Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #33030 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-02 19:37 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-08-08 05:49 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 127 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-02 19:37 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-02 15:43 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-02 19:54 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-08-02 22:28 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-03 03:18 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-03 03:43 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-02 23:51 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-03 04:21 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-03 06:34 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-08-02 23:43 -0700
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-03 07:06 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-03 06:47 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2016-08-03 11:04 +0200
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-03 19:13 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-03 15:19 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2016-08-04 08:57 +0200
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-04 10:54 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2016-08-04 13:05 +0200
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-08-04 03:54 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-04 10:54 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-08-04 04:00 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 21:03 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2016-08-03 10:57 +0200
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-03 19:32 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-03 15:33 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-03 19:42 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-03 16:00 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2016-08-04 09:15 +0200
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-04 10:54 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2016-08-04 13:06 +0200
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2016-08-03 11:07 +0200
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-03 06:38 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Meanie <meanie.brat@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 16:40 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-03 19:03 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-03 15:19 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-04 10:56 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2016-08-04 09:37 +0200
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-04 10:57 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2016-08-04 13:07 +0200
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-08-04 11:01 -0700
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-04 20:13 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-04 20:17 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-05 16:51 -0300
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-08-06 00:25 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-05 22:05 -0300
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-08-06 02:46 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-06 00:40 -0300
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-08-06 14:42 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-06 10:54 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-08-06 15:14 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-06 15:05 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-06 15:03 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-06 15:37 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-08-06 19:59 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-09 23:21 +0700
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-08-09 16:42 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-09 14:21 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-10 20:27 +0700
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? joe <none@domain.invalid> - 2016-08-10 08:37 -0500
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-10 08:37 -0700
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-10 08:37 -0700
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-08-10 17:43 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-14 02:41 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-14 00:07 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-14 22:23 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-14 19:00 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-14 22:24 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-14 18:59 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-14 22:24 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-14 18:59 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-14 22:24 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-08-14 23:35 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-16 00:10 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-08-15 23:51 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? AL <noemail@none.com> - 2016-08-15 22:11 -0700
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-16 06:42 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-08-16 19:25 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-16 19:58 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-08-17 01:21 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? AL <noemail@none.com> - 2016-08-16 23:11 -0700
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-08-17 16:12 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-08-19 19:12 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? AL <noemail@none.com> - 2016-08-19 14:57 -0700
