[Branta]

I am not sure but would app permissions and dtek work with system level apps (Google play services)?

IIRC any "preloaded" software is exempt from scrutiny by DTEK. That would allow anything installed in/with the OS to do whatever Google designed it to do.

[RichardHBB]

Would be nice to see functionality similar to the old Zonealarm (Windows) firewall, where any app that attempted to communicate through the internet raises a flag, then you can choose to allow/disallow or to always prompt; once you've made a setting for allow/disallow it won't alert you anymore for that app. If DTEK has that functionality for app permissions, it would be a beautiful thing.

Richard

[howarmat]

IIRC any "preloaded" software is exempt from scrutiny by DTEK. That would allow anything installed in/with the OS to do whatever Google designed it to do.

yes that is true. It has been mention its for "3rd party apps" but im wondering if you would be able to set it for other apps yourself perhaps

[Ihauntu2]

IIRC any "preloaded" software is exempt from scrutiny by DTEK. That would allow anything installed in/with the OS to do whatever Google designed it to do.

I hope that isn't the case. VZW pre loads all sorts of crapware on its phones that I'd want DTEK looking at.

I'd hope the crapware including VZW services is treated as 3rd Party in this set up.

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android

[Kwms]

Read this article earlier today. You ever get the feeling that BlackBerry is lurking around the CB forums a lot more than we give them credit for?

Posted via CB10

I would say the opposite is actually true. They are actually executing on a well thought out plan; almost daily info/insight, seeding stories from different tech blogs, marketing (that's starting out both focused and small, yet controversial to die hard fans{think memes} that will no doubt grow into a bigger push closer and after launch) etc. All this to me means they aim to avoid any major debacle upon launch.

Folks here are just too impatient & know-it-alls. Sit back, watch & enjoy the ride.

Posted via CB10

[Toodeurep]

I would say the opposite is actually true. They are actually executing on a well thought out plan; almost daily info/insight, seeding stories from different tech blogs, marketing (that's starting out both focused and small, yet controversial to die hard fans{think memes} that will no doubt grow into a bigger push closer and after launch) etc. All this to me means they aim to avoid any major debacle upon launch.

Folks here are just too impatient & know-it-alls. Sit back, watch & enjoy the ride.

Posted via CB10

I was 100% sure of this methodology the last 3 launches. Now, I am only 50/50. I hope you are right.

[cgk]

yes that is true. It has been mention its for "3rd party apps" but im wondering if you would be able to set it for other apps yourself perhaps

Since Google has to give the sign-off and we know in the past they are very interested in how OEM apps interfere or impact their ability to collect data I would be surprised if its allow to interfere with core GAPPS in any way.

[00stryder]

I would say the opposite is actually true. They are actually executing on a well thought out plan; almost daily info/insight, seeding stories from different tech blogs, marketing (that's starting out both focused and small, yet controversial to die hard fans{think memes} that will no doubt grow into a bigger push closer and after launch) etc. All this to me means they aim to avoid any major debacle upon launch.

Folks here are just too impatient & know-it-alls. Sit back, watch & enjoy the ride.

Posted via CB10

More so the fact that this thread was started and people had specific questions that were then answered in the blog post, relatively soon after this thread was first opened.

Posted via CB10

[bmercer94]

this reminds me of the CyanogenMod/CyanogenOS "Privacy Guard" I had available on my OnePlus device. It's nice for controlling battery hogs, but the notification bothers me constantly being there. if it's hidden from the bar itself, I wouldn't mind as much.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

I hope that isn't the case. VZW pre loads all sorts of crapware on its phones that I'd want DTEK looking at.

I'd hope the crapware including VZW services is treated as 3rd Party in this set up.

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android

I guess I'm fortunate... think it took me two minutes to delete the three preloaded apps on my Z10 that Verizon preloaded. I actually use the My Verizon app, which doesn't seem to have any services or run in the background.

[Ihauntu2]

I guess I'm fortunate... think it took me two minutes to delete the three preloaded apps on my Z10 that Verizon preloaded. I actually use the My Verizon app, which doesn't seem to have any services or run in the background.

You're very fortunate. My Note 3 came loaded with all sorts of bs that you can't remove becaue Android reads them as "System Apps" . A lot of that is Samsung's fault as well.

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

You're very fortunate. My Note 3 came loaded with all sorts of bs that you can't remove becaue Android reads them as "System Apps" . A lot of that is Samsung's fault as well.

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android

So no root access.... no getting rid of Carrier Apps? Do any of those actually run in the background? Or is simple hiding the icon enough for out of sight out of mind?

[Kwms]

More so the fact that this thread was started and people had specific questions that were then answered in the blog post, relatively soon after this thread was first opened.

Posted via CB10

Everything being posted is already prepped. They are just pulling the trigger on specific parts bit by bit.

I'm glad they are executing this well. Well done Blackberry.

Posted via CB10

[ToniCipriani]

Attachment 377653

You can turn off, or customize what ever you want. I don't think BB want to annoy you, they just offer a solution.

So in other words, BlackBerry's Android version of this:

[Ihauntu2]

So no root access.... no getting rid of Carrier Apps? Do any of those actually run in the background? Or is simple hiding the icon enough for out of sight out of mind?

No root. Root is possible, but the process is ridiculous & voids warranty if detected.

The apps do run & can't be disabled.

My ultimate fear is that VZW is going to load Priv with crapware & I won't be able to eliminate it.

Root will be nearly impossible on Priv. I expect it to be similar to DROID 4 encryption problems.

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android

[Elephant_Canyon]

It seems to me, from the official description, that DTEK doesn't actually block anything. It just tells you what apps are using what data, and when. While this information is somewhat useful, it's not as useful as being able to selectively disable permissions for specific apps, like you can with Android 6 or iOS.

So tell me, what security advantage does DTEK give Blackberry over phones running newer versions of Android?

[conite]

It seems to me, from the official description, that DTEK doesn't actually block anything. It just tells you what apps are using what data, and when. While this information is somewhat useful, it's not as useful as being able to selectively disable permissions for specific apps, like you can with Android 6 or iOS.

So tell me, what security advantage does DTEK give Blackberry over phones running newer versions of Android?

Well, if you've been alerted that suddenly your recipe program is wanting to use your location services in the middle of the afternoon, you can decide to turn off that permission or delete the app if it makes you uncomfortable.

No one wants to make the phone so tight that it becomes difficult to use. It's just nice to know what's going on.

PassportSQW100-4/10.3.2.2789

[Elephant_Canyon]

Well, if you've been alerted that suddenly your recipe program is wanting to use your location services in the middle of the afternoon, you can decide to turn off that permission or delete the app if it makes you uncomfortable.

And how, exactly, does DTEK allow you to turn off that permission? DTEK has no actual permissions controls. It only monitors.

[code2solutions]

Will this app also allow you to turn off an applications ability to access certain information. For example, would we have the ability to deny an application access to the camera...etc? Notifications are good, but would seem like a follow-up action would a proper response......

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android

[conite]

And how, exactly, does DTEK allow you to turn off that permission? DTEK has no actual permissions controls. It only monitors.

I thought you asked about DTEK in the context of future versions of Android.

PassportSQW100-4/10.3.2.2789

[conite]

Will this app also allow you to turn off an applications ability to access certain information. For example, would we have the ability to deny an application access to the camera...etc? Notifications are good, but would seem like a follow-up action would a proper response......

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android

Android M allows for permission controls. It will work well with DTEK. A great combination.

PassportSQW100-4/10.3.2.2789

[Calvin8181]

Err, why can't we have DTEK for BB10?

There is no need for BlackBerry 10 to have DTEK because of the "secure kernel".

Posted via CB10

[conite]

There is no need for BlackBerry 10 to have DTEK because of the "secure kernel".

Posted via CB10

A secure kernel has nothing to do with app access to its permissions.

BlackBerry doesn't need it because the app situation is a lot more tame. We have a smaller ecosystem of vetted apps, and have security through obscurity as far as evil apps are concerned.

PassportSQW100-4/10.3.2.2789

[Superdupont 2_0]

A secure kernel has nothing to do with app access to its permissions.

BlackBerry doesn't need it because the app situation is a lot more tame. We have a smaller ecosystem of vetted apps, and have security through obscurity as far as evil apps are concerned.

PassportSQW100-4/10.3.2.2789

Assuming that BlackBerry cannot review the code of the apps, how do we know that there isn't a command in an app which activates malicious behavior after let's say 1 year after installation date or on the 1st January 2016 or after launching the app 500 times or something.

If such an app has access permission to your stuff it can connect to any server (internet permissions are always given) and that's it.

Now, I can imagine that theoretically one could cover all these scenarios in the testing environment, but realistically, how likely is it that BlackBerry got it all covered? Neither Apple nor Google got it covered.

[conite]

Assuming that BlackBerry cannot review the code of the apps, how do we know that there isn't a command in an app which activates malicious behavior after let's say 1 year after installation date or on the 1st January 2016 or after launching the app 500 times or something.

If such an app has access permission to your stuff it can connect to any server (internet permissions are always given) and that's it.

Now, I can imagine that theoretically one could cover all these scenarios in the testing environment, but realistically, how likely is it that BlackBerry got it all covered? Neither Apple nor Google got it covered.

Of course that could happen. I just don't think a malicious developer would care enough to try on BB10. That's what I mean by security through obscurity. You can't affect enough people to make it interesting.

PassportSQW100-4/10.3.2.2789