• LesserAbe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      2 months ago

      If you read the article they say there’s a toggle to enable/disable auto Bluetooth on.

        • mesamune@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          2 months ago

          When we do defcon, Bluetooth is one of the easiest protocols to take control of. It’s funny. It’s also easy to spoof, easy to mess with, and generally very insecure.

          • sqibkw@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            I’m curious, what about Bluetooth makes it insecure? Is it that vendors create insecure implementations, like Android, or is it a human issue like connecting to things by default? I recall the Bluetooth spec being unbelievably complex and verbose, which obviously increases risk and makes it harder to audit, but it doesn’t get many updates, and I don’t recall seeing many issues with the spec itself. I mean it’s not like it’s fixing a CVE every quarter like with netty packages.

            • henfredemars@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              It’s too complicated. Bluetooth is complicated. It tries to do way too much, and not even the experts can implement it in a consistent fashion because different Bluetooth stacks are forced to make assumptions where the specification is unclear.

              When you have a large, complex, and poorly designed specification, you’re going to get bugs. The main limiting factor has been the short range of Bluetooth preventing widespread exploitation.

            • mesamune@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              Its more complex than I can talk about here in any kind of depth, but it comes down to it being a very old protocol. It has known security issues that are just not fixed as it would break backwards compatibility with a lot of devices. So the same issues that were chosen to not be fixed are still out there. You can, with very little effort, take control of just about any Bluetooth device(or partial). Or at least knock it out if commission.

      • zaph@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        2 months ago

        People lock their door when lock picks and axes exist. Making criminals work harder to access your belongings is pretty important in a lot of aspects.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        I mean, just look at what happened over in ios land. Every time there is a new security issue or denial of service attack on their bluetooth stack, apple has to scramble to fix it because bluetooth is always on in their devices. Android at least has some respite by turning off bluetooth, especially on old devices that no longer receiving security updates.

          • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            My bad for exaggerating. Yes, you can permanently disable bluetooth on iphone, but iphone users are less likely to do so compared to android users. This is by design because apple needs the majority of users to have their bluetooth turned on for their find my network. This made bluetooth-based security issue more impactful in apple ecosystem than in android.

            Now that Google is planning to do the same in android, I’m worried that it’ll be even worse than in apple ecosystem simply because most android phones have much shorter support period. This means future bluetooth vulnerabilities might remain unpatched in some phones and those phones will be more likely to have bluetooth turned on.

            • OneBeer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              So many assumptions here, I bet you think you’re smart 😂 with your ggoogly phone ttracker marketing device.

              • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                2 months ago

                Why can’t we discuss some topics without resorting to personal attack? If you disagree with something, you can always refute it without being a dick.

      • DocMcStuffin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Bluetooth has one of the largest network stacks. It’s bigger than Wifi. This means some parts of the stack probably aren’t tested and may have bugs or vulnerabilities. It has duplicate functionality in it. This opens up the possibility that flaws in how different parts interact could lead to vulnerabilities or exploits.

        A number of years ago some security researchers did an analysis of the Windows and Linux stacks. They found multiple exploitable vulnerabilities in both stacks. They called their attack blue borne, but it was really a series of attacks that could be used depending on which OS you wanted to target. Some what ironically, Linux was more vulnerable because the Linux kernel implemented more of the protocol than Windows.

        • ozymandias117@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          What? The kernel only implements HCI - a way to talk to hardware

          The Bluetooth stack and its protocols are implemented in BlueZ or on Android in Gabeldorsche

          • DocMcStuffin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yeeeaaah, that makes more sense. 😅 That would be a giant gaping vulnerability if everything was in kernel space.

      • VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        The Google Nearby feature thing (Google’s coming version of Apple Air Tags) will require a constant background Bluetooth scanner to listen for the tags.

        My opinion: that stays off. Looking for your lost phone, luggage, or ex-wife? Im not going to help you if i dont know you. Buy a new item, take better care of it.

  • Bosht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m so fucking sick of it. I just want to go back to old Android and Windows. Fuck both these bloated corps who keep inching away at shit they know goddamn well they’re doing. Seriously. Leave my shit alone. Let me root it and customize and fuck it up as I please. Leave me the fuck alone. /rant

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      That’s their excuse.

      Better be an opt-in feature instead of an opt-out, because I’m tired of needing to turn off new ‘features’ I don’t need that are said to be for something that sounds kind of reasonable but ends up being because they want to track more things and have more control over you.

      • lowleveldata@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 months ago

        Ya I don’t like the idea either. But what really grinds my gears is that misleading headline that makes it sounds like they are doing it suddenly with no apparent reasons.

        • snooggums@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 months ago

          I prefer neutral headlines that don’t promote what is likely to be a lie without the context of the article.

