252
Haven't generated an APK for months inside Android Studio (lemmy.ml)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
96 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Does anyone here actually support Google's Developer Verification?

I don’t. I’ve put a warning about it in my repo because I’m against policies like sideloading restrictions, forced ID verification.

Curious what other devs here think. Is Play Store still worth the hassle?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 3 months ago* (7 children)

I have over 2 decades of background in hardcore IT-Sec, i know my stuff. And you? What is your qualification, where are your sources?

I wonder if a statement like this ever once convinced anyone of anything. My guess would be it nearly always has the opposite effect. You basically told me that whatever I know doesn't matter because "trust me bro". For all I know, you're the worst source ever for literally every topic. Your articles didn't back you up. Why do people bother with shit like this? "I'm an expert so what I say goes" is idiotic and in no way addresses the common sense point I was making: the average person definitely doesn't know or install apks because of fucking course they don't. If you said 80% would if scammed, that's at least plausible but I'm not even sure I could believe that. The well is poisoned now in any case so you're not convincing anyone here after this... Whatever masturbatory shit this was. Or just shilling for a corporation? Who the fuck knows

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago*

    He just using the old "Argument from Authority" logical fallacy. I've worked with tons of people, even those that did in fact "know their stuff", that thought it was perfectly valid to dismiss others because of their experience being more extensive than others. Ironically, after I'd prove these people wrong in serious matters (usually several times), I somehow got added to the nebulous authority whitelist in their head. I don't want to just be believed became I'm dammit, believe me when I'm correct and provide evidence!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    That is why I linked sources. I don't say trust me bro.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    You do, actually.

    I have over 2 decades of background in hardcore IT-Sec, i know my stuff. And you? What is your qualification, where are your sources?

    This translates to anyone who isn't you to:

    I know a lot, you know very little. Trust me, not you.

    And again if you're going to make this 80% claim and then say you sourced it, don't link shit that's sort of related but in no way backing up that claim. No one here is saying malware isn't a problem. You're getting downvoted for making specific claims which are absurd.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    That is a general issue of online debates.

    I can not squash 20 years of daily learning into a comment.

    I can point you to sources where you can verify it our self. Social engineering studies, blog post about campaigns from other researchers.

    Placing m credentials there is my kind of saying "I have insight, ask", but how do you think should something like this communicated.

    We have a highly sensitive topic, with a lot of obsolete or just misinformation.

    It is a highly complex topic that can not be simply understood by most persons, but social media opens a place for debate anyways.

    There are many other examples for this happening and it is bad. Very bad.

    Another example Google wants to get rid of third party cookies. Instead they want to to adspace action on your local system. In our browser, protected. But bad, because Google. Firefox could implement the same API on better, but no, bad because Google.

    Google is not the good guy. But just throwing out every fucking Idea because Google Had it (or was forced into it, allowing sideloading again was because of pressure) is just not what we need

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    This is so much beating around the bush. Somehow you've managed to ignore the 15 times I've pointed it out: most users do not install apks. That's all. You claimed they did and I said that was dumb. So anything else is just a distraction from the point I was trying to make. Google is pretty shitty but you might have a point that not everything they do is shitty... But that's not what the conversation started as. And I don't really care to change the subject at this point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    How do you now that?

    Again, the ability to install a completely unverified APK is used in real, successful, attacks.

    The user DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE IS DOING! That is the entire point!

    If users would know what this is and understand, maybe it would be less if a risk.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago

    I know because most people won't even install an ad blocker. Let alone will they research apks, change system settings, and then install them. It being possible to be tricked into it is an entirely different topic. What are you high on man? I'm done here. What a waste of time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent