Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

i started a little movement to get 4.4 update to get rid of that vuln.

unofficial Motorola word on xda was that there was a single intern handling releases for older phone. heh i actually believe it.

everyone here with a short memory will say they are on 5 already. which adds nothing. and they will forget the 4 months they were on a insecure 4.x



sort by: page size:

The other part of the problem with security updates on Android, IMO, is that they aren't typically back-ported - so if your phone can't do Android 4, you're stuck with the security flaws in 2.3 (including this new flaw) forever.

I completely agree.

I do find it interesting though, as someone who through work has deployed a lot of cell phones for field ops - the situation seems to be kind of, sort of getting better in that respect.

We bought a ton of Moto G4s and G5s in last 18 months, and for the first year, I saw maybe one OS update and a couple security patches?. In the past six months, it's been noticably different (and these phones are only getting older, mind).

I'm writing this on a Moto G5+ which has 7.1.1 and the January security patches, including fix for KRACK vulnerability. G4 models have the same patch level and 7.0. Updates have been deployed fairly regularly lately (if still not quite on a monthly cycle).

This from Lenovo, who have historically been terrible for issuing updates in a timely manner.

I wonder if the message is finally getting to these OEMs that they can't afford to let current models wither on the vine in this IT security climate, even if only for their own selfish ends (e.g. avoiding bad press).

I really hope so. It's way overdue.

Disclaimer: total anecdata, handle with gloves.


> there are millions of devices that will never be updated

Luckily, almost all (if not just all) these millions of devices which will never be updated never ever received the vulnerable version in the first place. The bug was only introduced in 5.8 and due to how hardware vendors work phones are still stuck in 4.19 ages (or better, 5.4. but no 5.10 besides Pixel 6)


A phone without updates becomes insecure.

Motorola produce virtually no software updates. You'll typically only get security updates for two years after the phone is started to be sold.

1 Android update

3 years of security updates (every other month)

It's an improvement over the 2 years of updates they used to do, but Motorola's software support still sucks.


Phones hold sensitive datas, banking stuffs. I never heard about recall when a security flaw is fixed on a phone by a software update.

No security update will ever compensate for the average person's lack of digital hygiene. It's mostly smokescreen and fear management.

Send your _old_ Pixels my way. I'll put LineageOS on and enjoy them a few more years.


That leaves users wide open to the quintillions of security issues with older Android which will never be patched, though.

Hope you also tell people who use Android about the dismal state of updates (actually the lack of it) from most manufacturers and how most new phones come with older versions with security vulnerabilities not patched on that device (and probably will never be patched).

If it helps I installed CM on my old Galaxy Nexus and it has 4.4.4 now.

>Vulnerabilities like that have to be addressed somehow.

I think these two issues go hand-in-hand. How can we send security updates out when the OEM and carriers have told us to get lost? It hurts google, its hurts android's reputation, etc. Passing off updates, especially critical ones, to the OEM/Carrier infrastructure is just irresponsible in this day and age of endless security threats.

Imagine if my Lenovo PC had to get Windows updates not directly from MS but from Lenovo and Comcast and only after they've agreed to give them to me? That's the situation on Android right now and things like the AOSP browser bug prove its a broken model.


I don't consider a phone that hasn't received security updates in 2.5 years "perfectly fine". I'm all for extending the life of older devices, don't misunderstand me, but that requires software updates. My phone is probably much older than those of most HN'ers (been using it for over 3 years now) and I used my last laptop for 7 years. But I don't run ancient unsupported software on either.

What I'm saying is "you shouldn't run Android 4.x in 2020", not "you shouldn't use a device from 2014 in 2020". Whether it be through better manufacturer support or a custom ROM like LineageOS, these ancient versions need to die.


Show me a batch that can be flashed with security patches without opening up the phone, and I'll start paying attention again.

FWIW, I still get security bugfix system updates on my 2015 Moto 3G, as recently as two months ago. Here's hoping they keep up this level of support.

It's kind of ridiculous that my Google Nexus 5X, which was released just over 3 years ago, will not receive updates to patch vulnerabilities like this anymore.

My moto e got patched a few weeks ago and now crashes several times a day. It seems Motorola is trying to train users not to update their systems.

I appreciate that a solution is for people to update immediately. It really makes me wonder if my Android phones over the years have had 1-days exploited by the sheer incompetence of the ecosystem in updating phones.

Not much confidence when you get an update with security patches from 2-3 months ago.


Well, yes, security updates can be important. However, since I run a home-built Android distribution on the thing I can keep it up to date with the most egregious bugs (SurfaceFlinger bug etc.). This leads to the odd situation where my oldish phone is more secure than my wife's much newer Xperia C3 running a stock 4.4.4 distribution.

..which reminds me I have some more work to do, given the recent publication of https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2016-07-01.html


they release some security updates for older phones and oses

they probably do it in a best effort basis and some fixes are skipped when it's too much work to backport.

next

Legal | privacy