          They say it is for finding lost phones, but I don’t really believe that is the actual reason. They are probably doing some kind of tracking that uses bluetooth and too many people are turning it off for their preferences.

          • lowleveldata@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            2 months ago

            Let the reader be the judge. You can be neutral without hiding information. How about “Android 15 can turn Bluetooth on automatically and Google says it’s for finding lost devices”?

            • snooggums@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              and Google says

              That would be acceptable, but headlines are rarely written that way because of the added length.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Don’t complain too much about it. They can already do that part, really. I’m just happy the find my device network is finally about to go live do I can have non apple air tag like things that will actually work really well.

    • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Doing the dishes while listening to podcasts with low battery makes me wish my wireless earphones didn’t break so soon. The amount of times I took my phone out, put it on a table and walked away to tow it off the table is staggering. Or forgetting to turn down the amplifier before unplugging just to get blasted with static noise isn’t something I miss.

      Not having to bother with reconnecting bluetooth headphones and instead plugging in a cable is great tho, so I understand everyone who still likes their wired headphones.

    • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      And probably for the same reason. Google is rolling out an update to their device tracking network and if it’s anything like Apple’s, it relies on as many phones as possible having blue tooth enabled.

  • evo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The UI strings make it pretty clear this is an option the user can choose.

    • ShadowCatEXE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      It is informative, but how often does the average person read this kind of information? Especially when they are set on doing something simple, such as turning off Bluetooth. What if you never use the settings menu, and only turn it off from the notification drawer? They never see that information. Not to mention that it’s such a small option (even though it’s a big paragraph) that they make it seem like they don’t want the user to disable it completely.

      What they should do, is when the user disables Bluetooth the first time (anywhere on the phone), a pop up is at least shown to instruct the user that it is still scanning in the background. That way the user is informed. OR, hear me out, have background scanning disabled by default and prompt the user to enable it the first time they disable Bluetooth.

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Honestly this is probably for the average user… Because Google doesn’t want to receive calls that XYZ (that uses Bluetooth) is broken from those that are tech illiterate in the general public and accidentally turned Bluetooth off.

        My grandpa as an example would also not read your pop-up.

        The general public is not concerned with disabling Bluetooth for more than a power saving or troubleshooting step… And even then, it’s going to be an accident more than a choice for a lot of people.

        • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I think the primary motivation for this change is to keep bluetooth active on significant portion of android users so google’s upcoming “find my” network can take off. They don’t want people to permanently turn off bluetooth from the drawer because there is a chance that they forgot about it and won’t turn it on again, which is bad for their upcoming network. Adding popups to inform the users will increase the chance of users deciding to permanently deactivating bluetooth.

          • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            That might be a partial motivation for sure … but Bluetooth is used for so much these days (there’s not even a headphone jack, Bluetooth speakers are everywhere, etc) I have a hard time believing any significant portion of the general public is turning off Bluetooth for an extended period intentionally to begin with.

            Let alone enough that it would be enough people to be a concern regarding their tracking network taking off.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          How would you even call Google? The people that these hypothetical tech illiterate people are likely calling are their younger family members or their cellular provider. I doubt they even know that Google runs Android.

  • Nate@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    My April fools prank you on my friends was a fake news article. It would’ve worked if any of them actually read past the headline.

    In the same regards, it’s a toggle if you want it to come back automatically. You can still turn off Bluetooth and leave it off. The feature is there so you don’t turn off Bluetooth and lose your device & the only way to track it

    Edit: fixed typo

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    yeah i think this is a pretty good option since a lot of people turn off bluetooth and then wonder why their hearing devices or smart gadgets don’t work. it’s obviously just an option not mandatory.

  • brax@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    It will be a really sad day when they kill Termux and Tasker. At the same time, maybe it will be the push for people smarter than me to write a proper competitive OS that we can flash.

    • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      If you read the article it says there will be a toggle to enable or disable the feature. It’s part of updates to support their “find my device” network

      • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Sorry I’m one of the Lemmy users who sometimes don’t open the links and read sources. It’s really really good if the feature can be completely disabled. Though opt-it might be a little bit better

        EDIT: I just read the article and didn’t see the info about disabling the feature. It can be my poor English knowledge though. Could you say where exactly it says about it?

        • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          There’s more than one spot that covers it, but one part says “You should be able to ignore the auto-on toggle and disable Bluetooth as usual, though”

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        Maybe someday, everytime someone says “just get a Linux phone” I look a few up and the specs are always piss poor…

        Better to just get a pixel and slap GrapheneOS (A privacy and security focused Android fork) on it

      • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Unfortunately only a few phones support Linux well and they are either really old (OnePlus 6, Samsung A5 etc) or expensive (PinePhone and FairPhone). Privacy costs a lot nowadays