Hacker News Reader

Comment by Gaelan | Hacker News Reader

> Today the OS must fundamentally not trust any application.

I entirely agree.

> Permissions at install time are a good idea.

I'm actually not so sure about this. I think the "iOS model" of asking for permissions when necessary is much better than the "Android model"* of a big list of permissions on install, preventing use of the app if any of them aren't granted (leading to users giving apps less scrutiny over their permissions than than they would under the iOS model).

* I believe some recent versions of Android (M?) may support the "iOS model" in some form.

View on HN

Recent Android versions have a pretty good system in place. The apps still work even without some permissions (for example Instagram can work for browsing, but won't be able to take any pictures without the camera permission), and you can easily review the permissions you have granted to any app, and revoke them after the fact.

Now, the real problem is that permissions are too general. The "access/read/write files" permission is all grouped up in one place, so you end up with tons of directory for every app in your root directory (that don't get deleted when uninstalling the apps that generated them), and you allow unnecessary access to other files as well. Or the network permission, which could lead to all sorts of traffic, while many developers just need it for ads.

There's an insoluble issue in that making permissions super granular - what you really need for good security - makes them unusable for Joe public, because he can't understand them. Heck, most people probably don't understand the very broad ones that Android has now.

Maybe whats needed is more of a trust model. Users could ask "what would Bruce Schneier do" for example. If Bruce [substitute trusted person of your choice] would install this app, then I'm happy to do it as well.

That's true. Maybe there could be an 'enable advanced permissions' option?

Last I checked, awhile ago, Android didn't have an Internet permission - the user couldn't stop apps from accessing the Internet. Is that still true?

Yes, it is still true. You can disable Internet access if you're on some Android based devices (I know you can with lineageos, the heir to CyanogenMod). However, if you have Google play services installed you may still see ads in the app.

Of course, you have a firewall if you're rooted but I'm not rooted when on a Nexus device.

I think the macOS sandbox, "apps can only access their own files, unless the OS file open dialog is used to select" is a really clever solution, and could be extended -possibly to URLs too? On install an app can list "home domains" everything else requires a confirm or general permission (for web browsers).

I agree. On Linux, Flatpak actually does the same thing: apps only get permission to access resources when the user chooses to work with those resources by making selections in the UI.

Yes, since Android Marshmallow (6.0), which is almost 3 years old, there has been a granular permissions system. Most apps support it now, but there is the problem that only 45.8% of all Android devices have M or later.

https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html

> I believe some recent versions of Android (M?) may support the "iOS model" in some form.

Actually it is the Symbian model.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com