Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Jan 2013 18:12 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 549839
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-03-08
I don't think that one necessarily goes with the other.
The point of sandboxing, as implemented on Android or BB10 at least, is to define a fine-grained set of security permissions that applications can either possess or not possess. At install time, users get to see which system resources applications want to access and decide whether they want to take the risk or not. In BB10 it also looks like users can deny apps access to specific resources, which is difficult on Android.
So I don't see how this can give applications excessive power. If anything, that's more secure than the "root access" concept of current-gen desktop operating systems, where applications either run with fairly limited rights (while still being conceptually able to wipe user data) or acquire total control over the operating system, with no way of knowing what's happening when a UAC/gksudo dialog appears.
Edited 2013-01-22 09:54 UTC