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-20 07:53 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-08-20 12:56 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Roy Smith <rasmith1959@live.com> - 2016-08-17 03:12 -0500
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-17 10:16 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-17 17:11 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-17 17:11 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-08-17 16:22 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-08-19 18:43 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-09-09 02:11 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-09-09 02:20 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2016-08-16 14:06 -0500
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-08-16 19:30 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-08-14 17:56 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-14 14:09 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-08-14 18:18 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-14 22:23 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-08-14 23:32 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-15 02:06 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-14 22:23 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-08-14 23:33 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-15 02:06 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-14 22:23 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-14 22:29 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-08-14 23:37 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-15 02:06 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-08-15 05:17 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-15 01:47 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-16 00:17 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-08-16 01:41 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? crankypuss <undisclosedUserid@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 05:39 -0600
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-16 21:35 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? AL <noemail@none.com> - 2016-08-15 19:40 -0700
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? crankypuss <undisclosedUserid@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 05:49 -0600
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? AL <noemail@none.com> - 2016-08-16 08:46 -0700
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-16 00:11 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-08-16 01:11 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-16 21:35 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-08-16 22:01 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-10 20:47 +0700
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-08-07 01:44 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-07 03:57 -0400
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2016-08-07 19:48 +1000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-08-07 18:06 +0000
Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-08 05:49 +0200
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-04 20:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <no0lof$1ajm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #33111 |
On Thu, 04 Aug 2016 11:01:27 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > Even your Smartphone battery status is tracking your online browsing: > <http://tech.thaivisa.com/warning-your-smartphone-battery-status-is-being-used-to-track-your-every-move-online/16596/> > <http://randomwalker.info/publications/OpenWPM_1_million_site_tracking_measurement.pdf> > Resistance is futile. So it capacitance and inductance. You will be > conglomerated into the data mass. Hi Jeff, I've given up responding to the Apple Apologists who infest the iOS newsgroup, so, you're the only one I'm responding to. Not one of them provided a *single* valid datum (and we knew that from the start). The iOS people can't comprehend actual *facts*. It's beyond their capabilities. a. They bought on pure style, facts be damned b. They fear so much that Apple Marketing plays them like a fiddle c. IOS users "just give up", which is how they handle their AdID privacy But on to your point... I *understand* your sentiment that resistance is futile, and I even echoed that by stating that neither iOS nor Android is inherently more secure because it's like saying which leaks water faster, a steel garbage can peppered by buckshot or a plastic recycling bin peppered by buckshot. However, with respect to *just* the advertising ID, the references I cited explained the program that generates it, and, wiping out that program wiped out the reference ID (as far as *anyone* can show) - so, at least on Android, the recycling bin has a few holes you *can* plug up. On the far more primitively less tweakable iOS, you can't plug those holes, so, they exist, no matter what you do. But, again, your point is valid that *both* platforms are so full of security holes that only people who actually believe everything that Apple Marketing spews forth would (falsely) feel more secure with one than with the other. Regarding your reference ... https://blog.lukaszolejnik.com/battery-status-readout-as-a-privacy-risk/ It's interesting that Firefox calls the smartphone battery API in order to figure out your battery level, such that the battery level can be used for fingerprinting. https://www.w3.org/TR/battery-status/ It's also interesting that it's "slightly* less fingerprintable if you're *not* connected to a charger. This is interesting because panopticlick, last I checked, did not look at this information - but - perhaps should. (I keep a clean browser from