Slashdot Mirror
Replicant Hackers Find and Close Samsung Galaxy Back-door
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?"
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?"
NSA ?
GCHQ ?
Or their equivalent from South Korea ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Yeah we know.
http://mobile.slashdot.org/sto...
Wow! Two backdoors in one day? The Replicant team is really on a roll! And both of the backdoors in the exact same place! Impressive.
This article was already posted once before on slashdot today!
unsung heroes http://www.youtube.com/results... 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 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!".
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.
Someone call Harrison Ford
Free as in F2P, you mean? Seems that's most apps these days - wonder when the OS will be the same.
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 som
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?
Oh well, if you can't retire them just wait 4 years and they'll be gone.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
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).
Android
I'm sure Samsung is sending in the blade runner for these replicants hackers
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
When reached by phone and told of the backdoor, replicant Roy Baty replied "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe"
They smell like... Tacos. Duplicate posts make even Slashdot Beta seem like home.
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
I think this is a dupe from about 4 or 5 articles back.
Seems no one can stand Beta.
> "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.
"Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
But last I searched details on this, the actual progress and software availability was close to pathetic...
Herve S.
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.