Database Users

android 2.0 issue: ActiveSync security support

Hi,
There is a registered "issue" at the google code pages for Android regarding ActiveSync (the protocol used by Exchange towards mobile devices) and the fact that the native "Exchange support" in Eclair/2.0 isn't supporting security policies. Please vote (star as it is called - you don't have to leave a comment) on the issue to encourage google to implement the full support needed.
http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=4475
The funny thing about this is that Android seems to be the only platform out there with native Exchange support that doesn't support the security bit of ActiveSync. You can (sort of) compare it to a browser supporting http but not supporting https. The iPhone, the Nokias and SEs with Exch support, Windows Mobile, Palm webOS, Samsungs noname OS etc. all have it, but not Android .
Again, please go over there and put in a star if you think this should be correctly implemented by Google first time around.
Thanks!

Think I did read that only the iphone 3G s has the security thing and not the earlier models. but yeah, vote to get it done!

Hm. I don't have iPhone original, 3g or 3gs, but I do know some people in my company who uses the 3g. Haven't been paying attention to if Apple is updating the older ones or not, but at least the 3g has the exchange pin/password support.
Anyway, thanks for the 21 stars already on the issue. Spread the word - there will never be to many stars .

barryallott said:
Think I did read that only the iphone 3G s has the security thing and not the earlier models. but yeah, vote to get it done!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That would be because the first-gen iPhone didn't have Exchange Activesync support at all!!

Helbore said:
That would be because the first-gen iPhone didn't have Exchange Activesync support at all!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes it did, I had one and after software 2.0 it supported it fine, push emails, calendar and contacts (I used it)

chriscpritchard said:
yes it did, I had one and after software 2.0 it supported it fine, push emails, calendar and contacts (I used it)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess I don't consider the first-gen hardware with second-gen software truly "first-gen" anymore!
That's what I meant by my comment. iPhone 1.0 (as it initially came out) didn't support Exchange Activesync at all. As per the comment I was replying to (that the 3G had PIN support but the earlier models didn't) my point makes sense - ie. if the 3G has a software update to support the security features, so can the earlier model iPhones, if they get said update.
But the earlier gen iPhone SOFTWARE had no support for Exchange. It was the primary reason I passed on an iPhone when they first came out.
But as for the OPs point, it does seem rather ridiculous that Android isn't going to support Exchange security policies. Just like the iPhone's initial lack of Exchange support, the lack of this ability will seriously limit Android's market penetration into the business sector. IT department's aren't going to want to turn off their PIN enforcement policies, just becuae the employees want to buy Android phones. Bad choice on Google's part.

Helbore said:
I guess I don't consider the first-gen hardware with second-gen software truly "first-gen" anymore!
That's what I meant by my comment. iPhone 1.0 (as it initially came out) didn't support Exchange Activesync at all. As per the comment I was replying to (that the 3G had PIN support but the earlier models didn't) my point makes sense - ie. if the 3G has a software update to support the security features, so can the earlier model iPhones, if they get said update.
But the earlier gen iPhone SOFTWARE had no support for Exchange. It was the primary reason I passed on an iPhone when they first came out.
But as for the OPs point, it does seem rather ridiculous that Android isn't going to support Exchange security policies. Just like the iPhone's initial lack of Exchange support, the lack of this ability will seriously limit Android's market penetration into the business sector. IT department's aren't going to want to turn off their PIN enforcement policies, just becuae the employees want to buy Android phones. Bad choice on Google's part.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, it originally "supported" the security policies by claiming that it did, then not actually supporting them, then the software update came out which enabled full support on the 3GS and disabled support on 2G and 3G
edit: I got my college to add a seperate security policy for my android phone, but that's probably because I'm on good terms with the IT staff

Helbore said:
IT department's aren't going to want to turn off their PIN enforcement policies, just becuae the employees want to buy Android phones. Bad choice on Google's part.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Absolutely true. I asked our global department (in charge of the exchange servers), and got a big fat no. I was definitely expecting a no, but had to try . Gaping security hole and all that.
Anyway, this was an Android thread, not an iPhone comparison thread. We can conclude with that Apple learned its lesson after some time, and Google apparently didn't pay attention in class. Lets hope they just fix it.
Issue is at 70 stars currently. Thanks a bunch!

Android Security: A neglected subject (long)

First of all: I'm an OSS advocate and love the idea of open source. Don't forget that while reading this.
Some 2 month ago, I got myself a Galaxy S. It's not exactly cheap, but on the other side, it's really good hardware. This thread is not about Samsung or the Galaxy S. It's about the missing parts of android security.
We all know it from our home computers: Software sometimes has bugs. Some just annoy us, others are potentially dangerous for our beloved data. Our data sometimes gets stolen or deleted due to viruses. Viruses enter our machines by exploiting bugs that allow for code execution or priviledge escalation. To stay patched, we regularly execute our "apt-get update;apt-get dist-upgrade" or use windows update. We do this to close security holes on our systems.
In the PC world, the software and OS manufacturers release security bulletins to inform users of potentially dangerous issues. They say how to work around them or provide a patch.
How do we stay informed about issues and keep our Android devices updated?
Here's what Google says:
We will publicly announce security bugs when the fixes are available via postings to the android-security-announce group on Google Groups.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source: http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/faq/security.html#informed
OK, that particular group is empty (except for a welcome post). Maybe there are no bugs in Android. Go check yourself and google a bit - they do exist.
"So why doesn't Google tell us?", you ask. I don't know. What I know is that the various components of Android (WebKit, kernel, ...) do have bugs. There's nothing wrong with that BTW, software is made by people - and people make mistakes and write buggy code all the time. Just read the changelogs or release notes.
"Wait", I head you say, "there are no changelogs or release notes for Android releases".
Oh - so let's sum up what we need to stay informed about security issues, bugs and workarounds:
* Security bulletins and
* Patches or Workaround information
What of these do we have? Right, nada, zilch, rien.
I'll leave it up to you to decide if that's good common practise.
"But why is this important anyway", you ask.
Well, remember my example above. You visit a website and suddenly find all your stored passwords floating around on the internet. Don't tell me that's not possible, there was a WebKit bug in 2.2 that did just that. Another scenario would be a drive-by download that breaks out of the sandbox and makes expensive phone calls. Or orders subscriptions for monthly new ringtones, raising your bill by orders of magnitute. Or shares your music on illegal download portals (shh, don't tell the RIAA that this is remotely possible).
The bug is probably fixed in 2.2.1 - but without changelogs we can't be sure.
But that's not all - there's a second problem. Not only are we unaware of security issues, we also don't have automated update mechanisms.
We only receive updates when our phone's manufacturers release new firmware. Sadly, not all manufacturers support their phones in the long run.
In the PC world, most Distros have a central package management - that Google forgot to implement in Android. Agreed, some phones can receive OTA updates, but that depends on the carrier. And because of the differences in Android versions it's not possible to have a central patch management either. So we do not know if our Android devices might have security issues. We also have no easy way to patch them.
Perhaps you knew this before, then I apologize for taking your time.
What do YOU - the computer literate and security aware XDA users - think about this? Do you think that's a problem? Or would you rather say that these are minor problems?

Very intresting, thanks! The update problem should be fixed with the next release, no more custom UIs and mods from phone manufacturers,at least google said that
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA App

Excellent post and quite agree with you. The other significant problem looming is the granularity (or rather, lack thereof) in app permissions which can cause problems you describe without bugs and exploits. I install an app that does something interesting with contacts and also has internet access to display ads. How do I know that my contacts are not encrypted, so making sniffing useless, and beamed back to mummy? Nothing other than blind trust!
I love Android but it's an accident waiting to happen unless the kind of changes you advocate are implemented and granularity of permissions significantly increased. I don't like much about Apple but their walled garden app store is something they did get right although IMHO, they also abuse that power to stifle competition. Bring out the feds!

simonta said:
The other significant problem looming is the granularity (or rather, lack thereof) in app permissions [...]
How do I know that my contacts are not encrypted, so making sniffing useless, and beamed back to mummy? Nothing other than blind trust!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, although I'm not sure that less experienced users might have difficulties with such options.
simonta said:
I love Android but it's an accident waiting to happen
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sad but true. I'm just curious what Google will do when the first problems arise and the first users will have groundshaking bills.
If that happens to just a few users, it'll get a kind media coverage Google surely won't like.

