Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #33268

Re: QuadRooter security flaw -- confusion

Show all headers | View raw

Tim <timothybil@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> wrote in
> news:e0ujsmFeve0U1@mid.individual.net: 
> 
>> On 08/09/2016 01:31 PM, Tim wrote:
>>> One thing to do would be to compare apps between your phone and your
>>> wife's. If the scanner is corrent, then the source could be an app
>>> that your wife has that you don't.
>>> 
>>> FFIW, Quadrooter told me that my Nexus 7 (2013)[August security patch
>>> installed] is vulnerable to the CVE-2016-5340 vulnerability, which is
>>> not patched yet. It is supposed to be patched in the next security
>>> update. 
>> 
>> But I thought that this vulnerability was in the hardware, not in any 
>> particular apps that may have been installed. My wife's phone is white
>> whereas mine is black, so even though were bought only days apart they
>> could very well have significantly different manufacturing dates and 
>> different chip revisions.
>> 
>> Why did the August update apparently introduce a new vulnerability in 
>> mine, and why does the Check Point Scanner give a different result on
>> my phone from QualComm's own?
>> 
>> Perce
>> 
>> 
> The four vulnerabilities that QuadRunner is checking four are bugs in one 
> or more Qualcom drivers. Three of them were patched in the August 
> security update, at least in the Google version of the update. As I said, 
> the fourth one has not been patched as of the August update. You might 
> want to read this article, as it has probably the best straight info on 
> the whole mess.
> 
> http://www.computerworld.com/article/3105569/android/android-
> quadrooter.html?token=%23tk.CTWNLE_nlt_computerworld_operating_systems_
> 2016-08-09&idg_eid=ae31bf6e68b90ef2418b7739a7c9f188
> &utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Computerworld%
> 20Operating%20Systems%202016-08-09
> &utm_term=computerworld_operating_systems#tk.cw_nlt_computerworld_operati
> ng_systems_2016-08-09
> 
> Sorry for the length of the URL, but it is what it is. Oh for the days 
> when URLs would fit in the address box, and hitting the page back key 
> didn't require re-downloading all the stuff you just downloaded a minute 
> or two before.

You can shorten most urls manually. All the guff after the '?' is just
marketing or tracking info. Trim it to 'android-quadrooter.html' and you're
done.

Back to comp.mobile.android | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

QuadRooter security flaw -- confusion "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> - 2016-08-09 12:14 -0400
  Re: QuadRooter security flaw -- confusion Tim <timothybil@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-09 12:31 -0500
    Re: QuadRooter security flaw -- confusion "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> - 2016-08-09 13:58 -0400
      Re: QuadRooter security flaw -- confusion Tim <timothybil@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-09 22:38 -0500
        Re: QuadRooter security flaw -- confusion nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-09 23:57 -0400
        Re: QuadRooter security flaw -- confusion Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 07:20 +0000
        Re: QuadRooter security flaw -- confusion Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-08-10 09:27 +0100
      Re: QuadRooter security flaw -- confusion "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> - 2016-08-11 13:08 -0400
  Re: QuadRooter security flaw -- confusion Nigel Wade <nmw@local.domain> - 2016-08-10 09:48 +0100

csiph-web