fingerprinting.) Also, when I look in App Ops Starter for the permissions granted Firefox, they entail only: - Location (typically I turn this off) - Modify clipboard - Read clipboard - Post notification - Vibrate - Modify settings - Draw on top - Camera - Record audio So, it's disappointing that App Ops Starter doesn't list that Firefox has access to the "Battery status" which is a *short-lived identifier*. If Apps Ops Starter listed that short-lived identifier, we could simply turn off that access from within App Ops Starter. As for protection against this fingerprinting threat, it would be nice if we can find an app that randomly adjusts the battery registers for the three battery parameters that are reported by the battery monitor API: 1. The current level of battery (from 0.00 to 1.0) 2. Time, in seconds, for the battery to discharge 3. Time, in seconds, for the battery to charge (only if connected) I read a few related references, which don't specifically mention laptops: http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/how-battery-status-readouts-can-threaten-user-privacy/ Do you think this Firefox battery-status fingerprinting also works for laptops?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-04 20:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <040820162017153059%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #33117 |
In article <no0lof$1ajm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote: > On the far more primitively less tweakable iOS, you can't plug those holes, > so, they exist, no matter what you do. invalid assumptions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 16:51 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <no2qpc$1d8b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #33117 |
On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 20:13:16 -0400, Aardvarks wrote: > Do you think this Firefox battery-status fingerprinting also works for > laptops? Some factual updates... The battery-status API privacy exploit works on multiple browsers and on multiple operating systems, including all the well known operating systems for both mobile devices and computers. Setting the following "about:config" option in Firefox should prevent the exploit that Jeff kindly informed us about: Change from: dom.battery.enabled;true Change to: dom.battery.enabled;false I'm not sure where the user.js file is located on iOS or in Android, but on your computer desktops and laptops, it will be located in "about:profiles".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 00:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e0kp3cF3ludU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33132 |
On 2016-08-05, Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote: > On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 20:13:16 -0400, Aardvarks wrote: > >> Do you think this Firefox battery-status fingerprinting also works for >> laptops? > > Some factual updates... > > The battery-status API privacy exploit works on multiple browsers and on > multiple operating systems, including all the well known operating systems > for both mobile devices and computers. Does the exploit work in Safari? -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 22:05 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <no3d7f$l1h$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #33138 |
On 6 Aug 2016 00:25:17 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote: > Does the exploit work in Safari? In a quick read of these references... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/03/privacy-smartphones-battery-life http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/phone-batteries-can-be-used-to-spy-on-their-owners-could-track-people-around-the-internet-10435578.html https://it.slashdot.org/story/15/08/03/1728255/privacy-alert-your-laptop-or-phone-battery-could-track-you-online http://www.wired.co.uk/article/privacy-hole-in-firefox http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/smartphone-laptop-batteries-compromise-web-browser-privacy-suggest-security-experts-1513979 http://mashable.com/2015/08/04/battery-privacy-html5/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/11782851/Can-your-battery-life-give-away-your-identity.html http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phone-batteries-can-be-used-to-spy-on-their-owners-could-track-people-around-the-internet-31423953.html http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2420547/phone-batteries-can-track-you-around-the-internet http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/08/04/7-ways-youre-being-tracked-online-and-how-to-stop-it/ http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/616.pdf http://betanews.com/2015/08/03/privacy-alert-your-laptop-or-phone-battery-could-track-you-online/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3185191/Are-tracked-using-smartphone-s-BATTERY-LIFE-Information-harvested-make-websites-energy-efficient-identify-web-users.html http://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/sicurezza/2015/08/05/news/privacy_batteria_telefono-120471082/ http://www.liberation.fr/direct/element/quand-le-niveau-de-batterie-de-votre-telephone-devient-un-mouchard_14537/ http://tecnologia.elpais.com/tecnologia/2015/08/04/actualidad/1438686007_043163.html http://www.nzz.ch/nicht-nur-der-akku-verraet-nutzer-ld.1278 http://www.police.be/fed/fr/actualites/298-surfons-tranquille-api-battery-status-un-espion-insoupconne etc. (the last few are not in English though) It seems it's "a little-known feature of the HTML5 specification" which Firefox, Opera and Chrome support and it was "introduced by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C, the organisation that oversees the development of the web’s standards) in 2012". Here's a quote from the first article: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/03/privacy-smartphones-battery-life "The researchers point out that the information a website receives is surprisingly specific, containing the estimated time in seconds that the battery will take to fully discharge, as well the remaining battery capacity expressed as a percentage. " "Worse still, on some platforms, the researchers found that it is possible to determine the maximum battery capacity of the device with enough queries, creating a semi-permanent metric to compare devices".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 02:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e0l1ciF5f6sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33140 |
Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote: > On 6 Aug 2016 00:25:17 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> Does the exploit work in Safari? > > In a quick read of these references... [seemingly endless list of URLs followed by zero substance omitted] Is that a "yes" or a "no"? Because if Safari's WebKit is unaffected, that means most of the entire iOS platform is unaffected - which leads one to wonder: why are you posting this to misc.phone.mobile.iphone?... #obvioustroll #lame -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 00:40 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <no3m9n$fn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #33143 |
On 6 Aug 2016 02:46:43 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote: > [seemingly endless list of URLs followed by zero substance omitted] > > Is that a "yes" or a "no"? Because if Safari's WebKit is unaffected, that > means most of the entire iOS platform is unaffected - which leads one to > wonder: why are you posting this to misc.phone.mobile.iphone?... What? Why do you troll so much? Is this a safari-only newsgroup? Or, are you really so stuck in the stone age that you actually think that the primitive and restrictive Safari is the *only* browser on iOS? Or, are you so limited in your choices of browsers, that you can't imagine anyone using a modern browser that supports the latest HTML5 specification (even though it is a few years old by now). Sheesh. You say "I" troll, but Jeff kindly brought this topic up, and he wasn't trolling when he brought it up. I was simply responding to Jeff ... so, as always, *you* are the troll accusing me of bringing this topic up when all I did was flesh it out (every single time - the troll is *always* you!). You add *zero* value. And you accuse people who do add value of things that only you do! It's funny, but you don't even *remember* how this was brought up - that's how little you count to the discussion! Anyway, despite your childish lack of usable memory and your constantly annoying trolling behavior, my response to your specific Safari question is that I don't know anything about the primitive Safari app since I wouldn't be caught dead using such a restrictive browser. Therefore, I don't know whether Safari supports the latest battery api in the HTML5 specification or not - so it behooves you to figure out whether Safari has been updated to support HTML5 components such as the battery API. Apple is so slow to update their apps that I'd guess being five years behind everyone else is pretty normal for them - so you might actually be safe with the primitive Safari app after all. I mean, the most important thing in the world to you is for Apple to keep you safe, isn't it? So, this time, Apple may have saved you from the modern HTML5 specification. Sometimes, doing nothing to improve your apps works out for the best. In fact, knowing how primitive and restrictive Safari is, I'd take a guess that Safari probably does not yet support this relatively recent (2012) HTML5 component, since Safari is still stuck in the stone age, so, you're probably safe this time due to the primitive nature of Apple products (which would be a good thing in this case so I congratulate you on your choice of browsers). If my guess is right that Safari is still stuck in the stone age, then the topic that Jeff brought up about the HTML5 specification Battery API is still relevant to the more modern browsers that are available on iOS. But, you're probably safe if you stick with Safari (which was probably never updated to the latest HTML5 specification, knowing Apple).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 14:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e0mbbeFevmtU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33145 |
Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote: > On 6 Aug 2016 02:46:43 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> [seemingly endless list of URLs followed by zero substance omitted] >> >> Is that a "yes" or a "no"? Because if Safari's WebKit is unaffected, that >> means most of the entire iOS platform is unaffected - which leads one to >> wonder: why are you posting this to misc.phone.mobile.iphone?... > > Is this a safari-only newsgroup? [more useless troll blather omitted] So most of iOS is unaffected. Thanks for playing! : ) Troll on. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 10:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <060820161054163843%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #33153 |
In article <e0mbbeFevmtU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > > > >> [seemingly endless list of URLs followed by zero substance omitted] > >> > >> Is that a "yes" or a "no"? Because if Safari's WebKit is unaffected, that > >> means most of the entire iOS platform is unaffected - which leads one to > >> wonder: why are you posting this to misc.phone.mobile.iphone?... > > > > Is this a safari-only newsgroup? > > [more useless troll blather omitted] > > So most of iOS is unaffected. Thanks for playing! : ) > > Troll on. it's amazing how much useless nonsensical spew he can generate without ever finding the very 'facts' he claims to seek. <http://caniuse.com/#feat=battery-status>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 15:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e0md5uFf8g0U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33155 |