I've seen quite a few android exploits posted on bugtraq over the years. It's a high-volume email list, but with some filtering of stuff you don't care about, it becomes manageable. It's been around forever and is a good resource if you want the latest security news on just about anything computer related.
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/description

People are bashing a lot about the Android security model but the truth is you can never have 100% protection with ANY solution.
Apple is not allowing any app in their store. Fine. but mostly they are only filtering out apps that crash, violate some rules or they just don't like them or whatever. but they can never tell what an app is really doing. Therefore they would neeed to reverse-engineer every app they get etc. That's just impossible considering the amount of apps....
Speaking again of Android. I think the permission model is not bad. I mean, no other OS got such detailed description about what an app can do or not. But unfortunately it can only filter out very conspicuous apps, i.e. a Reversi game asking for your location and internet access. But then you never know... if the app is using ads it requires location and internet access, right? so what can you do?

RAMMANN said:
Apple is not allowing any app in their store. Fine. but mostly they are only filtering out apps that crash, violate some rules or they just don't like them or whatever. but they can never tell what an app is really doing. Therefore they would neeed to reverse-engineer every app they get etc. That's just impossible considering the amount of apps....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really, they do blackbox testing and let the apps run on emulated devices they then check if the app "behaves" as desired...

Of course you can't get 100% security and I don't think that's what we're saying, but there is a lot you can do.
Take for example internet access which is the biggest worry I have. The only reason most apps request internet access is to support ads. I now have a choice to make, don't use the app or trust it. That simple, no other choice.
If I installed an app that serves ads but did not have internet access, then the only way that app can get information off my phone is to use exploits and I'm a lot more comfortable knowing that some miscreant needs to understand that than the current situation where some script kiddy can hoover up my contacts.
However, if internet access and ad serving were separate permissions, you could in one hit address, taking a wild guess, 90% of the risk from the wild west that is Marketplace. With a bit more design and work, it would be possible to get the risk down to manageable and acceptable levels (at least for me).
I absolutely agree with you on Apple, one of the main reasons that I chose a Desire instead of an iPhone, but the Android approach is too far the other way IMHO.
Just my tuppence, in a hopeless cause of imagining someone at Google paying attention and thinking you know what, it is an accident waiting to happen.

marty1976 said:
Not really, they do blackbox testing and let the apps run on emulated devices they then check if the app "behaves" as desired...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, so why did a tethering app once make it into the appstore?
Also I think there are many possibilities for an app to behave normal, and just start some bad activity after some time. Wait a couple months until the app is spread around and then bang. Or remotely launch some action initiated through push notifications etc.
If there is interest, then there is always a way....

simonta said:
However, if internet access and ad serving were separate permissions, you could in one hit address, taking a wild guess, 90% of the risk from the wild west that is Marketplace. With a bit more design and work, it would be possible to get the risk down to manageable and acceptable levels (at least for me).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree that a seperate permission for ads would be a good thing.
But there are still many apps which need your location, contacts, internet access.... all the social media things nowadays. And this is where the whole thing will be going to so I think in the future it will be even harder to differenciate.

Getting back on topic: I just read that Windows 7 Phone will get updates and patches like desktop windows. That means patchday once a month plus when urgency is high...

simonta said:
However, if internet access and ad serving were separate permissions, you could in one hit address, taking a wild guess, 90% of the risk from the wild west that is Marketplace. With a bit more design and work, it would be possible to get the risk down to manageable and acceptable levels (at least for me).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But, how do you distinguish them? Today, (as a developer) I can use any ad-provider I want. In order to distinguish ads from general internet access, the OS would need one of:
A Google-defined ad interface, which stifles "creativity" in ad design. Developers would simply ignore it and do what they do now as soon as their preferred ad-provider didn't want to support the "official" ad system or provided some improvement by doing so.
An OS update to support every new ad-provider (yuck^2).
Every ad-provider would have to go through a Google whitelist that was looked up on the fly (increased traffic, and all ads are now "visible" to Google whether Google is involved in the transaction or not). This would also make ad-blocking apps harder to implement since Google's whitelisting API might not behave if the whitelist was unavailable. On the upside, it would make ad-blocking in custom ROMs be trivial.
Even if Google did one of these things, it still wouldn't provide any real increase in privacy or security. The "ad service" would still need to deliver a payload from the app to the service (in order to select ads) and another from the service to the app (the ad content). Such a mechanism could be trivially exploited to do anything that simple HTTP access could provide.

http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/list
issues submitted are reviewed by google employed techs... they tell you if you messed up and caused the issue or if the issue will be fixed in a future release or whatever info they find.
probably not the best way to handle it but its better then nothing.

twztdwyz said:
http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/list
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Knew that bug tracker, but the free tagging aka labels isn't the best idea IMHO.
You can't search for a specific release, for example...
twztdwyz said:
probably not the best way to handle it but its better then nothing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ack, but I think Google can do _much_ better...

