Sujet : Re: How do nonroot Android & nonjailbroken iOS run SMB servers to connect to each other & Windows?
De : this (at) *nospam* ddress.is.invalid (Frank Slootweg)
Groupes : comp.mobile.android misc.phone.mobile.iphoneDate : 27. Apr 2025, 20:56:36
Autres entêtes
Organisation : NOYB
Message-ID : <vum96d.lfc.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (CYGWIN_NT-10.0-WOW/2.8.0(0.309/5/3) (i686)) Hamster/2.0.2.2
Arno Welzel <
usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
Frank Slootweg, 2025-04-25 20:41:
[...]
IMO, the 'no-root' philosophy of Android (and iOS?) is broken from the
start. I can't access my files in Android\data etc.? I can't run a
server on a <1024 port? Etc., etc.. But I *can* (f.e. Samsung) unlock
the bootloader and blow everything to bits!?
Yes - because unlocking the bootlader is not possible without wiping the
device. So no risk of getting access to data for an attacker. Also this
requires understanding how to install ADB and how to enter fast boot
mode on the device and so on...
Yes, I thought the same, unlocking bootloader wipes the device,
because that was for example the case for my Huawei phone (in
preparation of installing TWRP and later Lineage OS).
However, someone in comp.mobile.android pointed out that (non-US)
Samsung phones have a bootloader unlock switch in the 'Developer
options' and indeed my Samsung (Galaxy A51) has such a switch, without
any comments that it will wipe the device.
However, now I'm reading it again, the wording of the off/on switch is
a bit vague:
"OEM unlocking
Allow the bootloader to be unlocked <off/on switch>"
It says it *allows* the bootloader *to be* unlocked, not that
switching the switch to on will *actually unlock* the bootloader.
So in hindsight, I think the switch only allows the bootloader to be
unlocked (by whatever additional means/process) and will not actually
unlock it.
Anyway, I'm not going to set the switch to on to see what will happen
or/and there will be further information/warnings.
Bottom line: I withdraw the last sentence of my criticism, but the
rest, especially the "Etc., etc.." bit :-), still stands.