When is this insanity going to stop? I really think the IT security industry ought to be ashamed of itself. Security has become a totalizing value that trumps every other value - convenience, user-friendliness, privacy, hackability, openness, just anything at all in the name of MORE SECURITY.
Is it an open standard that anyone can permissionlessly implement?
When the answer is yes, there is a high probability that it's something reasonable, e.g. TOTP.
When the answer is no, what you will find behind the curtain is either a fool or a crook.
Who is doing the securing, whose interests are being secured, and against who/what?
Security isn't an unqualified good thing to have. It's just an instrument of control. Who wields it and how are the paramount questions. You can have an "open standard that anyone can permissionlessly implement", aimed at protecting interest of third parties, by securing the device from its actual owner. In fact, that describes many, if not most, security measures introduced in computing over the past 20 years, especially on the web and mobile devices.
But it helps against account sharing, err I mean they make database leaks irrelevant except for private info of the customer, err I mean that we can now send more mail to the customer about new AI features without risking they think it is phishing, err I mean this is the easiest measure for the auditor findings so since we implemented this we don't need to fix all the crappy internal api auth problems and atrocious out of date dependencies, err I mean...
This is actually a feature, very common in real world, that security maximalists keep insisting is a bug.
Also, the original sin: framing it as "security" vs. "convenience". It's not. The other end of the spectrum is utility - as in, maximally secure computing device is an inert rock. More security means less utility - reduced functionality, constrained capability, reasonable use cases no longer possible. It means manual process where previously automation or batching was possible. It means more electricity, more compute, more money spent.
It means more user time and therefore more human lives wasted.
This ultimate non-renewable resource is what we're trading off when we accept even more security. This trade-off needs to be respected much more than it is.
That’s not what’s happening. Here you have security used as an excuse for vendor lock ins. Just like AI is used as an excuse for layoffs. But you shouldn’t confuse actual security with BS like this.
Literally no one in security thinks this.
See Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
Reminds me of what Ubiquiti tried to pull a few weeks ago. They wanted to force everyone to their Cloud UI and login instead of the local interfaces so they reduced the local session lifetime to something insane like 20 minutes while lying to our faces and saying it is for security, and kept the session lifetime longer on their cloud panels. They made sure to exclude this from their changelog too.
The community started monkey patching their local scripts, wrote services to undo their changes, many people disabled auto-updates as Ubiquiti only makes their product worse with their updates. Publicly complained on their support forum that we are onto their little plot.
They ended up backtracking for now but you just know they will try again like Google does.
Not just that. A non-development Android build will also prompt the user when a connection is made to authorize the client's key.
This once again isn't about security of users, this is about security of the company's interests.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/eu-top-court-dismisses-google-...
That's why Trump's tariffs on everything was so ... Uh ... "Interesting". If only one party gets the tariffs, you end up with other parties selling the goods instead, which does cause meaningful damage to the tariffed party
For 30% of transactions with the EU it’s just the US shooting itself in the foot and passing on higher costs to average Americans.
Imagine enacting a tax where 30% of the money collected was a net negative. I can’t think of many taxes that are that poorly constructed.
For the 70% of transactions where US companies and individuals decide to buy less or use alternative sources, doesn’t that at some point harm US businesses? At the very least you’re now artificially lowering competition, which tends to drive overall prices up and quality down.
The US should.
Then the judge pretty much decided “no consequences”.
Something like, "I'm worried about impairing Google's ability to compete in AI" or some nonsense. (Paraphrasing here.)
Looks like all it takes to compete in AI is to issue stock or get a bunch of investors. I don't see how Google would struggle with that. It's completely orthogonal to antitrust enforcement.
I say that as a European that's very much in favor of government intervention to fix market distortions.
In early days of this, I honestly think it was rooted in the famous Steve Jobs paranoia, the one that shipped without an app store and told users to use Safari, the same Steve Jobs that was said to not want certain medical devices during cancer treatment to touch him because they weren't beautifully designed. It was fundamentally about not wanting "dirty" things coming in contact with his "perfect" device. They dressed it up in language about security as a post hoc justification.
I remember in those days people would say they didn't want it to be like malware ridden Windows 98. But they omitted the weak security behind Windows at that time, which modern systems had long ago exceeded, even in the Windows world.
I don’t think that kind of stupidity warrants respect.
Along the lines of "Are you being asked to do this by someone else? Be cautious, as your device could become compromised."
"we will never ask for this over the phone" takes second place to:
"we will send/save you money/time if you make it convenient"
dress it up to taste like developer needs, and you can hook the newbies.
Doesn't help that the banks then do, in fact, call you, and ask for this over the phone.
in my region AT&T has a very explicit statement not to reveal MFA codes to anyone who asks, is not part of thier system to do that.
there is 1 bank in my area that does voice call relay over the phone, the others keep it 10 fingers relayed from phone to authentication form.
guess who has the most problems with account compromise, and fraud claims? yes, that one bank. it has a phishing vector in its system.
A measure needs to be in proportion to the actual risk it seeks to mitigate.
And even when they are required, it's up to the person using the stairs to determine whether they wish to elect to use the handrail or not.
[1]: IRC R311.7.8
That means, handrails cost little and have nearly no downsides. Which is why I used helmets as a metaphor. The proposed restrictions has a lot of downsides to deal with a mostly theoretical risk.
It's easy enough to imagine that Google is trying to fix something they see as a problem, and not caring about the developer case rather than specifically seeking to destroy it.
When Apple fixed security issues that allowed for jailbreaking, they weren't doing it specifically because people use it for jailbreaking, they were doing it because it was a security issue.
We should have 100% control of our own devices. But we should have it by design, in a fashion that makes sure that we control them rather than other people.
It depends on how you define a bad actor.
"rootless privacy tools based on Shizuku."
It's not for the security of the owner; it is for the security of the government.
Trusted execution environment applications like the EU Digital (Identity) Wallet, or whatever they will demand next to protect the children, heavily rely on the fact that users cannot mess with their devices or install unsanctioned software. We all know how badly the Intel SGX story is going.
Ads and tracking, obviously (https://localmess.github.io/)
All these changes Google is doing to Android aren't for you as the user, they are to protect their business interests from the user.
The introduction of Manifest V3 API in Chrome for extensions, and disabling Manifest V2 for security reasons. It just so happened that ad blockers were made incompatible with the Manifest V3 API. It's a little blatant considering this came right around the time that YouTube began showing warning messages to users with ad blockers...
Requiring developers to verify their apps via Google Play Developer Console and blocking any unverified APK installations. This is done in such a way that it just so happens to squash F-Droid and most FOSS apps for most people, and blocks any serious competition to Google Play or any apps they don't like.
Of course, there's all this talk about preventing malware, but it is a fact that if you download any random ringtone or PDF app on Google Play it's going to come with probably 25 trackers and send your data to every jurisdiction in the world, and many apps even fail to declare any of this via Google Play data safety or privacy policy. Let's not forget that spyware is a form of malware. Take a look at the leaderboard :) https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/list/?filte...
In my opinion, this would probably be an indication that maybe Google controls too much technology and that they may need to be broken up to ensure fair competition. For Christ's sake they almost broke up Microsoft not that long ago for shipping a browser with their operating system, and now Google is blatantly controlling the operating system, the platform and app store, the ecosystem, the browser, the ad network, and abusing their power over it however they can.
1. Enable Developer Mode by going to an obscure settings page and tapping the build number seven times
2. Enable USB ADB debugging in the Developer Options
3. Establish an actual USB ADB session
4. Enable TCP/IP ADB debugging in the Developer Options
5. Unknowingly download a malware app from the official Play Store
6. Blindly click "Yes" on the permission prompt.
In other words: this is all but impossible to impact regular users, and it requires a particularly careless developer to be hit by it. And it only works if the Play Store is useless at preventing malware in the first place - but I thought their excellent app scanning was the entire reasoning behind all-but-banning 3rd-party app stores and sideloading???