Two more things to have in mind:
1. I doubt that many Android users bother much about what permissions they give to an app.
2. Using Google to sync your contacts and calendar (and who knows what else), is a bad, bad idea.

Porting S Voice to other device. Is this Illegal??

I have been a fan of XDA and appreciate the development and support the devs provide. But last few days a thought is bugging me continuously. We saw a lot of posts about S Voice and other apps being ported to other devices. Specially for S Voice, I believe that it's illegal as this could potentially cause Samsung to lose sales. My views:
1] We know that this is re-designed vlingo. vlingo is available in market, S Voice is NOT. Clear indication that they (as in Samsung) don't want the app to be used with other devices and they are not willing to sell it separately. Using vlingo from market is NOT same as using S Voice.
2] Did Samsung give us the permission to use/modify and distribute the app?
3] There is some infrastructure costs associated with running the services. It costs money to install and maintain servers and network. I work in enterprise storage management, so I am aware of costs associated with such massive infrastructure. Who pays for the non-SGS3 devices using the services?
4] Did Samsung every promise that SGS2/Nexus or other phones will get S Voice? So, why should we assume that other Samsung-device owners have the divine right to use a feature meant for SGS3?
5] It is one of the main USP for SGS3. Check here. This is listed as the top-most feature in the SGS3 product page. Hacking this app to be used with other phones is going to harm the phone sale. Is that not clear enough?
6] When Samsung started blocking connections from other devices - was that not an indication that they want the service exclusive for SGS3?
7] How is this different from movie piracy? The uploader never gains anything, but the studios/producers lose money.
8] What if Samsung starts locking their device in future with locked bootloaders/DRM/encryption because of such activities? Can we then blame Samsung for locking the devices?
9] Android is open source - but why assume that every feature in any Android is also open source? If someone can show me that S Voice is open source software, I will retract my statement.
It's sad that most people here equate freedom with piracy. Freedom and piracy are not same thing. Such act in the name of open source and community-feeling does not make it right. Maybe Samsung won't do anything about it -- but it does NOT make this act any better. It will just prove that Samsung considers this to be a petty nuisance (I am not using the word crime as I know nobody is doing this for any monetary gain).
Though I support open initiative with regards to Android, but I can't support such act.
Last check this statement from Samsung in VERGE
An initial test version of S Voice which was found online has been blocked as Samsung Electronics does not want consumers to judge the quality of the voice feature based on a test version. When the product is launched, users of GALAXY S III will be able to fully experience S Voice.

Exactly my thoughts. Though I am not sure what can be done to stop it.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

rd_nest said:
I have been a fan of XDA and appreciate the development and support the devs provide. But last few days a thought is bugging me continuously. We saw a lot of posts about S Voice and other apps being ported to other devices. Specially for S Voice, I believe that it's illegal as this could potentially cause Samsung to lose sales. My views:
1] We know that this is re-designed vlingo. vlingo is available in market, S Voice is NOT. Clear indication that they (as in Samsung) don't want the app to be used with other devices and they are not willing to sell it separately. Using vlingo from market is NOT same as using S Voice.
2] Did Samsung give us the permission to use/modify and distribute the app?
3] There is some infrastructure costs associated with running the services. It costs money to install and maintain servers and network. I work in enterprise storage management, so I am aware of costs associated with such massive infrastructure. Who pays for the non-SGS3 devices using the services?
4] Did Samsung every promise that SGS2/Nexus or other phones will get S Voice? So, why should we assume that other Samsung-device owners have the divine right to use a feature meant for SGS3?
5] It is one of the main USP for SGS3. Check here. This is listed as the top-most feature in the SGS3 product page. Hacking this app to be used with other phones is going to harm the phone sale. Is that not clear enough?
6] When Samsung started blocking connections from other devices - was that not an indication that they want the service exclusive for SGS3?
7] How is this different from movie piracy? The uploader never gains anything, but the studios/producers lose money.
8] What if Samsung starts locking their device in future with locked bootloaders/DRM/encryption because of such activities? Can we then blame Samsung for locking the devices?
9] Android is open source - but why assume that every feature in any Android is also open source? If someone can show me that S Voice is open source software, I will retract my statement.
It's sad that most people here equate freedom with piracy. Freedom and piracy are not same thing. Such act in the name of open source and community-feeling does not make it right. Maybe Samsung won't do anything about it -- but it does NOT make this act any better. It will just prove that Samsung considers this to be a petty nuisance (I am not using the word crime as I know nobody is doing this for any monetary gain).
Though I support open initiative with regards to Android, but I can't support such act.
Last check this statement from Samsung in VERGE
An initial test version of S Voice which was found online has been blocked as Samsung Electronics does not want consumers to judge the quality of the voice feature based on a test version. When the product is launched, users of GALAXY S III will be able to fully experience S Voice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung will have known about this,
If they explicitly didnt want it to be shared with other android phones they could have prevented this easy in one of 2 ways,
1. integrate it into touchwiz framework
2. link the phones imei or unique identifier to the app and set up a database on the servers, similar to siri's protection.
Samsung wanted this app to be freely available as they have done nothing to protect its redistribution. I dont think they mind this because they have NO competitor in the Android market and are far superior to any other OEM that produces android phones.
PS. The Android OS is open source but there are many applications that have closed source to protect their business. Touchwiz source is never fully open sourced and neither is Sense.
I remember a year ago with the CM team asking for help from Samsung for little bits of protected code to get the camera fully functioning on the stock android rom (CM7 ROM).
JD

