×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Replicant Hackers Find and Close Samsung Galaxy Back-door

timothy posted about 9 months ago | from the in-their-spare-time dept.

Handhelds 81

gnujoshua writes "Paul Kocialkowski (PaulK), a developer for the Replicant project, a fully free/libre version of Android, wrote a guest blog post for the Free Software Foundation announcing that whlie hacking on the Samsung Galaxy, they "discovered that the proprietary program running on the applications processor in charge of handling the communication protocol with the modem actually implements a back-door that lets the modem perform remote file I/O operations on the file system." They then replaced the proprietary program with free software.

While it may be a while before we can have a 100% free software microcode/firmware on the the cellular hardware itself, isolating that hardware from the rest of your programming and data is a seemingly important step that we can take right now. At least to the FSF anyhow. What do others think: is a 100% free software mobile device important to you?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Who's behind that back-door ? (2)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 9 months ago | (#46472205)

NSA ?

GCHQ ?

Or their equivalent from South Korea ?

God is behind every backdoor (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46472381)

Any theory that does not provide a method to falsify and validate its claims is a useless theory.

Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right?

You couldn't and they can't. There is no method available to confirm or disprove what was said about the watermelon. Therefore we can dismiss the theory of the blue interior of watermelons as being pure speculation and guess work, not science. You can not say something is true without demonstrating how it is not false, and you can not say something is not true without demonstrating how it is false. Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously. If one could demonstrate clearly that the watermelon appears to indeed be blue inside, without being able to demonstrate what colors it is not, we still have no absolute confirmation of its color. That is to say asserting something is the way it is, without being able to assert what it is not, is a useless claim. Therefore, in order for any theory to be confirmed to be true, it must be shown how to both validate and falsify its claims. It is circular reasoning to be able to validate something, without saying how to falsify it, or vice versa. This is the nature of verification and falsification. Both must be clearly demonstrated in order for a theory to be confirmed to be true or false. Something can not be proven to be true without showing that it is not false, and something can not be proven to be not true, unless it can be proven to be false.

Unfortunately, Darwin never properly demonstrated how to falsify his theory, which means evolution has not properly been proven, since it has never been demonstrated what the evidence does not suggest. In the event that evolution is not true, there should be a clear and defined method of reasoning to prove such by demonstrating through evidence that one could not possibly make any alternative conclussions based on said evidence. It is for this reason we must be extremely skeptical of how the evidence has been used to support evolution for lack of proper method of falsification, especially when the actual evidence directly contradicts the theory. If it can be demonstrated how to properly falsify evolution, regardless if evolution is true or not, only then can evolution ever be proven or disproved.

It will now be demonstrated that Darwin never told us how to properly falsify evolution, which will also show why no one can claim to have disproved or proven the theory, until now. It must be able to be demonstrated that if evolution were false, how to go about proving that, and while Darwin indeed made a few statements on this issue, his statements were not adequate or honest. In order to show Darwin's own falsification ideas are inadequate, rather than discussing them and disproving them individually, all that needs to be done is demonstrate a proper falsification argument for evolution theory. That is to say if the following falsification is valid, and can not show evolution to be false, then evolution theory would be proven true by way of deductive reasoning. That is the essence of falsification; if it can be shown that something is not false, it must therefore be true.

So the following falsification method must be the perfect counter to Darwin's validation method, and would therefore prove evolution to be true in the event this falsification method can not show evolution to be false. As said before; if something is not false, it must therefore be true. This would confirm the accuracy of this falsification method, which all theories must have, and show that Darwin did not properly show how evolution could be falsified, in the event that evolution was not true. In order to show evolution is not false (thereby proving it to be true), we must be able to show how it would be false, if it were. Without being able to falsify evolution in this manner, you can not validate it either. If something can not be shown to be false, yet it is said to be true, this is circular reasoning, since you have no way of confirming this conclusion. Example; If we told a blind person our car is red, and they agreed we were telling the truth, the blind person could not tell another blind person accurate information regarding the true color of the car. While he has evidence that the car is red by way of personal testimony, he has no way of confirming if this is true or false, since he might have been lied to, regardless if he was or not.

So one must demonstrate a method to prove beyond any doubt that in the event that evolution is not true, it can be shown to be such. To say evolution is true, without a way to show it is false, means evolution has never been proven to be true. If evolution be true, and this method of falsification be valid, then by demonstrating the falsification method to be unable to disprove evolution, we would confirm evolution to be right. Alternatively, if the falsification method is valid and demonstrates that Darwin's validation method does not prove evolution, then evolution is false indeed.