On 2016-08-06, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <e0mbbeFevmtU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger ><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >>>> [seemingly endless list of URLs followed by zero substance omitted] >>>> >>>> Is that a "yes" or a "no"? Because if Safari's WebKit is unaffected, that >>>> means most of the entire iOS platform is unaffected - which leads one to >>>> wonder: why are you posting this to misc.phone.mobile.iphone?... >>> >>> Is this a safari-only newsgroup? >> >> [more useless troll blather omitted] >> >> So most of iOS is unaffected. Thanks for playing! : ) >> >> Troll on. > > it's amazing how much useless nonsensical spew he can generate without > ever finding the very 'facts' he claims to seek. > ><http://caniuse.com/#feat=battery-status> It's what he does best. And as usual, he falls flat on his face when confronted with reality. He's a piss poor old troll. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 15:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <no5cgp$ugr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #33157 |
On 6 Aug 2016 15:14:06 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote: > He's a piss poor old troll. Says Jolly Troll himself. Your contribution to this thread is .... what? 0 === troll roger PS: Given your zero contribution ever, should we call you Jolly Troll or Troll Roger?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 15:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <no5cda$ud1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #33155 |
On Sat, 06 Aug 2016 10:54:16 -0400, nospam wrote: > it's amazing how much useless nonsensical spew he can generate without > ever finding the very 'facts' he claims to seek. Funny coming from you ... who has never once told the truth. Your URL simply says that, as I predicted, that Safari is primitive code that doesn't even support the modern battery-status HTML5 spec which debuted years ago. Since your primary motive in using iOS is fear, this primitive code served you well in this case. However, your main approach is to "Just Give Up", so, that's why you never once considered that there are more modern browsers out there for iOS. You, like the Jolly Roger troll, never once added value to a single conversation of fact. You can't actually add value. That's because: a. You're afraid b. You want Apple Marketing to save you c. You can only think of 1 way to do anything, and if that 1 way fails, you "just give up". It's an Apple one-button-mouse trademark term: *"Just Give Up"* Luckily, since you use Safari, and since Safari gave up long ago on modern improvements in the HTML5 spec, just giving up has kept you safe. Congratulations! Hiding under the iOS rock has its benefits in safety after all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 15:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <060820161537263166%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #33164 |
In article <no5cda$ud1$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote: > > > it's amazing how much useless nonsensical spew he can generate without > > ever finding the very 'facts' he claims to seek. > > Funny coming from you ... who has never once told the truth. > > Your URL simply says that, as I predicted, that Safari is primitive code > that doesn't even support the modern battery-status HTML5 spec which > debuted years ago. first you babble that the battery status is a 'privacy exploit' and that it should be disabled, then when it's shown that safari is not vulnerable at all, you call safari primitive. you can't have it both ways. not only that, but most of the browsers listed are based on apple's webkit, so if you're going to say that safari is primitive code, you're also saying that android, chrome and opera are just as primitive, given that they also use webkit. so much for your 'facts'. In article <no2qpc$1d8b$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote: > Some factual updates... > > The battery-status API privacy exploit works on multiple browsers and on > multiple operating systems, including all the well known operating systems > for both mobile devices and computers. > > Setting the following "about:config" option in Firefox should prevent the > exploit that Jeff kindly informed us about: > > Change from: dom.battery.enabled;true > Change to: dom.battery.enabled;false > > I'm not sure where the user.js file is located on iOS or in Android, but on > your computer desktops and laptops, it will be located in "about:profiles".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 19:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e0mtstFf8g0U8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33166 |
On 2016-08-06, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <no5cda$ud1$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Aardvarks ><aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote: > >>> it's amazing how much useless nonsensical spew he can generate without >>> ever finding the very 'facts' he claims to seek. >> >> Funny coming from you ... who has never once told the truth. >> >> Your URL simply says that, as I predicted, that Safari is primitive code >> that doesn't even support the modern battery-status HTML5 spec which >> debuted years ago. > > first you babble that the battery status is a 'privacy exploit' and > that it should be disabled, then when it's shown that safari is not > vulnerable at all, you call safari primitive. So lame. He's fooling nobody here. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 23:21 +0700 |
