How about Unobtainium?
How about Unobtainium?
While I agree with you about premature optimization, stop and think for a minute how many trillions of trillions this one bit of code has executed. If you do the math (left for the reader), then there is a real world cost to not optimizing this code. Electricity and time usage are affected.
The smart feature is the one they disabled. It is a feature called wave to dismiss. It's the entire reason I bought one. My wife often burns things in the oven and sets off the smoke detector. The wave to dismiss feature gave us an option besides taking out the battery.
I hear you thinking: get a smarter wife and not a smarter smoke detector. C'est la vie
Nooooooope. Not taking my phone. Nope.
The solar powered car I drive to save the planet from global warming has sucked all the energy from the sun? Oh the irony!
Got it. I had always assumed infection was at an operating system level. A single installed app with overreaching access to public spaces and services is a pain, but not the windows virus experience I imagined.
The ability for a process to launch at boot makes this a worse problem. iOS 7's new backgrounding is close to the same problem if / when malware gets into the Apple App Store.
Nice to know that simply deleting the app will remove any trace of the Mal-Ware.
Thanks for the expert information.
Thank you very much for the reply.
Then how do these malware apps spread or infect devices? Or is that just an over exaggerated example that really doesn't happen.
Thank you. I didn't realize device specific keys are fused into the processor itself. This would, of course, render my comment about access to the flash chips incorrect.
Storing it in the keychain (with the correct protection class) would prevent access even for an unencrypted backup.
Also, specifically asking for per file data protection would prevent access for an unencrypted backup.
Basically, doing anything other than the bare minimum would have prevented access to the Starbucks data.
Does anyone have any answers for my Android question?
iOS is actually very similar. Without an application like PhoneView or Xcode, just connecting a device will not provide obvious access to per application data that is not explicitly shared. If the device is locked, then access is unavailable even to those methods. If the application itself requested data protection, then even physical access to the flash chips would prove useless. Of course, a developer who decided to store everything in plain text would probably not take the extra strep to request encryption. I just wonder why they didn't use the system Keychain. Easy to use and the OS takes care of all these problems.
Android question... I realize that an app by default doesn't have access to other app's per user data, but can an app request root or access an other's data in a permissions request presented to the user? My concern with Android security has always been that lay people do not read or even understand the implications of permission dialogs presented to them. So, could another malicious app gain access to the Starbucks data through laziness or ignorance of the user?
Maybe it went back in time. You know, to save some whales.
First edition, K&R. None of this ANSI standard stuff.
Isn't this Kassa from Stargate?
aka Evil Orville Redenbacher
Get all the population jonesing for space corn.
Computers don't actually think. You just think they think. (We think.)