Firstly, the hypothesis. If evolution is incorrect, then it can be demonstrated to be so by using both living and dead plants and animals. The following is the way to do so and the logical alternative to the theory. The fossil record can be used as well, but not as evolution theory would have us believe. In order to properly falsify something, all biases must be removed, since assuming something is correct without knowing how to prove its false is akin to the blind person who can not confirm the color of someones car. Since evolution has not correctly been shown how to be falsified, as will be demonstrated, we must be open to other possibilities by way of logic, and ultimately reject evolution by way of evidence, should the evidence lead us in such a direction.

If evolution be not true, the only explanation for the appearance of varied life on the planet is intelligent design. This would predict that all life since the initial creation has been in a state of entropy since their initial creation, which is the opposite of evolution. If this be true, then animals and plants are not increasing in genetic complexity or new traits as evolution theory would have us believe, but are in fact losing information. This would explain why humans no longer have room for their wisdom teeth and why the human appendix is decreasing in functionality. The only objection to this claim that evolution theory would propose is that evolution does not always increase the genetic complexity and traits of an organism, but rather, sometimes decreases them as well. This objection is only made because we have only ever actually observed entropy in living creatures, which suits the creation model far better than evolution, which shall be demonstrated.

If the creation model is true, we can make verifiable predictions that disprove evolution. For example; the creation model states that life was created diversified to begin with, with distinct "kinds" of animals, by a supernatural Creator that did not evolve Himself, but rather always existed. Without going into the debate on how such a being is possible to exist, it must be said that either everything came from nothing, or something always existed. To those who say the universe always existed; the claim of this hypothesis is that the Creator always existed, which is equally as viable for the previous logic.

In order to demonstrate that the Creator is responsible for life and created life diversified to begin with, the word "kind" must be defined. A kind is the original prototype of any ancestral line; that is to say if God created two lions, and two cheetahs, these are distinct kinds. In this scenario, these two cats do not share a common ancestor, as they were created separately, and therefore are not the same kind despite similar appearance and design. If this is the case, evolution theory is guilty of using homogeneous structures as evidence of common ancestry, and then using homogeneous structures to prove common ancestry; this is circular reasoning!

The idea of kinds is in direct contrast to evolution theory which says all cats share a common ancestor, which the creation model does not hold to be true. If evolution theory is true, the word kind is a superficial label that does not exist, because beyond our classifications, there would be no clear identifiable division among animals or plants, since all plants and animals would therefore share a common ancestor. The word kind can only be applied in the context of the creation model, but can not be dismissed as impossible due to the evolutionary bias, simply because evolution has not been properly validated nor can it be held to be true until it can correctly be shown to be impossible to falsify.

One must look at the evidence without bias and conclude based on contemporary evidence (not speculation) if indeed evolution is the cause of the diversity of species, or not. It must also been demonstrated if the clear and distinct species do or do not share a common ancestor with each other, regardless that they may appear to be of the same family or design. In order to verify this, all that needs to be done is to demonstrate that a lion and cheetah do or do not have a common ancestor; if it can be demonstrated that any animal or plant within a family (cats in this case) do not share a common ancestor with each other, this would disprove evolution immediately and prove supernatural creation of kinds.

However, since lions and cheetahs are both clearly of the same family or design, and can potentially interbreed, we must be careful not to overlook the possibility of a very recent common ancestor If such is the case, this does not exclude the possibility that the two are originally from two separate kinds that do not share a common ancestor previous to them having one. It is therefore necessary to build an ancestral history based on verifiable evidence (not homogeneous structures in the fossil record) that can clearly demonstrate where exactly the cheetah and the lion had a common ancestor. If no such common ancestor can be found and confirmed without bias, and this test is performed between two or more of any plant or animal life without ever finding anything to the contrary, we can confirm with certainty evolution did not happen, and that kinds do exist.

In the event that fossils are too elusive (compounded with the fact that they can not be used as evidence of common descent due to circular reasoning e.g. homogeneous structures), then there is a superior and far more effective way to falsify evolution. Evolution states by addition of new traits (new organs, new anatomy) that the first lifeforms increased in complexity and size by introduction of new traits, slowly increasing step by step to more complex life forms. Notice that the addition of such traits can not be attributed to the alteration of old ones, for obvious reasons, since detrimental or beneficial mutations are only alterations of already existing traits, and can not account for an increase in the number of traits any given life form possesses.

That means a bacteria becoming able to digest nylon is a mere mutation of already existing digestive capabilities, and can not be classified as an increase in traits. Evolution theory would predict that the process of gradual change and increase in traits is an ongoing process, and therefore should be observable in todays living animals and plants through new emerging traits that any given plant or animal did not possess in its ancestry. Those who say such changes take millions of years and can not be observed today only say so because no such trait has ever been observed to emerge or be in the process of emerging in contemporary history, which is what the creation model predicts. If evolution theory be true, we would expect that at least one animal or plant would contain a new trait or be in the process of growing such a triat over its known common ancestors (that is not simply a multiplication or alteration of a trait it already had).

At this point, the fossil record can not be used as evidence to prove that evolution can produce new traits due to the fact that two animals that appear to be of the same family (T-rex and Brontosaurus, dinosaurs), while they do indeed exhibit distinct trait differences, may not have a common ancestor, but rather were created differently with all their different traits. It is therefore of paramount importance to show a single instance of such an increase of traits exists within a provable ancestry (stress provable) in contemporary times, and not assume anything concerning where the traits in the fossil record owe their origin. If it can not be shown that any animal or plant living today (or very recently deceased) exhibits any trait variance that can clearly and thoroughly be proven to be a new addition over its (stress) provable ancestors, compounded with the reasoning that two similar animals (such as a penguin and a woodpecker) do not necessarily or provably share a common ancestor, then evolution is clearly absent entirely, and supernatural intelligent design and creation is thereby proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

In conclusion, should any two animals or plants within a family (a palm tree and a coconut tree) be proven to not share a common ancestor, or if no provable increase of traits can be demonstrated to be in its beginnings or actively present in the animals and plants living today over their provable ancestry, then The Bible is correct when it says God created all the animals and plants as distinct kinds with their traits to begin with. This is the only way to falsify evolution, and it is amazing (and convenient) that Darwin never encouraged people to attempt to falsify his theory in this manner.

Re:God is behind every backdoor (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46472859)

I really hope you didn't type that out.

Re:God is behind every backdoor (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46472987)

Holy batshit, er, batman.

Re:God is behind every backdoor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46473129)

Just a copy paste job :

https://www.google.de/#q=%22Firstly%2C+the+hypothesis.+If+evolution+is+incorrect%2C+then+it+can+be+demonstrated+to+be+so+by+using+both+living+and+dead+plants+and+animals.+The+following+is+the+way+to+do+so+and+the+logical+alternative+to+the+theory.+The+fossil+record+can+be+used+as+well%2C+but+not+as+evolution+theory+would+have+us+believe.+In+order+to+properly+falsify+something%2C+all+biases+must+be+removed%2C+since+assuming+something+is+correct+without+knowing+how+to+prove+its+false+is+akin+to+the+blind+person+who+can+not+confirm+the+color+of+someones+car.+Since+evolution+has+not+correctly+been+shown+how+to+be+falsified%2C+as+will+be+demonstrated%2C+we+must+be+open+to+other+possibilities+by+way+of+logic%2C+and+ultimately+reject+evolution+by+way+of+evidence%2C+should+the+evidence+lead+us+in+such+a+direction.%22

Re:God is behind every backdoor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46473203)

" if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong?"

Simple, drill a hole, or insert a fiber optic camera, or light it with a 10000W carbon-arc searchlight. None of these methods involve "cutting it open".

Take your batshit ignorant rants elsewhere.

Re:God is behind every backdoor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46478751)

drilling a hole counts as cutting it open, idiot.

lighting it with a very very powerful torch might work tho, anti-idiot

Re:God is behind every backdoor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46473663)

In order to demonstrate that the Creator is responsible for life and created life diversified to begin with, the word "kind" must be defined. A kind is the original prototype of any ancestral line; that is to say if God created two lions, and two cheetahs, these are distinct kinds. In this scenario, these two cats do not share a common ancestor, as they were created separately, and therefore are not the same kind despite similar appearance and design. If this is the case, evolution theory is guilty of using homogeneous structures as evidence of common ancestry, and then using homogeneous structures to prove common ancestry; this is circular reasoning!

why is using evidence to prove something circular reasoning?