JupiterdroidXDA said:
Samsung will have known about this,
If they explicitly didnt want it to be shared with other android phones they could have prevented this easy in one of 2 ways,
1. integrate it into touchwiz framework
2. link the phones imei or unique identifier to the app and set up a database on the servers, similar to siri's protection.
Samsung wanted this app to be freely available as they have done nothing to protect its redistribution. I dont think they mind this because they have NO competitor in the Android market and are far superior to any other OEM that produces android phones.
PS. The Android OS is open source but there are many applications that have closed source to protect their business. Touchwiz source is never fully open sourced and neither is Sense.
I remember a year ago with the CM team asking for help from Samsung for little bits of protected code to get the camera fully functioning on the stock android rom (CM7 ROM).
JD
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My view is that we took the application and made it compatible with other devices, Samsung never explicitly gave the permission.
Maybe they thought it would be easier to upgrade the app if it's not integrated into the TW. But I fear such activity may force them to become less dev-friendly in future.
It's a different story if in future they make the code available for CM9 or other projects separately. I just hope not, but the way it's being spread over the internet, I fear they will react in some way. Also throws a bad light over XDA.

JupiterdroidXDA said:
Samsung wanted this app to be freely available as they have done nothing to protect its redistribution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They obviously didn't want it to be freely available because they have blocked it now.
Anyway, I don't get this mentality that if something is not impossible to take, it's ok to take it.

I will ask about the validity of ripping/porting the samsung apps and post back to this thread. If there is anything illegal about it (and im not sure there is unless the apps have been licensed specifically to the Galaxy S3) then any links on xda will be taken down.
I cant do anything about the rest of the internet though lol.
Mark.

mskip said:
I will ask about the validity of ripping/porting the samsung apps and post back to this thread. If there is anything illegal about it (and im not sure there is unless the apps have been licensed specifically to the Galaxy S3) then any links on xda will be taken down.
I cant do anything about the rest of the internet though lol.
Mark.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Much appreciated. I wanted this to be brought to the notice of MODs. Nobody wants XDA to be in bad light for such a petty affair.
As for the apps (specially S Voice) being exclusive to SGS3, I think so. That's what I infer from Samsung's statement in Verge:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/22/3037943/samsung-blocking-s-voice-app-leak
But please do verify with relevant authorities and take appropriate actions (if required).

Mac OS X doesn't require a product key, but that doesn't mean my friend can just use my installation DVD legally, it all depends on the T&C's
The fact Samsung have blocked it for other devices should give an indication of their decision towards people using this software on another device. They may not send the FBI to kick down your door and arrest you, but cracking it to spoof a SGSIII for example would probably get a DMCA take-down notice pretty quickly. They almost certainly won't want all and sundry freely enjoying one of the big features of their new flagship device.

I have e-mailed Samsung PR dept on their views about this issue. Not sure if they check their Inbox

Unless we hear otherwise from Samsung, we will follow the normal site policy. In this case (though it is an edge case) for the moment we're allowing it.

If this is the case, then all devs who port roms from other models are in breach also.
Is this thread trying to stop dev work, and has the OP loaded the program, if he has shame on him for going against his beliefs, now let us and the devs get on with it.:what:
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
Edit: phone model is Arc, now why did I change the prop build?