It is "for safety" in the same sense that governments banning all encryption is to "protect the children" or to "prevent terrorism": flawed justification invented to distract from the real reason they want it.
I'm not saying it's right to respond by simply locking everything down, but let's not downplay the blast radius of basically every attack that involves telling the user to do things.
I think the impulse for an OS vendor to try to make such mistakes impossible is about as wrong as selling knives dull so people can't hurt themselves. A knife that can't cut its user is useless as a knife.
Too far towards trying to make mistakes impossible (which is easy for corporations to talk themselves into because it also makes them money and moat) and you make devices useless. Too far towards full user control and you get difficulties in support and security issues (which are tractable if you’re an enthusiast, but not so much if you’re a normie on a corporate-maintained device).
Truthseeking here is further complicated by ordinary end users’ dislikes and usability issues not always overlapping.
The phrase "the user doesn't have to know if this is on his computer or the cloud" has done a lot of harm to the software ecosystem.
This kind of comment is frequently made on HN and elsewhere. However, more than a few "elderly parents" are as computer-sophisticated as their grown children. A safe bet it's not rare to be exchanging ideas with an elderly person sophisticated enough to make comments on HN.
AFAIK there's no shortage of careless, uninformed, non-elderly individuals who get scammed into doing stupid things. Age is only one possible factor out of many contributing to scam vulnerability. And let us not forget that youthful, well-trained professional IT workers, developers and software engineers are not immune to scams via misunderstanding elements of the systems or processes they supervise.
"Ageism" is a word as ugly as what it signifies.
Stop trying to flatten the human experience, Harrison Bergeron style.
Of course this isn’t true, the play store, and yes even the apple App Store to a lesser extent, is riddled with malware.
But what this demonstrates is that, clearly, Google doesn’t care too much about security or safety. It’s a pretense, not a goal. If it was a goal, they’d dump money into fixing the play store, but they won’t and they don’t.
So, we should be highly skeptical when they say something is for “safety” and “security”. At this point, it’s a lot like saying something is for “national security”.
I'm sure you meant "wary". How amazing, education really does work. There is such a thing as overabundance of caution. But it's possible further education could encourage users to apply more balanced caution policies.
That radius would be negligible should the things that must remain secret remain offline.
But no, that's a luddite thing to even think about in an all-connected ever-online world where even wiping one's ass is done via of a swarm of dedicated apps.
On the other hand, there has always been a way to extract secrets from a granny via a mere voice call, so no amount of dumbing it down would really help.
Have you ever worked with someone who barely knows how to use a mobile phone? They will hand their phone over to someone they barely even know to do something they don't understand. They will follow instructions from a stranger over the phone, without understanding what the phone is warning them about.
I have worked with such a person. They did have someone walk them through a dubious process. Thankfully they realized what was going on before the process was complete, but who knows how much damage was done by the initial steps.
There are legitimate security reasons here. Whether there are reasons beyond that is an open question.
“Large numbers of people will uncritically follow sketchy instructions and get hacked” doesn’t in any way lead to “and therefore they cannot be trusted with devices”.
“People keep dying in auto accidents” doesn’t imply “ban cars” on the first order, it implies “seat belts and airbags”.
People seem to be ok with needing a license to operate a motor vehicle and those are far less dangerous.
Which incidentally is often just a pretense for other motives?
If computers have suddenly become so dangerous for normal people, and they want smartphones nonetheless, add to them a dumb-mode encouraged at the initial setup, and requiring some third party assistance to turn it off once enabled..! (and forbid apps to change their behavior if it's not enabled)
Here's my article about that from 2021. It's for the devices sold in Russia, but this issue is worldwide: https://habr.com/ru/articles/575626/
And here's more detailed research of two particular devices: https://notes.valdikss.org.ru/trojan-digma/
Nothing is stopping the guy at Walmart or Tmobile from selling them dumbphones, or are you implying they are forced to?