Re:God is behind every backdoor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46476999)

Oh my God.

Get this man to a philosophy class. He's just gone full retard.

Re:Who's behind that back-door ? (5, Interesting)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 9 months ago | (#46472433)

When I heard this news earlier today I couldn't help but think that it's not really a back-door. Samsung has had a service on their phones for years that allows you to track your phone and remotely wipe it if someone stole it or you lost it or something. Performing file I/O on the system? Well, that sounds exactly like something you'd need to do if you were to wipe the phone clean!

Re:Who's behind that back-door ? (1)

Cenan (1892902) | about 9 months ago | (#46472631)

This was my exact thought when I read it earlier. I've used that functionality myself before. On top of that, what they replaced the Samsung Android version with was a crippled, no hardware acceleration piece of crap. But I think they already knew that, and they knew exactly why that "backdoor" was there, but now their obscure "alternative" to stock installs is all over the nerd news.

Re:Who's behind that back-door ? (2)

dos1 (2950945) | about 9 months ago | (#46475375)

That "obscure alternative" is one of the only ones consisting of entirely free software. Instead of whining that something doesn't work you should rather help implementing what's missing, either by direct contributions, money donations or even just a good word to the developers. Otherwise the rarity of free mobile systems like SHR, QtMoko or Replicant will become even more rare and none of them will be ever usable for anyone else than hardcore geeks.

Re:Who's behind that back-door ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46473005)

even if that's the reason, that doesn't make it any less of a backdoor

Re:Who's behind that back-door ? (1)

NemosomeN (670035) | about 9 months ago | (#46474559)

No. But it certainly makes it less sinister.

Does Deckard Know this? (2)

goombah99 (560566) | about 9 months ago | (#46473107)

I'm sure Samsung is sending in the blade runner for these replicants hackers

Re:Who's behind that back-door ? (2)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 9 months ago | (#46473327)

They shouldn't need to expose full filesystem I/O for a remote wipe. They should only need to expose a locked up command that triggers the wipe within the local OS.

Either this is a back door, or they are the worst software engineers ever.

Re:Who's behind that back-door ? (3, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 9 months ago | (#46473367)

Either this is a back door, or they are the worst software engineers ever.

A back-door is something that was placed there with the specific intent of providing access to the system even against the system owner's wish, so that's my point: it doesn't seem like that was the intent. It just sounds like it was there for this service, but they never really fully thought out the scheme and just went with whatever they first came up with. Granted, I'm only guessing here, but for once I'm going to go with the "it's incompetence, not malicious intent" - defense.

Re:Who's behind that back-door ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46473831)

"it's incompetence, not malicious intent"

From the outside you can not tell the difference. As the result is the same.

Re:Who's behind that back-door ? (1)

jmcvetta (153563) | about 9 months ago | (#46486203)

Really? So what's the point of being able to read files belonging to the owner? If the backdoor only permitted nuking of the filesystem, then it wouldn't be a big deal. This is pretty clearly an application to facilitate surveillance of citizens, and therefore can be fairly described as sinister.

Re:Who's behind that back-door ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46473929)

When you're not in control of your phone anymore, how can you ensure the command is executed? Of course the modem software can be replaced as well, but until now no one (phone thieves) knew it was necessary.

Re:Who's behind that back-door ? (1)

sjames (1099) | about 9 months ago | (#46476149)

Why would a wipe my data function need the ability to read a file and transmit it over the modem? Why would it need a download this and save it here function?

Re:Who's behind that back-door ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46476317)

Very true!

Re:Who's behind that back-door ? (3, Funny)

jason.sweet (1272826) | about 9 months ago | (#46472497)

NSA ?

GCHQ ?

Or their equivalent from South Korea ?

AT&T

Re:Who's behind that back-door ? (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 9 months ago | (#46472605)

NSA ?

GCHQ ?

Or their equivalent from South Korea ?

AT&T

AT&T would be redundant for NSA.

Re:Who's behind that back-door ? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 9 months ago | (#46472647)

Sorry but AT&T is far more evil than the NSA.

Re: Who's behind that back-door ? (1)

peragrin (659227) | about 9 months ago | (#46472681)

Not really.

You pay AT&T to rape you. The NSA does it for free.