| Message-ID | <nocvtf$l3p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #33168 |
On 6 Aug 2016 19:59:25 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote: > So lame. He's fooling nobody here. Despite the incessant trolling in this thread by the clearly ill-educated Jolly Troll (or is it Troll Roger?), the new factual information shown in this thread has valuable technical merit in that it turns out to be trivially easy to completely eliminate Google AdId spying on the modern cusomizable Android device. On Android, people *don't* "just give up", like they constantly do on iOS. And despite Michael Eyd's incessant crying that the big blue hairy monster "is" still in the closet even though nobody else can see it but he, the fact is that the Google AdId *was* completely eliminated - simply because Android is a modern customizable mobile operating system. Already knowing that the far more primitive iOS operating system can't possibly wipe out the AdID, it hit upon me a second much more clever approach on Android to turn off not only the AdID, but also the entire Google Play and Location Services capabilities, without adversely affecting the apps which don't require them. This second more clever method worked fine in my tests this morning, and as far as I can tell, Google spying is 100% completely eliminated in that there is no AdID anywhere. Location services are not running. Google Play isn't running. And the apps that don't require them work just fine. When you want to use apps that require them, you can temporarily turn them on. This is the type of flexibility and control one would expect of a modern and customizable mobile operating system. Unfortunately, it's currently impossible to get the same privacy on iOS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 16:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e0ufeoFdss1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33249 |
Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote: > On 6 Aug 2016 19:59:25 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> So lame. He's fooling nobody here. > > it turns out to be > trivially easy to completely eliminate Google AdId spying on the modern > cusomizable Android device. Nope. You haven't proven that the Android ID has actually been removed from the system rather than simply being hidden from the user interface, nor have you proven that the ID isn't still being transmitted over the network. Your aren't much of a scientific person, clearly. [lame Apple trolling omitted] You are transparent. Troll on, if it helps you feel better about your sucky life. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 14:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <090820161421341198%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #33249 |
In article <nocvtf$l3p$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote: > On 6 Aug 2016 19:59:25 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote: > On Android, people *don't* "just give up", like they constantly do on iOS. nobody gives up on ios either. that's just more of your ignorant trolling. > And despite Michael Eyd's incessant crying that the big blue hairy monster > "is" still in the closet even though nobody else can see it but he, the > fact is that the Google AdId *was* completely eliminated - simply because > Android is a modern customizable mobile operating system. > > Already knowing that the far more primitive iOS operating system can't > possibly wipe out the AdID, it hit upon me a second much more clever > approach on Android to turn off not only the AdID, but also the entire > Google Play and Location Services capabilities, without adversely affecting > the apps which don't require them. > > This second more clever method worked fine in my tests this morning, and as > far as I can tell, Google spying is 100% completely eliminated in that > there is no AdID anywhere. Location services are not running. Google Play > isn't running. > > And the apps that don't require them work just fine. > When you want to use apps that require them, you can temporarily turn them > on. > > This is the type of flexibility and control one would expect of a modern > and customizable mobile operating system. > > Unfortunately, it's currently impossible to get the same privacy on iOS. nonsense. privacy on ios is well ahead of anything you can possibly get on android, mainly because apple doesn't track users the way that google does and greatly limits what apps can do. tl;dr - the privacy you seek is already there. all the disabling you do on android is not only a pain, but you can't disable everything and what you do disable can prevent a lot of things from working normally. google makes its money by tracking users, not selling/licensing android.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 20:27 +0700 |
| Message-ID | <nofa4j$1re8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #33255 |
