From: cl@isbd.net   
      
   Frank Slootweg  wrote:   
   > Chris Green  wrote:   
   > > Java Jive  wrote:   
   > > > On 2025-12-05 16:44, croy wrote:   
   > > > >   
   > > > > I'm   
   > > > > assuming that a security hole was plugged, and if that is correct, I   
   like   
   > > > > it.   
   > > > I fail to see how this could have plugged any security hole!  Before and   
   > > > now, in both cases you have to have possession of the phone and the   
   > > > matching fingerprint/PIN/ugly mug/whatever to log into it, so the new   
   > > > rigmarole is not discernibly more secure than the old, it's just a   
   > > > ritual bloody nuisance.   
   > > >   
   > > Exactly! If someone has your phone in their hands then all files are   
   > > accessible, the only possible protection is encryption.   
   >   
   >   If the phone is (screen) locked, you can't do anything, that's the   
   > whole point of locking a phone.   
      
   If it's in my hands I can simply take it apart and access the memory.   
   It's only the same as accessing a disk drive on an 'ordinary' computer.   
      
   --   
   Chris Green   
   ·   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)