Re: Who's behind that back-door ? (1)

Cenan (1892902) | about 9 months ago | (#46472779)

I'd provide a link to the NSA budget, alas that is classified [fas.org] . But rest assured that they are being paid, you can stop sending them your food stamps now.

Re: Who's behind that back-door ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46472897)

Not really.

You pay AT&T to rape you. The NSA does it for free.

And AT&T even sends their people to your door step even though you've never been under contact for their services and paid them for anything. Preemptive, free, home raping by AT&T!

Re: Who's behind that back-door ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46484115)

Not really.

You pay AT&T to rape you. The NSA does it

with tax dollars.

While you aren't making a conscious choice to pay for it out of pocket, you're still paying for it.

Re:Who's behind that back-door ? (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 9 months ago | (#46473037)

Sorry but AT&T is far more evil than the NSA.

True. As another poster has observed, the NSA rapes you as part of your basic taxpayer services at no additional cost.

Plus, the NSA doesn't employ telemarketers to call you up 5 times a day 7 days a week year after year, exploiting the loopholes in the "Do Not Call" registry. To say nothing of the junk mail.

Re: Who's behind that back-door ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46473427)

"Sorry but AT&T is far more evil than the NSA."

Get a clue, thay are the exact same thing, far more so than you know!

On another note: you do realize that the NSA has semiconductor fabs, so it's mostly in the hardware not the software!

Re:Who's behind that back-door ? (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 9 months ago | (#46472633)

Re:Who's behind that back-door ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46472891)

What is so ironic is that if Apple went from $40 to $2-3, like Microsoft does... Apple would have a windfall.

Re:Who's behind that back-door ? (3, Insightful)

Andy Dodd (701) | about 9 months ago | (#46475269)

"Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity."

My guess, after years of working with Samsung's poor-quality platform software and multiple runins with their utterly piss-poor configuration management processes (as in, the Korean divisions at Samsung Mobile don't seem to have any, as evidenced by numerous situations during the Superbrick fiasco):

Samsung probably put this into the RIL library to facilitate modem debugging. e.g. the modem can read/write to /efs/root/ in order to make it easier for a developer to track state changes of the modem or whatever. (Why do this instead of using whatever debugging functions are built into the modem such as maybe JTAG? This is probably for late-stage development where they wanted to test finishing touches on the modem using final hardware and the modem's debugging functions weren't physically available.)

Keep in mind that, based on the reverse engineering effort, Samsung *intended* this feature to only access files within /efs/root/ - the EFS partition is specifically reserved for device-specific state and calibration data (most notably the phone's IMEI is stored in the EFS partition, and with the exception of some miscellaneous other config data such as MAC addresses for wifi and BT, it's almost entirely for modem-related items. I may be wrong about the MAC data, I'm a bit rusty and haven't poked around at my EFS partitions in a long time.) It's only due to a screwup (lack of sanitization of escape sequences such as ../../ ) that someone can in theory access files outside of /efs/root

So at some point, Samsung probably removed the corresponding components on the baseband firmware side (no one has yet to confirm anything on the modem side that sends these commands, nor has anyone caught any of these commands being issued - the behavior of the library was verified by injecting extra commands with a kernel patch in the driver between the modem and the library), but someone forgot to remove them from the RIL library on the applications processor side. Forgetting to remove dead code and/or leaving epic security holes in place (remember that in late 2012, someone realized that Samsung left a world readable/writable device node that effectively mapped all system memory to that device file - allowing anyone to read or write any part of memory. For more, do a Google search for "exynos-abuse" ) is pretty typical for Samsung.

As to my experience here - I was one of the Cyanogenmod maintainers for the Exynos 4210 (I9100, I777, N7000) handset family, and also did some work on 4412 devices (primarily the Note 10.1 - GT-N8013) throughout 2012 and the first half of 2013. I'm 90% retired from working with Haxxinos these days and was (along with the majority of the rest of the Exynos maintainers) one of the people who left the project to start Omni after the Focal relicensing attempt fiasco.

An interesting question is - what architecture is the XMM626x's baseband processor? Is it custom or an ARM variant making it easier to analyze the baseband firmware itself? More than two years of working with that family of devices and I never personally looked in detail at what was running on the baseband side.

Re:Who's behind that back-door ? (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | about 9 months ago | (#46475525)

Another article on this, I agree with Dan's assessment - http://arstechnica.com/securit... [arstechnica.com]

Yeah I can see that happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46476819)

OOOooops, I just tripped on my own fingers and inadvertently implemented a backdoor, silly me, lol, I'll leave it there then, and I'll use that rather than the secure standard way, cause you know, lazy and shit.

