying the situation @conite. Hopefully we'll get the update very soon.

Not impressed though with BB/TCL or whoever is to blame with all of this. This was one of those sexy features that got everyone excited, with Keyone owners asking when they were going to get this feature. You would have thought they would have had it nailed down and functioning perfectly. Even Crackberry Kevin promoted the Locker facility and saw it as making the motion feel more like a BlackBerry.

[tickerguy]

Meh. This has now been demonstrated to be a cheap parlor trick rather than an actual "locker", much like putting a 15 cent "TSA" lock on your suitcase in the airport.

[conite]

Meh. This has now been demonstrated to be a cheap parlor trick rather than an actual "locker", much like putting a 15 cent "TSA" lock on your suitcase in the airport.

Still a very slick integration with the fingerprint scanner in the camera app.

This is a convenience feature, that works as advertised (apart from the AAR748 bug).

[thurask]

Does Google Photos or Dropbox or some other cloud thing pick up Locker now on AAR748, or did TCL not screw up that badly?

And, this might not be related, but AAR748 has an older version of the Files app inside it than AAQ667 (7071.0516.07.1 vs 7071.0516.08.1).

[bb10adopter111]

Still a very slick integration with the fingerprint scanner in the camera app.

This is a convenience feature, that works as advertised (apart from the AAR748 bug).

Is file encryption included at all, or is that beyond the scope of the app?

Posted with my trusty Z10

[conite]

Is file encryption included at all, or is that beyond the scope of the app?

Posted with my trusty Z10

It was never marketed as some type of secure, encrypted storage - just an integrated way to keep private selfies away from prying eyes, and preventing automated cloud syncing.

[thurask]

Is file encryption included at all, or is that beyond the scope of the app?

Posted with my trusty Z10

It's beyond scope, Locker is just security through obscurity: BlackBerry's forte.

[bb10adopter111]

Thanks, guys, for the clarification. Just so long as people understand its a "privacy lock" app, which is probably sufficient for its intended use.

Posted with my trusty Z10

[tickerguy]

Just as long as you understand that it's only "secure" against casual, zero-resource interception. It's only actual advantage (.vs. creating a directory that is excluded from search in your gallery app) is that it has a cute interface with the fingerprint scanner when you take a picture.

Unfortunately that interface leads people to believe it actually secures the files, when it does not.

[bb10adopter111]

Just as long as you understand that it's only "secure" against casual, zero-resource interception. It's only actual advantage (.vs. creating a directory that is excluded from search in your gallery app) is that it has a cute interface with the fingerprint scanner when you take a picture.

Unfortunately that interface leads people to believe it actually secures the files, when it does not.

While not encrypted it should be secure from third party file managers, and apparently is on the properly patched KEYone. Hopefully the Motion bug that allows access with a file manager will be resolved soon.

Still a casual privacy tool, but it shouldn't be quite as easy to access as it is now on the Motion.

Posted with my trusty Z10

[conite]

.vs. creating a directory that is excluded from search in your gallery app

Not just the gallery app - but EVERY app, including file managers. Not exactly trivial.

Why describe the integration as "cute" if not to be intentionally provocative? It's actually quite ingenious - not to mention convenient.