On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 14:21:34 -0400, nospam wrote: > nobody gives up on ios either. Actually, they *all* "just give up". Including you. You're just so used to "just giving up" that you don't notice it anymore. You do it *every* day. You can't even customize your home screen for heaven's sake, such that you're not embarrassed to show it. Wanna see *my* home screen on Android? I'm not embarrassed to show it. http://i.cubeupload.com/FDrkG8.png Try *that* on your primitive non-customizable iOS! (I tried. I too had to "just give up" while on iOS. Just like you do every day. You're just so used to your primitive non-customizable iOS that you don't realize how limiting it is.) In fact, on Android, I just performed a factory reset and loaded everything back *without* needing iCloud (or any cloud) and without needing a desktop computer (or any computer). All I needed was an sdcard. Oh? What's that? Not a single iOS device even *has* an SD card? Sorry for you. You have to use the cloud or a desktop for almost *everything* related to backup. "You just give up." Try to do what I just did - and you'll fail. In fact, you *know* you'll fail - so you don't even try. That's how primitive the iOS operating system is. You "just give up". Remember, I have *both* operating systems: - The primitively non-customizable iOS - The more modern customizable Android In fact, since I had *all* my apps already automatically backed up to the sd card as APK files (what's that? You can't do that on iOS?), I didn't even need Google play (so there is no AdID whatsoever!). http://i.cubeupload.com/TUcOci.gif How do you completely eliminate the AdID on your primitive non-customizable iOS? Oh? What's that? You can't? "You just give up." All day. Every day. I've already listed the very many powerful things that you can't possibly do on iOS that are a fait accompli on Android. You can barely list a thing iOS can do in the other direction that Android can't do. You just give up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joe <none@domain.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 08:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nofajv$1s77$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #33271 |
Aardvarks wrote: > In fact, since I had *all* my apps already automatically backed > up to the sd card as APK files (what's that? You can't do that > on iOS?), I didn't even need Google play (so there is no AdID > whatsoever!). http://i.cubeupload.com/TUcOci.gif > How do you know your browser is not returning an adid? Have you done a network trace to show your machine's response for adid? That would be the only way to confirm it is gone. I think your spelling of 'primitive' should actually be 'secure' as many of the traits you call primitive are a result of an implementation that is more secure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 08:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nofho1$867$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #33272 |
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 08:37:11 -0500, joe wrote: > How do you know your browser is not returning an adid? You hit upon a *very important* concept, which is what I was saying when I said iOS is a mobile garbage can on wheels filled with security holes (almost none of which you can plug) while Android is a mobile recycling bin on wheels filled with security holes (most of which you can plug). To your point, the browser *is* returning a *ton* of spyware to the browser developers (which, in my case, is usually Mozilla, Orbot, Orfox, etc.) and in your case, it's Safari (most likely). This spying by the browser occurs whether you're on the far-less-customizable iOS, or on the far more customizable Android operating system. The difference is that if you use Mozilla Firefox (on either operating system), the spying is well known how to easily eliminate: For example, loading these hardened-firefox preferences will do the trick: https://github.com/pyllyukko/user.js/ http://www.ghacks.net/2015/08/18/a-comprehensive-list-of-firefox-privacy-and-security-settings/ The point is that this browser spying that you brought up occurs independently of the operating system. Only recently have I realized that *fear* drives most iOS users' decisions. Apple Marketing plays iOS users like a fiddle. Apple Marketing is like mommy telling you that closing the closet door keeps the big blue hairy monster out. And the iOS users believe that. If you actually believe Safari is "safe", then google like I just did, and you'll find that security holes open and close constantly, just like on all the other browsers. Here's just the first set of links from a simple Google search for Safari security flaws (on all operating systems)... Apple iOS 9 is out – with a *LOT* of security holes patched https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2015/09/17/apple-ios-9-is-out-with-a-lot-of-security-holes-patched/ Apple fixes security vulnerabilities in Safari, OS X, iOS and Apple TV http://www.livehacking.com/tag/safari/ Safari does not enforce any kind of access restrictions for XMLHTTPRequests https://gist.github.com/rongarret/d8987c9cd57bd768e1de Stop Using Safari And Update iOS To Avoid Apple's Critical 'Gotofail' http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/02/22/stop-using-safari-and-update-ios-to-avoid-apples-critical-gotofail-security-bug/#1b0544de4fe1 PDFs that exploit iPhone, iPad zero-day available on the Web http://www.computerworld.com/article/2510081/security0/pdfs-that-exploit-iphone--ipad-zero-day-available-on-the-web.html Anatomy of a “goto fail” – Apple’s SSL bug explained https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/02/24/anatomy-of-a-goto-fail-apples-ssl-bug-explained-plus-an-unofficial-patch/ etc. The point in listing those is that browser security is a cat-and-mouse game for *all* browsers, all the time. If you think the latest patch patched all the holes, then you're fooling yourself. New security issues arise all the time on *all* browsers, including ones where mommy Apple has sweetly told you the hairy blue monster can't get you if the closet door is closed. Of course, if you are using Safari, then there *are* some user-available privacy settings that you should be aware of, as shown below... Increasing privacy in Safari for iOS http://www.idownloadblog.com/2016/01/14/safari-privacy-iphone-ipad/ 14 privacy and security settings every iOS user should use http://www.computerworld.com/article/3047179/apple-ios/14-privacy-and-security-settings-every-ios-user-should-use.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web