Here is the first iPhone ad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bvfs4ai5XU
The ad depicts it as a mere phone instead of a potentially hostile Turing machine. There is equivalent messaging in the android ecosystem but its advertising is not so ubiquitous.
We could also imagine a 24h delay to get Play Store access with a modal to make them understand the risks.
https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ddos/glossary/aisuru-kim...
This is like saying that SSH is insecure because some device vendors install SSH, permitting root login with a default password of 'root'.
You can unlock it with additional free option.
But even then, shouldn't this show the same permission prompt for the user that anything else trying to connect to port 5555 would?
Not the least because most of our industry relies on it to make money. Marketing and advertising themselves are institutionalized forms of "do this thing that's actually harmful to you to get free coins / be safe / get laid".
I mean, this seems more like one of the root causes for a lot of bad things in the industry me...
- the app embedding the proxyware SDK for money
- the proxy operators
- the attackers/botnets using the proxy to access ADB.
The botnet has no access to the app, so it can't show any messages.
The app can show messages, but probably has no connection to the botnet. (I hope)
The proxy operators could show a message by abusing the SDK even more, but that would mean they actively colluded with the botnet. Is that likely? Then they could just give the botnet direct access to the app, no need to do the whole proxy thing.
It's one more revenue stream to be able to remote control real android phones to pass device attestation checks etc.
It's marketed to users with phrases like "earn money from your phone whilst you sleep".
Also telling that advertising and locking down devices are driven by the same companies...
That said, I wasn't under the impression kimwolf was that technically sophisticated. Some of the others are, though.
This is a CVE by any definition and you'd be screaming your head off if any other OS would allow this kind of permission bypass (or even if another app did it).
But sure, Google evil.
I think a possibility of knowingly pushing the handlebar should be removed from me, just in case. After all I could do it.
And while we're at it I just realised my car has a similar vulnerability, but triggered by a slightly different mechanism, but the effect is exactly the same, I can crash into a pillar.
Edit: oops, I just discovered that if I have a banking app installed on my phone, then tap my screen in the specific places, enter several numbers, including the number I receive in text, suddenly I lose all the money.
That's staggering!
No technology prevents the crash, they just lower the chance of it happening accidentally (like, say, ABS or DCT). I can remove almost all of the guardrails on my bike choosing more aggressive riding mode.
Countermeasures to the accidentally allowing a malware to "do something" already exist and were described in the original article. The comment I was responding to wants a removal of the whole capability, hence my cases.
The CVE mentioned in the article is https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-0073. That's a real CVE: logic error leading to auth bypass. Fix can be seen at https://android.googlesource.com/platform/packages/modules/a....
Separately, a number of people here are attempting to argue that the availability of On-Device ADB should be regarded as a "CVE" in and of itself. Google does not appear to share that view.
This was proposed by a Google employee: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/526109803#comment3
> Connection to localhost has also been the source of exploit where app are using that socket to adbd to escalate their privileges. What about we restrict to always only binding to wifi interface wlan0 ?
Nowhere in that text do I see a proposal to assign an additional CVE for this behaviour. Personally I think it would be unusual to assign a CVE for intended-but-potentially-harmful functionality, although I expect people have done that in the past. But, I think overall we're agreeing here.
>Which OEM do not provide this feature? This hardly quality as a legitimate usecase but rather as a shortcoming of the OEM.
I find this kind of attitude maddening. Although I assume they overlooked "advanced" because as soon as I read that, I knew this wasn't going to be something ever supported as a basic functionality. I get that many people will be fine with simple things but I hate being forced into them.
