Apple quietly introduced code into iOS 18.1 which reboots the device if it has not been unlocked for a period of time, reverting it to a state which improves the security of iPhones overall and is making it harder for police to break into the devices, according to multiple iPhone security experts.
On Thursday, 404 Media reported that law enforcement officials were freaking out that iPhones which had been stored for examination were mysteriously rebooting themselves. At the time the cause was unclear, with the officials only able to speculate why they were being locked out of the devices. Now a day later, the potential reason why is coming into view.
“Apple indeed added a feature called ‘inactivity reboot’ in iOS 18.1.,” Dr.-Ing. Jiska Classen, a research group leader at the Hasso Plattner Institute, tweeted after 404 Media published on Thursday along with screenshots that they presented as the relevant pieces of code.
How I do this in Lineage?
I think there is no such Option in LOS yet. GrapheneOS on the other Hand has this Option for years. If you want to safe at least your signal messages/contacts Molly has a similar function to encrypt after a setted time of not using it.
Wait two weeks, someone will implement this as a Magisk module
Why does rebooting it improve the safety or security of the phone?
Once rebooted, you need to enter your PIN to unlock the phone (and the SIM as well). Before that it is not possible to unlock the phone with biometric credentials (face ID or fingerprint).
As far as I’m aware, police can force you to hand over your biometric credentials (they can hold the phone to your face to unlock it when you have face ID enabled, or can move your finger to the fingerprint sensor). But they can’t force you to reveal the PIN number.
or can move your finger to the fingerprint sensor).
Good luck guessing which finger and on which hand. You have 3 tries before a password is required.
Yeah but that would imply they are bringing the phones to the person multiple times to use their face/finger, or they are keeping the phone active so it never locks, unless they are actively changing the settings to never lock somehow. Seems like an easier fix to just require you to enter your pin to change your lock setting to indefinitely.
Side note: the last time I was arrested the officer asked me if I wanted to reboot my phone or turn it off before handing it over so I knew they weren’t going to go through it. Was surprised
I don’t know how the procedere would be executed, but I imagine that police could have the phone present during an interrogation and try to nlock it there (possibly by making you to look at the phone to unlock it, if the phone has been set up to unlock this way). Once unlocked, it would be sufficient to have a peek into the camera roll or messages, until the phone locks again. I don’t know about the law, but I can imagine that if a police officer had a look into your phone, even briefly, it may be held against the one who is being interrogated.
The more full reason is that the device is still encrypted prior to first unlock and is harder to extract any information from. As to what you said about police requiring you to enter your PIN, they can’t. You can’t be forced to reveal your passwords/PINs but they can legally force you to unlock biometrics (fingerprint/face ID)
I never said they could require you to enter a pin, my words are often a jumble. I was saying cops actually asked me if I wanted to restart or shut down my phone so I had peace of mind that they wouldn’t go through it.
Yep: but they can’t force you to give them the password because of 5th Amendment protections from self-incrimination.
And even if they did have the right to tell you to give them the password, they don’t have access if you simply refuse to cooperate. They can get your fingerprints, face ID, or retina scan by force. They cannot extract information from your brain.
BTW: Lots if phones also have a “lockout mode” that can be enabled that will give you the option to lock it down to password-only without turning it off. It can be good for recording police interactions, because it will continue to record them while they can’t access the contents of the phone if they swipe it from you.
What about amputating the hand?
BFU (before first unlock) vs AFU (After first unlock)
Basically encrypted vs decrypted
When you first boot up a device, most data on that device is encrypted. This is the Before First Unlock (BFU) state. In order to access any of that data, someone must enter the passcode. The Secure Enclave uses it to recreate the decryption keys that allow the device to access that encrypted data. Biometrics like Face ID and Touch ID won’t work: they can’t be used to recreate the encryption keys.
Once you unlock the device by entering the passcode the device generates the encryption keys and uses them to access the data. It keeps those keys in memory. If it didn’t, you’d have to enter your passcode over and over again in order to keep using your device. This is After First Unlock (AFU) state.
When you’re in AFU state and you lock your device, it doesn’t throw away the encryption keys. It just doesn’t permit you to access your device. This is when you can use biometrics to unlock it.
