[cptskippy]

They're dismissing risk as a non issue since they've displaced responsibility on the user. Their system isn't more secure because it is reliant on the user. Time and time again it's been shown that the user is the weakest link which is why some many of these types of systems are in place.

People are 100% vigilant all the time.

[hedora]

Their system is explicitly for people that don’t trust Google.

With certificate spoofing, the risk is that I might accidentally click through permissions on a malicious, already installed and privileged app.

With LineageOS the risk is that I will, with 100% certainty, run code that I have deemed malicious (== any service-facing client-side Google blob).

Maybe you haven’t decided those binaries are malicious, but that doesn’t change my opinion, and what I do with my phone isn’t your business.

I don’t see why certificate spoofing is controversial at all (especially amongst the “free as in freedom” crowd).

[cptskippy]

> Their system is explicitly for people that don’t trust Google.

Yes, and LineageOS is not. LinesageOS has an interest in maintaining the ability to run Google blobs and accepting such a patch might potentially harm that interest.

Instead of accepting that, this project acts all butt hurt and whines that LinesageOS's position is inconceivable.

[dcow]

NO! LineageOS has no agreement with Google to provide Play Services. In order to do that you have to literally pirate play services and install them on LineageOS. That, IMHO is a far greater concern than allowing a SYSTEM app (one that is built into the framework) to pretend to be google play services.

[cptskippy]

No one said they have an agreement. I said they didn't want to do anything to disrupt the status quo.

[dcow]

> Yes, and LineageOS is not. LinesageOS has an interest in maintaining the ability to run Google blobs and accepting such a patch might potentially harm that interest.

Maybe I'm being a little pedantic, but my point is it's not LineageOS that makes that call. LineageOS does not distribute gapps and is not in any agreement with google that would possibly adversely impact users' ability to run gaps due to such agreement being revoked were LineageOS to act against googles interest. CM on the other hand likely would have been either directly or indirectly when it was buddied with one plus (which is when this went down).

There are a lot of subtly incorrect statements in this thread and I'm trying to help clarify because I find this discussion interesting and important.

[cptskippy]

Again it has nothing to do with agreements. Google is not preventing them from running the blobs, but they could.

LineageOS doesn't want to give the provocation to prevent them from being able to run the blobs.

[aaomidi]

Well this isn't a normal OS that an everyday user uses?

There are people who don't want any binary blobs from Google on their devices.

[cptskippy]

And there are people who do want those blobs. LineageOS has chosen to err on the side of caution and not allow a patch that might prompt Google to take action.

[traverseda]

So what you're saying is that you believe the real reason this patch wasn't merged is because google might take action, and the security concerns are not as relevant? One might even call them a... shield?

[cptskippy]

Why can't it be both?

[Qwertious]

>People are 100% vigilant all the time.

I think you mean the reverse?