Or perhaps they wouldn't? CVEs aren't holy scripture, and "security" isn't the most important consideration in computing. This theatre has gone too far IMO.
It's not like those threats silently turn on ADB on people's phones without their knowledge. You have to opt in to a rather obscure, hidden by default, and very fickle feature to become potentially vulnerable in the first place.
Your problem is with the last one which has nothing to do with the CVE itself.
That, and security maximalism displayed in 3. and some comments in the HN thread.
There are 3 things which I feel like are being confused here:
1. There was a genuine authentication bypass vulnerability in ADB (bad)
2. Initial proposed change wants to add an option to limit the ADB server to certain IPs or network interfaces (good - it doesn't affect you)
3. Response to the original request, proposing that ADB shouldn't be allowed to listen on loopback interfaces (bad/nefarious - it breaks functionality)
[1] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-0073
[2] https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/526109803#comment1
[3] https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/526109803#comment3
allow [intransitive verb]: to make a possibility
I love how quickly you all forget about security and privacy when it gives a chance to angrily rant.
"An app can bypass OS security system with certain setting enabled" is absolutely a valid CVE. We have countless examples every day of vendor apps bypassing OS security systems because they're allowed to do so.
"A device can bypass protective layers and cause soft tissue damage when thrown" is an absolutely fine CVE, too.
Whether it matters or is something that should be addressed, is the depends part. Here we're talking about CVE that's at risk of trying to address a feature.
You are forgetting the most important questions of security, without which the whole discussion becomes pointless:
Who is securing what, and from who?
CVEs seem much less like holy writ when they're aimed at protecting the device for commercial interests and from the device owner.
Whether that means there's a _feature_ lacking there, is another question.
If the user chooses to free certain apps from restrictions, that should be their choice.
But if a piece of software overrides the users' choice, that certainly qualifies as a CVE.
This is an important distinction! The user must always have final say.
Whether an app breaks out of the sandbox and steals my vacation photos, or the OS sets new restrictions I can't remove, both are wrong.
Any piece of software has to act in service of the user, and ONLY the user. It must not do things or set restrictions without the users consent. No means no.
This is one of them
> In adbd_tls_verify_cert of auth.cpp, there is a possible bypass of wireless ADB mutual authentication due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to remote (proximal/adjacent) code execution as the shell user with no additional execution privileges needed.
Patch: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/packages/modules/a...
Docs:
> EVP_PKEY_cmp() return 1 if the keys match, 0 if they don't match, -1 if the key types are different and -2 if the operation is not supported.
The original code cast the integer return value to boolean, and -1 and -2 cast to "true", therefore authentication would succeed if the key types were different or the operation wasn't supported.
Which is a problem only if the third party acquired those keys without your permission, but the industry decided to "fix it" regardless.
Now an application on my computer can obtain root without user interaction.
Where is my CVE?
So the password check really has no point. Typing sudo is still a lightweight sanity check, otherwise I may as well just log in as root.
Letting applications bypass permissions with this feature is the exact usecase they don't want to lose. If anything, I don't see them being against the original proposal possibly restricting non-loopback access, which would enhance security.
It is tech feudalism - you don't own anything anymore, you just get to live on the digital land of a bunch of ~trillion dollar companies.
At least, that is the goal.
IMO either everyone gets access at the user's discretion or Google has to sandbox their own GMS services as well.
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi
Right now any app on my PC connected to ADB could manipulate my phone then, and that's somehow not a CVE?
If you are talking about allowing listening on localhost - remote ADB requires enabling in the developer settings. It is a developer feature, similar to ADB over USB. If I'm charitable, it is possible that they are seeing too many people that are using Shizuku without understanding the security implications. But Shizuku has a lot of useful applications and they use ADB because the Android APIs and permission system are lacking and do not make these applications possible.
It's like saying that the fact the user knows their own password is a vulnerability because they might enter it to log into their account.
seriously, get real, please explain how your train of thought works here