Not even spending several hundreds or even going beyond a thousand bucks will save you from this on Android, and this is the reason why I try to avoid it whenever possible. At least iPhones are expensive but you do have years and years of updates (and no, not willing to change my phone every year or two).
I'm not super familiar with how Android does it's versioning, so I may be off base here.
The article mentions the S6 being vulnerable, but it had its last update 6 months ago. It also says versions below 7.0 are vulnerable, but the S6 supports 7.1. It also says the most vulnerable are phones from 2012.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say an 8 year old phone may have some security vulnerabilities. I personally don't know anyone with an 8 year old phone. I'm sure they exist, but I don't think this is an Android exclusive issue.
Further, Android is the defacto default OS for phones. Every shovelware burner sitting in a bin at the convenience store is running some version of Android. Saying "1 billion are vulernable" is surprising in that it's only 1 billion.
These include the phones that cops hack into by placing the phone in a machine that tries every pin combo between 0000 and 9999 until it unlocks.
This has always bugged me because not providing even security patches is straight-up malpractice in my book.
Given all the attention lightning cables get in terms of e-waste, someone should ask lawmakers worried about e-waste to consider the impact of Android's enforced obsolescence policy -- no security updates means the device is effectively vulnerable and not usable.
Google and all the big handset manufacturers (Samsung, Xiaomi, etc) could easily provide updates should they choose to -- some of them release multiple times a a year (e.g., OnePlus; and Samsung introduces new products throughout the year) but don't have the resources to provide security updates? Give me a break.
I'm hoping they do the right thing before legislation forces their hand.
outime|6 years ago
CodeAndCuffs|6 years ago
The article mentions the S6 being vulnerable, but it had its last update 6 months ago. It also says versions below 7.0 are vulnerable, but the S6 supports 7.1. It also says the most vulnerable are phones from 2012.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say an 8 year old phone may have some security vulnerabilities. I personally don't know anyone with an 8 year old phone. I'm sure they exist, but I don't think this is an Android exclusive issue.
Further, Android is the defacto default OS for phones. Every shovelware burner sitting in a bin at the convenience store is running some version of Android. Saying "1 billion are vulernable" is surprising in that it's only 1 billion.
These include the phones that cops hack into by placing the phone in a machine that tries every pin combo between 0000 and 9999 until it unlocks.
signal11|6 years ago
Given all the attention lightning cables get in terms of e-waste, someone should ask lawmakers worried about e-waste to consider the impact of Android's enforced obsolescence policy -- no security updates means the device is effectively vulnerable and not usable.
Google and all the big handset manufacturers (Samsung, Xiaomi, etc) could easily provide updates should they choose to -- some of them release multiple times a a year (e.g., OnePlus; and Samsung introduces new products throughout the year) but don't have the resources to provide security updates? Give me a break.
I'm hoping they do the right thing before legislation forces their hand.
zepto|6 years ago
ThePowerOfFuet|6 years ago