[sorinv]

Android bug fear in 900 million phones - BBC News

I have been posing that question here for over two years.
Again this proves that without controlling hardware, including designing your own integrated circuits and not buying them from others, a company like BlackBerry cannot claim security.
It's interesting that Samsung with Exynos processor (and Apple) are not on the list because they do not use the Qualcomm chip. They have their own.

This also goes back to the security (lack thereof) of a phone designed and assembled in China whose hardware integrity one might not fully control.

[bakron1]

Interesting read and goes back to what I said many times before, there is no such thing as a 100% secure device in todays high tech world. Just when you think you have designed a "fool proof" device, someone who has nothing better to do then to probe software and chip designs to find flaws will find something you either forgot about or your computer software failed to implement into the design. This is what keeps the anti-virus and security folks in business.

[Bluenoser63]

BlackBerry no longer controls the hardware or the OS. I too have said that BlackBerry is now at the mercy at others for their security reputation. The hardware, drivers, OS, and even the hardened Linux kernel isn't under their control (they got it from someone else). BlackBerry can never be a security leader anymore and I have doubts of them even being a software company. They have had to purchase the majority of what they have now. They haven't created anything new in a while. What they did, like Blend, they drop.

[conite]

The user actually has to install a malicious app to become vulnerable. Safe computing 101.

Keep "allow installs from unknown sources" off, and you're good to go.

[Bluenoser63]

The user actually has to install a malicious app to become vulnerable. Safe computing 101.

Keep "allow installs from other sources" off, and you're good to go.

You sounds like Apple security. As long as you don't connect it to the network, you are safe. The OS should prevent malicious apps from functioning. BlackBerry no longer controls the OS space.

[conite]

You sounds like Apple security. As long as you don't connect it to the network, you are safe. The OS should prevent malicious apps from functioning. BlackBerry no longer controls the OS space.

You have to go out of your way, and actively turn off one of the safety features of the device for this to occur.

[last_attempt]

You have to go out of your way, and actively turn off one of the safety features of the device for this to occur.

Just having that option available would be a bit risky for a " secure" phone, do you have to provide a password or code to access these options?

Posted via CB10

[conite]

Just having that option available would be a bit risky for a " secure" phone, do you have to provide a password or code to access these options?

Posted via CB10

No, but you get a warning when you attempt to turn off this safety feature.

A device password will keep other people from changing it when you're not looking.

[last_attempt]

OK, just picturing the " dad can I borrow your phone for a bit, I want to try a cool game " scenario.

Posted via CB10

[HabsSuck]

OK, just picturing the " dad can I borrow your phone for a bit, I want to try a cool game " scenario.

Posted via CB10

No intelligent person would allow anyone, son or daughter, to download an app on their phone without knowing about it.. If they did, there's a word for them and it's not kind.

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android

[last_attempt]

No,but picture yourself on a long road trip and to keep the kids occupied you let them play a game and they start mucking around...

Just thinking, having someone supply a password before this option is invoked would be a good idea.

Posted via CB10

[Tsepz_GP]

You have to go out of your way, and actively turn off one of the safety features of the device for this to occur.

Thank you!!!

Time and time again these articles fail to disclose that fact!
And then you get the ignorant Android Haters who will jump on this and clutch straws on the Security argument.

[HabsSuck]

Thank you!!!

Time and time again these articles fail to disclose that fact!
And then you get the ignorant Android Haters who will jump on this and clutch straws on the Security argument.

Agreed, too many jumping to conclusions and making false assertions and some total ridiculous.

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android

[TGR1]

Android bug fear in 900 million phones - BBC News

I have been posing that question here for over two years.
Again this proves that without controlling hardware, including designing your own integrated circuits and not buying them from others, a company like BlackBerry cannot claim security.
It's interesting that Samsung (and Apple) are not on the list because they do not use the Qualcomm chip. They have their own.

This also goes back to the security (lack thereof) of a phone designed and assembled in China.

Samsung Galaxy 7 is on the list but only apparently the US versions.

[conite]

Samsung Galaxy 7 is on the list but only apparently the US versions.

Because only the US version uses Qalcomm.

[kvndoom]

If you want a 100% secure phone, take it out back and smash it with a hammer. Or have your hands amputated. Any connected device is only as secure as its user.

[last_attempt]

Sounds like android security could rid themselves of a lot of headaches by password protecting the third party app switch.

Wouldn't take much to do that would it?

Posted via CB10

[sorinv]

A lot of you usual guys here miss the point. This is not about Android.

Whatever Qualcomm does, or Intel, or ARM, cannot be controlled by BlackBerry.
Isn't anyone here asking themselves why Samsung sells two versions of Galaxy S7: one for North America with Qualcomm chips and one for the rest of the world without them?

[brookie229]

Isn't anyone here asking themselves why Samsung sells two versions of Galaxy S7: one for North America with Qualcomm chips and one for the rest of the world without them?

I thought it was mostly because of demand. There are so many millions of devices sold that one company cannot keep up with the supply of all those chips.

[Tsepz_GP]

Sounds like android security could rid themselves of a lot of headaches by password protecting the third party app switch.

Wouldn't take much to do that would it?

Posted via CB10

What headaches? Unless you just give your phone to anyone unlocked. That is down to you.

[sorinv]

I thought it was mostly because of demand. There are so many millions of devices sold that one company cannot keep up with the supply of all those chips.

No. Anyone of these companies can make 10x the chips they sell. That's why everyone is jumping on the IoT and driverless cars bandwaggon ;-). They ran out of people to sell chips to. They need a bigger market and larger volumes to justify going to 14nm FinFETs and beyond.
If "not enough supply" would be the problem, it wouldn't be regional: NA vs. rest of the world.

[conite]

No. Anyone of these companies can make 10x the chips they sell. That's why everyone is jumping on the IoT and driverless cars bandwaggon ;-). They ran out of people to sell chips to. They need a bigger market and larger volumes to justify going to 14nm FinFETs and beyond.
If "not enough supply" would be the problem, it wouldn't be regional: NA vs. rest of the world.

I believe they do it so they don't have to rely exclusively on their own chip design. If they choose to stop making their own, they can seamlessly continue with Qualcomm.

[sorinv]

I believe they do it so they don't have to rely exclusively on their own chip design. If they choose to stop making their own, they can seamlessly continue with Qualcomm.

Sure, that can be one reason, but again, it wouldn't be regional...

[TGR1]

Because only the US version uses Qalcomm.

That was my assumption. What's not clear is why only the 7 series of all Samsung's phones. Is it a particular chipset affected? If so, that tagline about Android being on about 900 million devices is irrelevant at best and inflammatory at worst. I suspect the number of potentially affected devices is much lower given that list appears to be limited to pretty recent devices.

[brookie229]

No. Anyone of these companies can make 10x the chips they sell. That's why everyone is jumping on the IoT and driverless cars bandwaggon ;-). They ran out of people to sell chips to. They need a bigger market and larger volumes to justify going to 14nm FinFETs and beyond.
If "not enough supply" would be the problem, it wouldn't be regional: NA vs. rest of the world.

Oh........ok, what the he!! do I know. . How about Apple? Did they not have a controversy a year or two ago when they were using 2 different companies? Maybe that is another example of Conite's reasoning. I just remember reading that some iPhone users were complaining about the problem, but I really could never understand why they used two different suppliers.