Require?  I think that is unlikely.

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:55 AM, John Markey <[email protected]> wrote:

>  All
>
> asked this some time ago and it may not be changing
>
> will future versions of Android require hardware features for support of
> security:
>
> Trustzone like secure virtualization of the processor execution environment
> OTP internal data storage for one time programmable keys or identity
> Crypto Acceleration (AES, SHA, RSA, ECC,...)
>
> is this planned or discussed for future versions
>
>
> thank you
> john
> security architect mobile devices
> broadcom
> [email protected]
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:
> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Dianne Hackborn
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 11, 2009 6:44 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* [android-security-discuss] Re: Do they need to change the
> security keys for the OEM?
>
> There are no guarantees about how secure a device is without ro.secure
> being set -- at this point only devices with it set have been shipped, so
> there hasn't been a security review for the system running without it set.
> I doubt any one person actually knows what all is impacted by not having it
> set.
>
> As far as carriers, the big one is giving the user root access.  Sure, if
> you have ro.secure not yet, then the user can get root access...  but
> because this configuration hasn't been productized, there are some
> potentially disturbing repercussions such as the fact that all you need to
> do is leave adb access on, and anyone can plug your phone into a computer
> and have root.  If a non-developer phone is going to ship without ro.secure
> set, at the very least I think it would be required to have a facility to
> set a root password.
>
> Bottom line: if you are going to ship a device without ro.secure set, be
> sure to examine all of the code that this impacts to make sure you are okay
> with the result.
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Disconnect <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Doesn't the setting of ro.secure depend on his needs? (At least, the
>> engineers on IRC are always claiming that the "proper" android setting is
>> off and it is the evil carriers who insist on turning it on, etc.) Turning
>> it on may be the right answer but it doesn't seem like it is the only one.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Dianne Hackborn <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> When you are creating the user image for your device, you need to sign
>>> everything with your own private keys that nobody else has access to.  You
>>> also need to make sure the ro.secure system property is set, and that the
>>> build phase for generating the final dexopt files into the system image is
>>> done (so dexopt doesn't need to be run at boot).
>>>
>>> This is the "mydevice-user" configuration.  Generally development will
>>> happen with "mydevice-eng" or "mydevice-userdebug", but the result of these
>>> build configurations is not intended for shipping on a device.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:21 AM, cht <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The security keys under the directory android\build\target\product
>>>> \security is used to sign the apk for defferent security level. do
>>>> they need to generate some new keys of theirself or do not change it
>>>> for some compatible problems?
>>>>
>>>> thank you
>>>>
>>>> cht
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dianne Hackborn
>>> Android framework engineer
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>> Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to
>>> provide private support, and so won't reply to such e-mails.  All such
>>> questions should be posted on public forums, where I and others can see and
>>> answer them.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dianne Hackborn
> Android framework engineer
> [email protected]
>
> Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to
> provide private support, and so won't reply to such e-mails.  All such
> questions should be posted on public forums, where I and others can see and
> answer them.
>
>


-- 
Dianne Hackborn
Android framework engineer
[email protected]

Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to
provide private support, and so won't reply to such e-mails.  All such
questions should be posted on public forums, where I and others can see and
answer them.

Reply via email to