In some jurisdictions a judge can legally force someone to enter biometrics, but can’t force them give up their passcode. This legal distinction in the USA is that giving a passcode is “testimonial” because it requires giving over the contents of your mind, and forcing suspects to do that is not legal in the USA. Biometrics aren’t testimonial, and so someone can be forced to use them, similar to how arrested people are forced to give fingerprints.
Of course, in practical terms this is a meaningless distinction because both biometrics and a passcode can grant access to nearly all data on a device. So one interesting thing about BFU vs AFU is that BFU makes this legal hair-splitting moot: biometrics don’t work in BFU state.
But that’s not what the 404 Media articles are about. It’s more about the forensic tools that can sometimes extract data even from a locked device. A device in AFU state has lots of opportunities for attack compared to BFU. The encryption keys exist, some data is already decrypted in memory, the lightning port is active, it will connect to Wi-Fi networks, and so on. This constitutes a lot of attack surface that hackers could potentially exploit to pull data off the device. In BFU state, there’s very little data available and almost no attack surface. Automatically returning a device to BFU state improves resistance to hacking.
Also, in the BFU state, iPhones at least, won’t allow any data connections through USB
It’s more complicated than that. It’s called USB restricted mode. The lightning port is always willing to do a minimal subset of the protocols that it supports in order to do smart charging. By default most of the protocols it supports are disabled in BFU state. In AFU state it gets more complex than that. Accessories that you’ve previously connected can connect for one hour after the device is locked. This helps keep USB restricted mode from being really annoying if you briefly disconnect and reconnect an accessory.
USB restricted mode can be disabled by a user option (Settings > [Touch / Face] ID & Passcode > Allow Access When Locked > Accessories) or by a configuration profile. Disabling it allows accessories to connect at any time, and generally lowers the security of your device. But in some cases that’s necessary, for instance when you use an accessibility accessory to use your device.
If USB restricted mode is a concern for you, you should consider Lockdown Mode (Settings > Privacy & Security > Lockdown Mode). This changes several settings on your device to make it much more resilient to attack.
Very informative. Thank you.
You mentioned the lightning port. Is there any difference with the newer phones with USB-C when it comes to these functions?
I’m glad you find this informative. It’s a topic that’s important to me both personally and professionally, and there’s a lot of wrong information out there. But the best and most reliable info is in the Apple Platform Security Guide, such as Activating data connections securely and Direct memory access protections for Mac computers.
In this topic I don’t think there’s any important difference between USB-C and lightning. Both form factors support a bunch of USB protocols as well as some Apple-only protocols, and both have USB restricted mode.
Fun fact: in Australia we don’t have a bill of rights of any kind, so the cops can just force you to reveal your passwords. The maximum penalty for refusing is 2 years imprisonment.
wtf
what!
Small comfort: they still can’t physically force you like they can with biometrics.
Honestly, as an american, I could live with watered down rights if it meant a more representative government
Oh yeah, just don’t read about what happens to our prime ministers when they attempt to defy the empire. Totes democracy we got over here.
Umm I forgot.
To the ASIO agent assigned to tracking my every online move:
- I didn’t see this comment.
- I don’t understand it.
- I would never do such a thing.
- I’m sorry this is what your life has been reduced to. Your patriotism is misplaced and you would be happier if you worked against the creeping surveillance state rather than for it. You know better than any of us how horrible it is, and you have the skills we need.
Great explanation. That was super insightful.
So even with BFU, does the iPhone not connect to the internet? I guess i hadn’t noticed it doesn’t.
Also are you still about to track via gps an iPhone that is in the off state? Just curious if there’s a lot of other vectors where the iPhone is still connected?
So even with BFU, does the iPhone not connect to the internet? I guess i hadn’t noticed it doesn’t.
Well, it’s complicated. Most of these topics are. In BFU state, an iPhone (or iPad with cellular) with an active SIM and active data plan will connect to the Internet. It won’t connect to Wi-Fi at all. If you have USB restricted mode disabled and the right accessory connected it will connect to an Ethernet network, but that may fail if the network requires 802.1x and the credential is not available in BFU state. Similarly if USB restricted mode is disabled you can use tethering to a Mac to share its network.
For location, there’s two mechanisms. One mechanism relies on directly communicating with the device, which only works if the device has network.
