Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday August 25 2021, @01:42AM   Printer-friendly
from the photo-bombed? dept.

https://www.xda-developers.com/samsung-galaxy-z-fold-3-unlock-bootloader-broken-camera/

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 3 and the Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3 represent the best foldable technologies that Samsung can provide to its consumers. Needless to say, if you are in the market right now for a premium smartphone, the latest Galaxy Z lineup will surely figure in your list as a possible purchase option. While the hardware and software combo make these devices great for most buyers, advanced users and enthusiasts might still feel the need to unlock the bootloader and root these devices to unleash their true potential. Unfortunately, Samsung already makes it extremely difficult to have root access without tripping the security flags, and now the Korean OEM has introduced yet another roadblock for aftermarket development. In its latest move, Samsung disables the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 after you unlock the bootloader.

[...] It is not clear why Samsung chose the way on which Sony walked in the past, but the actual problem lies in the fact that many will probably overlook the warning and unlock the bootloader without knowing about this new restriction. Re-locking the bootloader does make the camera work again, which indicates that it’s more of a software-level obstacle. With root access, it could be possible to detect and modify the responsible parameters sent by the bootloader to the OS to bypass this restriction. However, according to ianmacd, Magisk in its default state isn’t enough to circumvent the barrier.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by pTamok on Wednesday August 25 2021, @07:04AM (8 children)

    by pTamok (3042) on Wednesday August 25 2021, @07:04AM (#1170693)

    It's not your 'own' hardware.

    You pay a fee to the actual owners to be allowed to use the functions of their hardware that they choose to allow to you.

    This is what the implementation of 'Trusted Computing' is all about. Oddly enough, Richard Stallman wrote about this some time ago* [gnu.org].

    *Original version (it has been updated) was published, I think, in 2002.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Wednesday August 25 2021, @10:06AM (6 children)

    by Opportunist (5545) on Wednesday August 25 2021, @10:06AM (#1170744)

    Then they can keep their hardware and I keep my money.

    Let's find out who needs whom more.

    • (Score: 4, Touché) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 25 2021, @10:36AM (1 child)

      by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Wednesday August 25 2021, @10:36AM (#1170755) Homepage
      They don't need you at all. Thanks for asking.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday August 25 2021, @11:18AM (3 children)

      by PiMuNu (3823) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 25 2021, @11:18AM (#1170768)

      As someone pointed out in another post, (some) banks require you to buy their hardware to access your bank account (2 factor authentication)

      • (Score: 2) by bart9h on Wednesday August 25 2021, @12:04PM (1 child)

        by bart9h (767) on Wednesday August 25 2021, @12:04PM (#1170777)

        You don't need exactly their hardware. There are alternatives.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @08:07AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @08:07AM (#1172257)

          for now

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25 2021, @02:15PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25 2021, @02:15PM (#1170821)

        Code calculators are a good thing. A dedicated device that is impossible to access remotely, neatly solves the account security problem in a low-price, low-hassle way.
        A bank that instead implements "authenticator" as a smartphone app, should be held fully liable for all hacks arising from that.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25 2021, @06:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25 2021, @06:39PM (#1170910)

    Nothing odd about it at all, and he wasn't the only one saying it.