OP - Care to share how this is any different from all of the Sense ports to other devices? It's not.
I also like how you thanked Mark for checking into this - and that you were waiting to hear.... And then not even an hour later you go and contact Samsung PR? It sounds to me like you have an ax to grind.

I think everything that needs to be covered has been

Samsung throwing the towel on knox

According to the article it appears samsung is throwing the towel on Knox. It does make sense given Google's direction and lack of adoption.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobegan...ixs-knox-the-android-security-saga-continues/

pitchdarkice said:
According to the article it appears samsung is throwing the towel on Knox. It does make sense given Google's direction and lack of adoption.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobegan...ixs-knox-the-android-security-saga-continues/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Getting tech news from Fortune is like getting sports news from Better Homes & Gardens. Samsung and Google's cross-licensing deal probably plays in to the following. Just like the death of Samsung Hub and the neutering of M-UX.
Pichai (Google's Head of Android Development) specifically noted that the future Android 5.0's security layer involves Samsung's "contribution" of Knox, a feature that company unveiled last spring as part of its "SAFE" (Samsung for Enterprise) initiative.
Knox principally erects a "container" or sandbox around corporate apps and data to prevent any unauthorized mingling with a users' private, unsecured email, apps and other personal data.​http://appleinsider.com/articles/14...erprise-with-android-l-featuring-samsung-knox

BarryH_GEG said:
Getting tech news from Fortune is like getting sports news from Better Homes & Gardens. Samsung and Google's cross-licensing deal probably plays in to the following. Just like the death of Samsung Hub and the neutering of M-UX.
Pichai (Google's Head of Android Development) specifically noted that the future Android 5.0's security layer involves Samsung's "contribution" of Knox, a feature that company unveiled last spring as part of its "SAFE" (Samsung for Enterprise) initiative.
Knox principally erects a "container" or sandbox around corporate apps and data to prevent any unauthorized mingling with a users' private, unsecured email, apps and other personal data.​http://appleinsider.com/articles/14...erprise-with-android-l-featuring-samsung-knox
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Based on the link you provided, it looks like the KNOX-like security feature will come baked in Android OS? That sucks if it is true.. harder for us to root without tripping something else that warrants (no pun intended) manufacturer to deny warranty work.

This will be good, if Google makes some "rules" for this security feature.
For example if KNOX or "Googlebit" is triggered it could be reset if you are back to locked bootloader and doing a factory reset. That way you can tell that your device is secure again.

valexi said:
This will be good, if Google makes some "rules" for this security feature.
For example if KNOX or "Googlebit" is triggered it could be reset if you are back to locked bootloader and doing a factory reset. That way you can tell that your device is secure again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you are right. Having the Knox container and security will probably be useful in the future given the rate and sophistication of hacking nowadays.

Knox reset
I feel I should be able to restore stock firmware to subsequently reset Knox to then do a hardware fault warranty claim. Whilst I've taken the risk triggering Knox when installing Cyanogenmod, the tablet had usability problems on stock, which is why I did this in the first place...
ie: On Cyanogenmod my WiFi is stable, video plays smoothly, no weird jitter in Google Chrome address bar and I have an Exchange email client (KitKat) which doesn't hide some of my folders.

Android Message App

How does it compare to imessage? Also, is it using google server or your carriers server?Im trying to better understand it......bout to pull the trigger and order from samsung the s8, come back to android for a while

Im trying to understand also what Google Messages (RCS and carrier dependent) offers vs the Samsung app.

km8j said:
Im trying to understand also what Google Messages (RCS and carrier dependent) offers vs the Samsung app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
very little information on it as of yet...Im just now ordering through samsung,and to be honest the s8 is the only phone up till now that made me want to rejoin the android side....All jokes aside imessege is the ****....Google needs to make sure android message catch up fast....I know apple uses its on servers not for sure on android message just yet

Wow, feels like forever since I've posted on XDA... Good to be back.
Here's the thing, Android Messages is the default Google SMS/MMS client that has the potential fur RCS delivery depending on the carrier you are on. I doubt we see it ever get anything near iMessage capabilities. You're more likely to see those capabilities pop up in Allo, if Google ever stops messing around with sticker packs and adds SMS functionality in. It's been reportedly coming for almost a year now (well since it released), so don't hold your breath too much.