From: this@ddress.is.invalid   
      
   Chris Green  wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
     That is *theoretically* possible, but in practice you need the   
   (hardware) tools to either read the memory or remove it (unsoldering?)   
   and put it in a specialized device to read it. No simple task at all.   
      
   > It's only the same as accessing a disk drive on an 'ordinary' computer.   
      
     No way! A disk in a computer and 'flash' memory soldered in a phone   
   are completely different!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)