Re:Yeah I can see that happen (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | about 9 months ago | (#46573855)

You have obviously never worked closely with software written by Samsung before.

You know, the company that shipped millions of chips that would be damaged permanently if you send them a secure erase command. (Remember http://www.anandtech.com/show/... [anandtech.com] - What they don't tell you in that article is that Samsung shipped eMMC chips with the SAME EXACT BUG in every single international Galaxy S2 and Galaxy Note sold for many months.)

This is also the company that had a device file that was chmodded 666 or 777 that allowed you read/write access to the entirety of system memory. (Google exynos-abuse)

Dupe (5, Informative)

Desler (1608317) | about 9 months ago | (#46472223)

Yeah we know.

http://mobile.slashdot.org/sto... [slashdot.org]

Re:Dupe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46472295)

timothy just wanted to really emphasize this one, that's all.

Re:Dupe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46472409)

timothy just wanted to really emphasize this one, that's all.

Yep, it's a Scroogling time again. Get ready for the two minutes of hate.

Slashdot is being paid by Microsoft to help "Just fucking kill Google".

Re:Dupe (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 9 months ago | (#46473311)

isn't this article an evolution of the last one? The last one was all "holy shiitzors there's a back hole!" this one is all "fuzxors we fixed it for ya!"

Re:Dupe (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 9 months ago | (#46474565)

No. It merely links directly to the FSF pos while the first one linked to other articles linking to the FSF post.

Re:Dupe (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46472427)

It's a Replicant article. Every time someone says the D word it Replicates itself.

Re:Dupe (4, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 9 months ago | (#46472479)

Replicant OS Developers Find Backdoor In Samsung Galaxy Devices
Replicant Hackers Find and Close Samsung Galaxy Back-door

Totally different story.

Re:Dupe (4, Funny)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | about 9 months ago | (#46473105)

This story is a replicant...

Re:Dupe (1)

the_povinator (936048) | about 9 months ago | (#46474825)

I didn't realize replicants existed at all, much less replicant hackers.

Does anyone know if they are working on ... a pleasure model?

Wow! Two backdoors in one day? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46472231)

Wow! Two backdoors [slashdot.org] in one day? The Replicant team is really on a roll! And both of the backdoors in the exact same place! Impressive.

Re:Wow! Two backdoors in one day? (1)

tomkost (944194) | about 9 months ago | (#46475537)

You can't really get enough backdoor can you?

Re:Wow! Two backdoors in one day? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 9 months ago | (#46478173)

All backdoors should be licensed under AGPL3

First Post FAIL! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46472285)

This article was already posted once before on slashdot today!

the pretensive laughter fades fast (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46472323)

unsung heroes http://www.youtube.com/results... [youtube.com] rockets red glare babys, veterans etc... bursting in air give proof...... of our plight to become civilized 'again' vs. the never ending corepirate nazi holycost

Slashdot only allows anonymous users to post 1 times per day... if it's you

Slashdot editors (2)

coofercat (719737) | about 9 months ago | (#46472331)

Slashdot editors fail to spot dupe, and fail to fix it - even though it's on the frikkin' home page. Wow, that really is news ;-)

Timothy, you've surpassed yourself. Tonight, when you go home to your SO and they ask you "how was your day, dear", you can proudly say "I really rocked today - I did some awesome stuff, I really moved the needle, I pushed the envelope, I really excelled!".

Re:Slashdot editors (1)

Threni (635302) | about 9 months ago | (#46472385)

There's always this:

http://soylentnews.org/ [soylentnews.org]

Perhaps it'll free us from the laughable beta, and non-news for nerd clickbait too?

Re:Slashdot editors (1)

inasity_rules (1110095) | about 9 months ago | (#46472473)

I have seen a dupe or two there. Still in two minds about whether it'll free us or dupe us... :P

Re:Slashdot editors (1)

Threni (635302) | about 9 months ago | (#46472549)

I only discovered it very recently; competition is good, right? Not sure why it started exactly, but it's good to know that there's somewhere similar in case this one continues to get worse.

