Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The point here is that app developers have to identify themselves. Google has no intention to verify the content of sideloaded apps, just that it is signed by a real person, for accountability.

They don't know if the person who signed the app is the developer, but should the app happen to be a scam and there is a police investigation, that is the person who will have to answer questions, like "who did you transfer these private keys to?".

This, according to Google and possibly regulators in countries where this will be implemented, will help combat a certain type of scam.

It shouldn't be a problem for YouTube Vanced, at least in the proposed form. The authors, who are already idendified just need to sign their APK. AFAIK, what they are doing is not illegal or they would have been shut down long ago. It may be a problem for others though, and particularly F-Droid, because F-Droid recompiles apps, they can't reasonably be signed by the original author.

The F-Droid situation can resolve itself if F-Droid is allowed to sign the apps it publishes, and in fact, doing that is an improvement in security as it can be a guarantee that the APK you got is indeed the one compiled by F-Droid from publicly available source code.



APKs are already signed. Now Google requries that they be signed by a key which is verified by their own signatures. Which means they can selectively refused to verify whichever keys are inconvenient to them.


> Google has no intention to verify the content of sideloaded apps, just that it is signed by a real person, for accountability.

for now


Still believe that signing binaries this way is always bullshit.

I stopped developing for mobile systems ages ago because it just isn't fun anymore and the devices are vastly more useless. As a user, I don't use apps anymore either.

But you can bet I won't ever id myself to Google as a dev.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: