Related
Thought i would share this with the rest of the XDA community who got scammed by Samsung.
A user revolt is starting among the tech blogs and on Twitter about Samsung's absolutely shameful lack of communication on updating its U.S. Galaxy S phones (including the Captivate, Epic, Fascinate, Mesmerize and Vibrant) to Android 2.2.
This is the first article i found posted 1-14.
Samsung Must Come Clean on Android Updates.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2375769,00.asp
Here is the second article i found posted on 1-17.
Samsung Forcing US Carriers to Pay for Android Froyo on Galaxy S?
http://www.phonenews.com/samsung-forcing-us-carriers-to-pay-for-android-froyo-on-galaxy-s-15151/#more-15151
Here is the third article i found posted on 1-18.
Samsung Galaxy S Froyo Coming in March?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2375940,00.asp?kc=PCRSS03069TX1K0001121&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ziffdavis%2Fpcmag%2Fbreakingnews+%28PCMag.com+Breaking+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
Here is yet another article.
Are Samsung Galaxy S Froyo Updates Being Held Back Because Of Cost?
http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/01/16/are-samsung-galaxy-s-froyo-updates-being-held-back-because-of-cost/
I don't know but there is only one way for them to please everyone and get users back on their side.....
Upgrade straight to Gingerbread. That would make all Galaxy S Users happy and probably keep a large % of them customers on their next phone.
Lets be honest, there were certainly issues when Samsung released their version of Froyo to select providers up here in canada. Rogers decided to wait it out and have them work out some bugs that were crippling other galaxy s phones. As you know FROYO is now available on Rogers and Canada being a smaller market, I believe it's being used as as testing ground for the firmware before it's released en mass to the much larger AT&T community. I've been using FROYO since it was launched on the Rogers network and haven't encountered any problems as of yet. I'm also not seeing an onslaught of complaining about phones being bricked or melted due to the release, so it would seem the AT&T update should be along rather soon. But what do i know?
http://pocketnow.com/android/samsung-not-charging-carriers-for-galaxy-s-froyo-updates
I certainly hope so and not because i would use the stock firmware but because it would provide a much easier base to dev on than what the captivate devs have to deal with at the current moment.
Reminds me of the **** Apple and Microsoft have done with updates in the past, only in reverse. "Let's update all the devices, but make the new software so robust that the old hardware can't run it!" Only Samsung's case is quite different. Our phones are very capable of new updates.
They've got us by the balls and I'm just about fed up because we're never going to see an update. It just doesn't make sense for them from an economic standpoint and AT&T doesn't want to shell out the money. If I were in business to make and keep as many billions of dollars as possible, I'd probably behave in a similar manner.
Lancez said:
http://pocketnow.com/android/samsung-not-charging-carriers-for-galaxy-s-froyo-updates
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's so arbitrary and conceited. Well, all of this is actually. But Samsung releasing that little utterance just to give us a glimmer of hope is just more hay in the barn and can't possibly be taken seriously. They've been saying the same **** since day 1. Anyone remember what happened with the boy who cried wolf?
upNsmokeAllDay said:
Here is the third article i found posted on 1-18.
Samsung Galaxy S Froyo Coming in March?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2375940,00.asp?kc=PCRSS03069TX1K0001121&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ziffdavis%2Fpcmag%2Fbreakingnews+%28PCMag.com+Breaking+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This would make me the winner of the office pool. Check my signature, been saying it since November.
People think that by complaining loud enough they will get what they want. But honestly the people who are begging for froyo are a small subset of the total handset owners. People who are on xda are the die hard tech people who always want the latest and greatest.
It will happen when it happens
Sent from my SGH-I897 using XDA App
We may be a small subset, but we are the ones our friends and family come to for recommendations. All of a sudden, the impact is no longer small.
I have no idea if the rumors are true, I know Phandroid will help spread the rumors but the rumors make sense.
Samsung sold you a device if it does not work they will fix it, but yes Android 2.1 is a working OS and Android 2.2 is an upgrade. They like most manufactures add bloatware, it does take engineering time to take stock Froyo add the bloat and all the carrier customizations, why should Samsung bother? Makes economic sense for them just to sell a next generation Galaxy S .
I for one love the stock Froyo running on my Rogers Captivate but I will not hold my breath waiting for Samsung to deliver 2.3 or 2.4
I agree at the end of the day 95% of the people will never visit XDA, or run Kies.
The tech geeks do not speak for the majority, this is why there were not line ups for the Nexus One.
Captain Geezer said:
I've been using FROYO since it was launched on the Rogers network and haven't encountered any problems as of yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's been near perfect for me as well. The only complaints I have are:
1. The proximity sensor is screwed up. During a call, if the phone's screen is facing up the screen will turn back on. This means any time you hold the phone between your head and shoulder, your face starts mashing buttons. It's annoying as hell.
2. The contacts application never exits. It'll remain active in memory unless you end it. If you end it, your desktop disappears for several seconds before returning.
Gingerbread or bust.
Never again.
Sent from my Captivate.
AstroDigital said:
Samsung sold you a device if it does not work they will fix it, but yes Android 2.1 is a working OS and Android 2.2 is an upgrade. They like most manufactures add bloatware, it does take engineering time to take stock Froyo add the bloat and all the carrier customizations, why should Samsung bother? Makes economic sense for them just to sell a next generation Galaxy S.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We are not a bunch of whiners unhappy because we don't have the latest update and demanding something we have no right to. We are a group of consumers unhappy that we have been lied to and mislead. Samsung promised this update almost at the same time the phones were released. They promised a time frame in which it would be delivered. They have not followed through on their promises. They are selling accessories for these phones that have features that will only work with the promised updates. That right there is fraud. They have released this update everywhere but in the US, which says to me that it is not a technical consideration that is holding it up. Regardless of what may or may not make sense economically to Samsung, a company that does not keep its promises deserves to have that fact spread to consumers everywhere. Let's see how many next gen Galaxy phones Samsung sells after this debacle.
I've saved them the trouble and gone ahead and switched to T-mobile and a brand new G2 (no nexus s, because I will never buy another samsung device ever again, be it tv, blu-ray player, phone, microwave, toaster, blender, pocket knife, zipper, or plastic guitar pick).
As far as the $200 early term fee? Well, I've paid it, and I will be making a trip to the county courthouse on Friday to file against AT&T in small claims court for knowingly selling a malfunctioning device and breech of contract. Should they actually decide to show up instead of calling me to settle like I expect they will, I will be citing Cuomo v. Dell as a point of reference.
After 2 non-functioning replacements, I'm done with samsung, and to be honest, it really doesn't bother me to make AT&T pay for Samsung's mistake, because AT&T sold me the phone in the first place, and could have easily given me an Iphone as a replacement when I asked them to. Maybe next time they'll think twice about using a manufacturer with a history of repeating this exact same ****.
No class action because, well, let's face it, I don't have the money or the time to pursue a class action, and as a consumer, I know that I won't be putting up with their **** ever again. I just want the contract they conned me into gone, and the $400 for the phone and the ETF back. I would suggest that if any of you are unhappy with the phone that you don't sit around and just put up with it. You need to go get another phone with another carrier, cancel your contract, and file in small claims against AT&T. When word starts spreading of this money will talk and the carriers will listen. Then samsung won't be able to sell their devices to carriers.
Thanks for making that decision easy, Samsung and AT&T.
AstroDigital said:
Samsung sold you a device if it does not work they will fix it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From experience (2 returns are failures, 1 was DOA) that simply isn't true. Samsung is making users play russian roulette with refurbished phones.
Yup. This whole story just makes me all the more satisfied with my decision to go with the EVO over the EPIC on Sprint. We, EVO owners, were among the very first phones to be updated to FroYo. I've been rockin 2.2 for months now!
Go HTC and go Sprint!
P.S. I have other reasons why I would never by a Samsung phone. For some strange reason, there are way too many apps and mods that are 'not compatible with Galaxy S phones'.
Sent from my EVO rockin' MikFroYo!
leetpriest said:
Should they actually decide to show up instead of calling me to settle like I expect they will, I will be citing Cuomo v. Dell as a point of reference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cuomo v. Dell was about defrauding customers out of money by falsely advertising a 0% interest rate. I think you are going to have trouble convincing a judge that AT&T committed fraud because you would have to prove that they sold you your phone knowing that it had hardware problems that could not be fixed. Since there are thousands of people using Captivates without shutdown issues or other hardware related problems, fraud is a huge stretch, especially when the burden of proof is on you. If you seriously cite Cuomo v. Dell, AT&T may defend against it just to prevent any example from being set.
nkrick said:
Cuomo v. Dell was about defrauding customers out of money by falsely advertising a 0% interest rate. I think you are going to have trouble convincing a judge that AT&T committed fraud because you would have to prove that they sold you your phone knowing that it had hardware problems that could not be fixed. Since there are thousands of people using Captivates without shutdown issues or other hardware related problems, fraud is a huge stretch, especially when the burden of proof is on you. If you seriously cite Cuomo v. Dell, AT&T may defend against it just to prevent any example from being set.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So there isn't a press release dated Dec 20 out from Samsung instructing AT&T to "Sell through existing inventory" of faulty captivates? Citing that during a small claims hearing may not do much for me, but anyone that purchased a captivate after that press release now has a very real case against samsung and AT&T.
Alas, that's neither here nor there. I couldn't cite that case in the FILING process, or the SERVING process, only during the hearing, which precedes a settlement. You're telling me AT&T might be willing to pay a local attorney thousands, or pay thousands to fly a corp attorney down here to fight over $400?
I don't see it happening. But hey, I could be wrong. They could always attempt to countersue and not win. I didn't ask for your legal advice. I merely suggested that it may be worth everyone's time to send a message to the carriers that Samsung devices shouldn't be sold, that's all. It's not like it's any skin off your back if I win or lose a SMALL CLAIMS case, right?
leetpriest said:
So there isn't a press release dated Dec 20 out from Samsung instructing AT&T to "Sell through existing inventory" of faulty captivates? Citing that during a small claims hearing may not do much for me, but anyone that purchased a captivate after that press release now has a very real case against samsung and AT&T.
Alas, that's neither here nor there. I couldn't cite that case in the FILING process, or the SERVING process, only during the hearing, which precedes a settlement. You're telling me AT&T might be willing to pay a local attorney thousands, or pay thousands to fly a corp attorney down here to fight over $400?
I don't see it happening. But hey, I could be wrong. They could always attempt to countersue and not win. I didn't ask for your legal advice. I merely suggested that it may be worth everyone's time to send a message to the carriers that Samsung devices shouldn't be sold, that's all. It's not like it's any skin off your back if I win or lose a SMALL CLAIMS case, right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I applaud your efforts, and i would do the same thing. Small claims court should be an easy victory and here is why:
1. It probably will never get that far, as the cost of the lawyer is in excess of the $ amount - assuming you are only going after the early term fee - I don't think you have a case for anything else
2. There are laws on the books about "merchantability" or "fitness of purpose". I don't AT&T or Samsung engaged in outright, but the simple fact that the phone had defects is enough - it is not dissimilar to invoking the lemon laws for cars.
Cars have 0 day return guarantee, so lemon laws were necessary. As a consumer, you went through the proper process and let them replace your device 2 times yet defects persisted. By then your 30 day return was over.
Document your experience and you should be OK if it goes to court.
I am not a lawyer but i have filed in small claims court in the past and had very good success getting results.
As the law now stands, we are able to root our phones without legal interference. However, this liberty is due to a temporary exemption which the government issued in 2010.
The U.S. Copyright office is currently considering whether to allow "the exemption" to expire. This would mean that it will become a crime to root your phone (or otherwise modify it contrary to what the manufacturer/carrier specifies)!
The U.S. Copyright office is accepting comments until 5:00 p.m. E.S.T. on February 10, 2012. It is vital that each of us act dilligently concerning this issue.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has an excellent discussion about this topic at their "Jailbreaking is NOT a Crime" page. A website to educate and gather support has been set up at the Jailbreaking is NOT a Crime website (which is also sponsored by the EFF).
Our individual and collective actions are important on this issue... just as was the case concerning the issue of SOPA/PIPA. Unfortunately, this issue has not been as well-publicized.
Get the word out. It depends on us, the ones who will be affected.
Agreed. We need everyone to act on this.
Well the day I get arrested for doing what I want in my own home with the electronics I bought with what little money the government didn't take out of my hard earned paycheck is the day I give up on life and become a genuine Jesse James.
Though maybe this should've been in general?
Sent from my SGH-T959V using xda premium
ohh man .....
May be one day, it would be crime to put on a bumper sticker on my car.
Are we living in china or north korea??
These copyright *actions* are getting all messed up. America is becoming like China..
China's not all bad...
Lubcrayon said:
These copyright *actions* are getting all messed up. America is becoming like China..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, in China, there's no problem with copyright infringement...
Since unlocking phones (for carrier use) becomes illegal starting tomorrow, we have made a petition to fight back.
Please sign!
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7
Sent from my ADR6400L using xda premium
RBarnett09 said:
Since unlocking phones (for carrier use) becomes illegal starting tomorrow, we have made a petition to fight back.
Please sign!
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can do nothing with a petition like this now, this is scheduled to be looked at every 3 years, in 3 years you will have a chance to be heard and get this changed, however, we are stuck with this for at least 3 years.
Milimbar said:
You can do nothing with a petition like this now, this is scheduled to be looked at every 3 years, in 3 years you will have a chance to be heard and get this changed, however, we are stuck with this for at least 3 years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed. I'm sure the White House is getting a nice chuckle from this petition.
Sent from my ADR6400L using xda app-developers app
Here's the thing about what people may see as a pointless petition.
They are all pointless until created. No matter if this will make any difference or not.
Petitions aren't meant to go by guidelines or by what the current law or cycle of voting represents.
In fact, if we all just sat idly by while things happen around us and shrug our shoulders because well, that's what the law is and it doesn't come back up for discussion for 10 years, so let's just leave it as is, even though the majority of us are against it.
I guess my point is, no matter how small of a change or difference one person may think they will be or make, unless they start somewhere, they may as well roll over like everyone else.
Change starts with YOU!
(or you can accept things for the way they are dealt to you)
Santod is right. If enough people sign it will get attention and maybe it will be enough that it doesn't have to wait for three years before it is brought up again. If we keep allowing the cell companies to control how we use our property then eventually we won't have any control of it. This kind of crap needs to stop somewhere. This idea of not allowing us to decide if we want to stay with a specific carrier is bs. Would you like it if a bank said you had to remain in the same property, exactly the way it was originally purchased for the duration of the contract? Probably not.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Nexus 4, 7, 10 ... ++ More Nexus is the way to go now. Besides, I font see the point in an ithing or win8.
A reason to get one now and get away from VZW, I say.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Why is this crap being posted in forums for Verizon phones? It simply doesn't apply - VZW has never carrier locked their phones.
mike.s said:
Why is this crap being posted in forums for Verizon phones? It simply doesn't apply - VZW has never carrier locked their phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apparently you don't understand.
It will be illegal for us to unlock our phones to use them how we want to... HTC or not.
Sent from my ADR6400L using xda premium
This law affects all carriers. The only way around it is to get your carrier to unlock the phone for you or buy an unlocked phone from the start. They are only making it illegal to unlock your phone without their knowledge or permission.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
disconnecktie said:
This law affects all carriers. The only way around it is to get your carrier to unlock the phone for you or buy an unlocked phone from the start. They are only making it illegal to unlock your phone without their knowledge or permission.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This definitely won't stop most people.
Sent from my ADR6400L using xda premium
RBarnett09 said:
This definitely won't stop most people.
Sent from my ADR6400L using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A $500,000 fine and 5 years in prison sounds like a pretty good deterrent to keep most people from doing though. I think they are mostly targeting the businesses that are capitalizing on something that the carrier will do for people most of the time. I think part of the problem is that people get a phone on contract and since the phone is subsidized when they don't pay their bill the phone company eats the cost of the phone. If they are able to unlock the phone and use it somewhere else they basically get a free phone.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Plus from what I heard on the radio if you own a phone already then you can unlock it and flash it to whatever carrier. Online petitions are a joke. As you can't prove the people existence because of of no signatures. I could type out ten thousand names names easily. You want change? You want action? Then call your congressmen or woman and voice your dislikes. Have your family,friends,coworkers, and so on to call. Tell them you are not happy and unless you see action you will vote for the other guy. Keep calling and if enough people calls something might be done.
Or you could go the easier route and just buy a google branded phone and not have to worry about the stupid law lol. It is funny people don't seem to care about stuff till its to late.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
disconnecktie said:
A $500,000 fine and 5 years in prison sounds like a pretty good deterrent to keep most people from doing though. I think they are mostly targeting the businesses that are capitalizing on something that the carrier will do for people most of the time. I think part of the problem is that people get a phone on contract and since the phone is subsidized when they don't pay their bill the phone company eats the cost of the phone. If they are able to unlock the phone and use it somewhere else they basically get a free phone.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Holy....
I was unaware of that kind of punishment. That's insane.
How would someone get caught unlocking a phone though?
Sent from my ADR6400L using xda premium
I'm pretty sure that the esn will tell the new carrier where the phone came from. Plus you would have to know because unlocking it is probably different depending on which carrier you are coming from. There was a law passed recently that makes it illegal to take a phone with a bad esn and unlock it to use with a different carrier as well. The major carriers also have the ability to make a bad esn phone no good across most of the other carriers too.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Milimbar said:
You can do nothing with a petition like this now, this is scheduled to be looked at every 3 years, in 3 years you will have a chance to be heard and get this changed, however, we are stuck with this for at least 3 years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
tm24fan8 said:
Indeed. I'm sure the White House is getting a nice chuckle from this petition.
Sent from my ADR6400L using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who's laughing now!!!??
As I said before, it all starts with us guys.... :good:
Official White House Response to Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal.
(NOTE: This is in regards to carrier unlocking, not bootloader unlocking)
Source: LINK
It's Time to Legalize Cell Phone Unlocking
By R. David Edelman
Thank you for sharing your views on cell phone unlocking with us through your petition on our We the People platform.
Last week the White House brought together experts from across government who work on telecommunications, technology, and copyright policy, and we're pleased to offer our response.
The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties.
In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones. And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network.
It's common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs.
This is particularly important for secondhand or other mobile devices that you might buy or receive as a gift, and want to activate on the wireless network that meets your needs -- even if it isn't the one on which the device was first activated.
All consumers deserve that flexibility.
The White House's position detailed in this response builds on some critical thinking done by the President's chief advisory Agency on these matters:
the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
For more context and information on the technical aspects of the issue, you can review the NTIA's letter to the Library of Congress' Register of Copyrights (.pdf),
voicing strong support for maintaining the previous exception to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for cell phone carrier unlocking.
Contrary to the NTIA's recommendation, the Librarian of Congress ruled that phones purchased after January of this year would no longer be exempted from the DMCA.
The law gives the Librarian the authority to establish or eliminate exceptions -- and we respect that process.
But it is also worth noting the statement the Library of Congress released today on the broader public policy concerns of the issue.
Clearly the White House and Library of Congress agree that the DMCA exception process is a rigid and imperfect fit for this telecommunications issue, and we want to ensure this particular challenge for mobile competition is solved.
So where do we go from here?
The Obama Administration would support a range of approaches to addressing this issue, including narrow legislative fixes in the telecommunications space that make it clear:
neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation.
We also believe the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with its responsibility for promoting mobile competition and innovation, has an important role to play here.
FCC Chairman Genachowski today voiced his concern about mobile phone unlocking (.pdf), and to complement his efforts, NTIA will be formally engaging with the FCC as it addresses this urgent issue.
Finally, we would encourage mobile providers to consider what steps they as businesses can take to ensure that their customers can fully reap the benefits and features they expect when purchasing their devices.
We look forward to continuing to work with Congress, the wireless and mobile phone industries, and most importantly you -- the everyday consumers who stand to benefit from this greater flexibility -- to ensure our laws keep pace with changing technology, protect the economic competitiveness that has led to such innovation in this space, and offer consumers the flexibility and freedoms they deserve.
R. David Edelman is Senior Advisor for Internet, Innovation, & Privacy
Tell us what you think about this response and We the People.
Alright fair enough, good job guys!
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda app-developers app
Translation they agree but not really going to do much about it lol.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
santod040 said:
Who's laughing now!!!??
As I said before, it all starts with us guys.... :good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I signed it also, and just got my e-mail like 35min ago.
I don't know if it will change anything short term, but if nothing else.... at least next time it comes up for review it should turn out more favorably. Hopefully they will step in and push through some intermediate legislation before the next scheduled review though.
Milimbar said:
I signed it also, and just got my e-mail like 35min ago.
I don't know if it will change anything short term, but if nothing else.... at least next time it comes up for review it should turn out more favorably. Hopefully they will step in and push through some intermediate legislation before the next scheduled review though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That would be nice, but would require Congress to stop bickering for more than a minute...
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda app-developers app
I saw this and thought the same, what's this really going to accomplish? And then the posted article where it apparently did accomplish something. Seems like that's not always the case... But in general, I guess it's not a ton of effort to click in and sign an online petition, so if my one vote does almost-nothing-but-still-something, I guess the return on investment is slightly higher than what I get for typing a single forum post.
Although, if the law is meant to keep people from ditching their carrier and not paying their bill and having the phone "for free", there is the spot they're going to get on their credit when it goes to collections. Getting denied for credit or getting a worse rate for the next 7 years doesn't seem completely devoid of consequence.
Last fall, researchers at cybersecurity firm NowSecure found a bug in most Samsung smartphones that could allow hackers to spy on users.
In March, Samsung told NowSecure it had sent a fix to wireless carriers that they could distribute to users. It asked NowSecure to wait three months before going public.
Last week, the researchers bought two new Samsung Galaxy S6’s from Verizon VZ +0.89% Wireless and Sprint S +0.43%. They found both were still vulnerable to the security hole, which involves how the phone accepts data when updating keyboard software.
NowSecure CEO Andrew Hoog shared his version of events with The Wall Street Journal as his company prepared to release its research Tuesday. The story helps illuminate why hacking is so hard to stamp out.
That’s particularly true in smartphones, with its diffuse system of device makers, software programmers and network operators. Things likely are only to get worse as Americans connect their thermostats, door locks and cars to the Internet and face the need to update their software.
Samsung, Sprint and Verizon didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.
NowSecure’s Ryan Welton was scheduled to present his findings on the bug at a Black Hat mobile security conference in London on Tuesday.
The flaw shows how hackers can take advantage of software updates for nefarious purposes. In this case, Welton found he could hijack the process of updating one of the virtual keyboards Samsung installs on many Android smartphones. From there, he could eavesdrop on phone conversations, rummage through text messages and contacts, or turn on the microphone to capture audio.
That was possible, Hoog said, because Samsung didn’t encrypt the update process.
NowSecure’s story also offers a glimpse of the behind-the-scenes talks that often occur when a security company finds flaws in consumer software used by millions. The security firms generally give software makers time to fix the bug before going public.
In this case, NowSecure said it contacted Samsung in November 2014. On Dec. 16, Samsung asked for more time, Hoog said. On Dec. 31, it asked for a year to fix it, he said.
Hoog thought that was too long, reasoning that if his researchers found the bug, hackers would too.
The companies went back and forth until March, when Samsung said it had crafted a patch and had sent it to wireless carriers. They agreed the bug could be made public in about three months.
“We had some heartburn” over the delay, Hoog said. He said he does not know of any incidents where hackers exploited the flaw.
It was then up to the carriers to push users to download updates. That doesn’t always happen, or a user, running an old phone, may not bother.
NowSecure says it is yet to find a patched phone as of this week. Though “we still have to go to a T-Mobile TMUS -0.28% store,” Hoog said
Source : NowSecure, WSJ, BlackHat
I am guessing this is referencing the same exploit being discussed in the arstechnica website?
New exploit turns Samsung Galaxy phones into remote bugging devices
If so does freezing/uninstalling Samsung Keyboard 4.0 in Titanium backup be an effective stop gap measure considering I rarely use the default Samsung keyboard?
the problem samsung have a fix for this BUG but i dont know why samsung dont give this fix in an update are beter and the problem are fixed now perhaps wait to launche it with an M update ??? or an L 5.1 ?
From CNN:
"ZTE Corporation, one of China's largest tech companies, has halted "major operating activities" after a US ban against the company went into effect, according to a new public filing."
"Some of the company's products, which includes smartphones and telecommunications equipment, appeared to be taken offline Wednesday. "
And this is so stupid because not everyone lives in the US.........
Unfortunately ZTE have not kept up an agreement with the US and action has been taken .... makes me think thank god for tdm and his amazing work
stinka318 said:
And this is so stupid because not everyone lives in the US.........
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The biggest part of the seven-year ban involves no buying any products from US based companies. So no Qualcomm chips, no Dolby, etc. That's what really is devastating to them.
That being said it still sucks. It seemed like they were heading in a good direction, but they violated terms of a legal settlement. I'll still be using my Axon 7 Mini as a "backup" phone, but unfortunately won't be able to get another ZTE...
Sent from my Robin using XDA Labs
Is there still a point to purchasing one and going through the trouble of rooting it so that I will work on Verizon?
igresham said:
Is there still a point to purchasing one and going through the trouble of rooting it so that I will work on Verizon?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If I were you I would maybe go with Huawei, they manufacture most of the parts themselves. Don't know if they will be also banned soon
ZTE should partner with Huawei and get the parts from them. Although I am unsure which supplier is being used for WiFi (if it would be Broadcom it would be funny)
TheSSJ said:
If I were you I would maybe go with Huawei, they manufacture most of the parts themselves. Don't know if they will be also banned soon
ZTE should partner with Huawei and get the parts from them. Although I am unsure which supplier is being used for WiFi (if it would be Broadcom it would be funny)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Partnering with Huawei might get past finding a supplier for the CPU/SoC - switch from Snapdragon to Kirin. Mediatek would be another option.
Still, they'd be stuck needing to roll out a whole new lineup of devices based on the new hardware.
In any event, would still have trouble purchasing a license for Google-certified Android software such as the Play Services, Play Store, etc.
However, it's starting to look like the USA strategy all along was to use this export ban as a bargaining tool to force China to make concessions in ongoing trade negotiations. There's nothing like going thermonuclear (figuratively speaking) to catch your adversary's (also known as "trading partner's") attention. Trump has recently tweeted that he's open to "working together" with the Chinese government to re-start ZTE's operations. (On the other hand, I've read in other news sources claiming that the most recent string of events with the USA backpedaling on the ZTE file is evidence of China preying on a naive USA trade strategy. Who knows: Maybe both opinions are true?)