Readit News logoReadit News
loeg · 2 years ago
> These gaps between upstream vendors and downstream manufacturers allow n-days - vulnerabilities that are publicly known - to function as 0-days because no patch is readily available to the user and their only defense is to stop using the device. While these gaps exist in most upstream/downstream relationships, they are more prevalent and longer in Android.

Ouch. Maybe acknowledging it means that they can act on improving that ecosystem with their downstreams?

callalex · 2 years ago
The downstream vendors just don’t give a hoot. It’s been more than 10 years now and their behavior hasn’t changed. Google has moved mountains to throw as much as they can into userspace which can be patched by Google directly, but that effort has hit its limits. The rest will just never get better, because phone manufacturers love forced obsolescence, and when any exploit causes a serious issue they can just disingenuously point their finger at Google and say “well they made the software”.
fatfingerd · 2 years ago
Now hold on.. Google made not just the software but the structure that makes it practical for Google and hardware makers like Qualcomm to get their cake and the vendors to somehow be responsible for the gap it causes when every vendor has to integrate drivers separately into orphans of the Linux kernel.

Many vendors happily joined Android One which Google seems to have silently killed, so I don't think they are that happy losing reputation to sell Android phones they can't properly support.

mminer237 · 2 years ago
It's not even just downstream vendors. Google itself only supports its devices for three years. I bought a Pixel 4a on release in 2020 and next month will be my last security update.

https://support.google.com/nexus/answer/4457705

Can you imagine if Apple or Microsoft stopped making OS updates for CPUs more than three years old?

IAmLiterallyAB · 2 years ago
They've bumped it up to 5 years for Pixel 6 and later https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/4457705#zippy=%...
someguy7250 · 2 years ago
I've been using third party ROMs on Pixel 3. They receive monthly security updates to some extent, but obviously the hardware specific "vendor binaries" are still outdated. Frankly, I cared more about the open nature of the ROM than about security/privacy. These days, I assume all my data is available for sale everywhere anyways.
doubled112 · 2 years ago
I was annoyed when the announced 1st gen Ryzen isn't supported in Windows 11.
jbotdev · 2 years ago
The delay in updates is what originally pushed me to move from Android to iOS a while back, and years later it’s still an issue. You would think at least Nexus/Pixel would get updates quickly, but that still isn’t always the case. It seems like even within Google there are some issues that need to be addressed before they can lead other manufacturers by example.
maccard · 2 years ago
The situation on Android is utterly insane. I bought a Pixel via my carrier a few years back only to find out that my _carrier_ was responsible for software updates, and they held them back so they could add their own bullshit to the OS. I was months waiting for a major Android OS version on a flagship Google device.
Arbortheus · 2 years ago
Google have been quite irresponsible on some of their own devices too. For example the Chromecast With Google TV is actively being sold (and new product revisions released), yet it is still running Android TV 12 despite 13 coming out in December 2022.

Apparently even they are struggling to update the device because of its lacklustre storage (8GB, only 4.4GB usable) which means there simply isn’t enough space for large OTA updates.

Dah00n · 2 years ago
While I agree that Google and manufactures needs to do better, the article shows that the amount of detected in the wild zero days are higher for iOS than Android in the newest stat (2022) while it used to be higher for Android.
technion · 2 years ago
Microsoft Exchange being listed alongside entire operating systems with comparable numbers of ITW vulnerabilities is somewhat something I relate to after running such systems.
CountHackulus · 2 years ago
Page doesn't seem to load at all on Firefox.
consumer451 · 2 years ago
Same for me, it appears that this URL is being blocked by FF. Is that was is causing the issue?

https://2542116.fls.doubleclick.net/activityi;src=2542116;ty...?

jefftk · 2 years ago
I see that URL being blocked but the site still loads.

I just tested this on v114, v115, and nightly (117.0a1 (2023-07-31) (64-bit)) and couldn't reproduce.

On nightly, I tried setting Enhanced Tracking Protection to strict and installing uBlock Origin, and still couldn't get it to show a blank screen.

(MacOS 13.4.1)

technion · 2 years ago
uBlock on Edge blocks that same URL and the page works fine without it.
muizelaar · 2 years ago
mccr8 · 2 years ago
FWIW, I filed a bug a few days ago for the issue I was seeing. A profile showed that Firefox was spending all of its time evaluating a regex. Which is weird because Chrome uses the same regex engine. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1845775
jonathanstrange · 2 years ago
It loads a page with a large heading and no content in my Firefox. I'll just assume an empty page is Google's take on security in general.
woodruffw · 2 years ago
Loads for me just fine on Firefox 116, on Linux.
TacticalCoder · 2 years ago
Doesn't load for me (FF on Linux).
brobinson · 2 years ago
Here's a mirror: https://archive.is/U8YTo
badRNG · 2 years ago
Same issue, doesn't load on vanilla Firefox.
saagarjha · 2 years ago
Took a while to load in mobile Safari as well, but it did eventually when I waited a while. Interestingly it works almost immediately in desktop Safari?
asplake · 2 years ago
Loaded fine first time for me
ungamedplayer · 2 years ago
Goog must not. E acknowledging other browsers anymore.
jeroenhd · 2 years ago
It works fine for me on Android
j16sdiz · 2 years ago
It loads on Firefox on my Samsung phone.
notamy · 2 years ago
It seems fine on my machine -- albeit a hair slow. Do you have JS enabled? I think it's required.
ptx · 2 years ago
> The Android security team then decided that they considered the issue a “Won’t Fix” because it was “device-specific”. However, Android Security referred the issue to ARM. [...] While ARM had released the fixed driver version in October 2022, the vulnerability was not fixed by Android until April 2023

What's going on there? If bug is in Android's source repo, where it has to be fixed and released by the Android team, it seems like a valid bug in Android. Marking it "Won't Fix" seems inappropriate since they did eventually fix it.

Deleted Comment

vinay_ys · 2 years ago
This url gave me https certificate error.
totetsu · 2 years ago
its interesting to see all the "Subject Alt Names" signed in that cert. https://tfhub.dev/google/bird-vocalization-classifier/3 is neat

Dead Comment