Re:Slashdot editors (1)

inasity_rules (1110095) | about 9 months ago | (#46472887)

Worse? I would say you must be new here, but I can read useids... It was started by the whole "Fuck Beta" group which confused me (beta, was and as far as I know remains optional), and like all things borne of "violent" revolution suffers a bit from some infighting. Hopefully they'll resolve that, but it remains to be seen if they can build a decent community. I am registered and do read there, but comment more here, which says something.

Re:Slashdot editors (1)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 9 months ago | (#46473053)

Same here. I joined soylent and pipe, for good measure. For the time being though I still read /. more regularly and I haven't posted to either soylent or pipe so far. Soylent has already witnessed quite some drama (an ousted leader has used the phrase "palace revolt", I kid you not).

Re:Slashdot editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46472415)

Goes to show, Slashdot sucks so much, even the editors don't read it.

Re:Slashdot editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46472649)

Yet here you are, reading it. That's got to say something about your character. Not sure what, probably something flattering. Yeah that's it, flattering.

Re:Slashdot editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46474589)

I'm a loser. I admit it. I also am fascinated by mediocrity. You think I'm kidding... I am quite serious. I find mediocrity comforting, and feel right at home here on the dot.

Re:Slashdot editors (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 9 months ago | (#46472659)

home to your SO and they ask you

In this case, it's "OS", as in Other Self.

Re:Slashdot editors (1)

PPH (736903) | about 9 months ago | (#46472953)

Timothy, you've surpassed yourself. Tonight, when you go home to your SO

There will already be another Timothy there.

oh for crying out loud timothy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46472347)

Evidently the editors don't read the front page - given that there's *already* a story on there about this precise issue, using precisely the same blog.

Replicants? (3, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | about 9 months ago | (#46472353)

Someone call Harrison Ford

Re:Replicants? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46472417)

Someone needs to retire those skin jobs.

Free as in F2P? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46472375)

Free as in F2P, you mean? Seems that's most apps these days - wonder when the OS will be the same.

Wow (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 9 months ago | (#46472397)

I'm used to the dupes being weeks or months old... maybe Days for really bad ones. But this was like 12hrs ago? Do the editors even read slashdot anymore?

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46472443)

Anymore?
 
You're new around here, ain't ya?

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46473109)

Quoth the Raven, "anymore".

Re:Wow (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 9 months ago | (#46472821)

I think the better question is: Are the editors even functionally literate?

Re:Wow (1)

Dixie_Flatline (5077) | about 9 months ago | (#46473673)

Yeah, see my UID? This has been happening for as long as I've been here. :)

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46474347)

Seems no one can stand Beta.

Replicant hackers? (2)

JockTroll (996521) | about 9 months ago | (#46472475)

Oh well, if you can't retire them just wait 4 years and they'll be gone.

Modem already has full debugger access in hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46472879)

I thought, from reading other stuff on the Replicant site, that all these modems had full access to the phone's host CPU bus the same as the IPMI modules the NSA uses in servers for "stealth" and "persistence", and unlike the USB modems in laptops where exploits are contained to the modem (modulo host USB stack bugs which are probably rampant).

Two words (1)

Swampash (1131503) | about 9 months ago | (#46472935)

Android

Re:Two words (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 9 months ago | (#46474637)

Either there is a whoosh sound, its under my threshold of hearing, or your counting skills suck.

Roy Baty inconsolable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46473375)

When reached by phone and told of the backdoor, replicant Roy Baty replied "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe"

I love the smell of dupes in the morning.... (1)

markhb (11721) | about 9 months ago | (#46473549)

They smell like... Tacos. Duplicate posts make even Slashdot Beta seem like home.

Dupe? (1)

deadweight (681827) | about 9 months ago | (#46474287)

I think this is a dupe from about 4 or 5 articles back.

In a word... (1)

s13g3 (110658) | about 9 months ago | (#46474967)

> "is a 100% free software mobile device important to you?"

In a word: Yes.

The borderline (and sometimes not-so-borderline) criminal behavior of some software/hardware makers, coupled with often exorbitant costs for a device that will either be destroyed (via being cheaply made) or totally obsolete in a few years makes me quite leery of trusting or relying on a modern smartphone, much less actually spending my own money on one. Especially when my company provides me with a phone, POS though it may be.

then Sailfish on Jolla phones? (1)

Herve5 (879674) | about 9 months ago | (#46475197)

But last I searched details on this, the actual progress and software availability was close to pathetic...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?