The other mechanism is the “FindMy network” which uses a Bluetooth low energy (BTLE) beacon to let other nearby devices detect it, and they report that to FindMy. It’s a great technology. The way it uses rotating IDs preserves your privacy while still letting you locate your devices. I know that this works when a device is powered off but the battery is not completely dead. I’m not sure if it works in BFU state… my guess it that it does work. But this is not networking. It’s just a tiny Bluetooth signal broadcasting a rotating ID, so it’s one-way communication.
Other than that, I’m not as sure how things work. I believe Bluetooth is disabled by default in BFU state, but I suspect users can choose to re-enable Bluetooth in BFU state to connect to accessibility accessories. I’m not sure about the new emergency satellite communication.
But one thing I know for sure is that Apple has world class security engineers, and one area they work hard to secure is devices in BFU state.
Wow ya that’s a lot of stuff to have to keep track of. Those security engineers are something else. I thought software security was already complex but iPhones or any phones sounds like its even more so
Most likely after rebooting but before unlocking the decryption key is not present in memory in plaintext.
As I understand it, even though after Reboot the OS looks like its in about the same state with the wallpaper and same password to unlock, the fact that it hasn’t been unlocked yet means that certain attacks don’t work as well. I don’t know why specifically. I think it’s because the attack may still work but doesn’t reveal any sensitive data because it’s just the ROM, wallpaper, sim, etc.
Do two fucks make a right?
GrapheneOS been had this feature, don’t let apple tell you they invented it.
don’t let apple tell you they invented it.
Why always the knee-jerk anti-apple reaction even if they do something good?
FYI: Apple isn’t telling anyone they invented this. In fact, they didn’t even tell anyone about this feature and declined to comment after it was discovered and people started asking questions.
All six GrapheneOS users should be proud that the developers of their phone software are genius inventors!
And most of them are in this thread.
Judging by the downvote count, I was off by 2x. My apologies to the community!
(For the record, I have nothing against GrapheneOS, but also no use for it)
deleted by creator
Gotcha. We’re almost twice as many.
I’m looking forward to joining the dozens with my nexto phone v
Android in general has it, not just you.
Great software features should be available to all hardware, regardless of OS.
For sure I’m just joking about apple’s habit of taking a feature that has been around for YEARS and claiming they “innovated” it, usually after they strip it down a little no less (like in this case where it appears to be a setting users can’t access, but Graphene lets you turn it on/off or adjust the time between lock and reset.)
deleted by creator
Did they claim they innovated this feature? I wasn’t paying attention.
I assume so, it’s their typical MO and thus: The Joke™.
IMHO, the novelty of the feature isn’t what makes this headline worthy. This is noteworthy because of the scale. iOS is over a quarter of phones on earth, and in English speaking countries and Japan, you’re looking at numbers that are often over 50%.
This will impact a LOT more investigations than Graphene, and I imagine Apple will be back in court fighting cops who want to remove privacy and security features. Hopefully this stuff stands up to the autocrats coming into power in the states.
deleted by creator
Amazing how a Foss project led the way on this…
Best marketing ever… Suck on that Tim Apple 🤡
deleted by creator
Foss OSes… GrapheneOS for sure but I also saw enjoyers stating calyxOS will also do the trick.
Sure, F-Droid. It’s an app store that not only is exclusively foss, they only host things they can build from source in house and seem to have a decent review process - they tag anything from ads to integration with paid services, and those features are often buried so it seems like they’re pretty militant about it
It comes with all the drawbacks that entails, but I generally check there first myself
who cares who invented it first? this is benefiting everyone? this isn’t some console wars bullshit, this is a great feature. if apple gets good press from it, i don’t care.
And getting more press about privacy related things, and why they’re important is always good to see.
This is issue of security, no privacy. And I highly doubt Apple is on team peasant here. They are biggest beneficiaries of US government, they play for that team.
You don’t understand how propaganda works. An this is what this is…
There a huge shillop about unlocking some terrorist phone long time ago… FBI asked and Apple refused when FBI used celebrite or whatever in reality.
Gave bonuses false sense of security. This smells the same IMHO.
Happy to be wrong but I don’t trust apple.
They got in the phone anyways, Apple just told the FBI to pound sand if they don’t have a court order… Why would they put man hours towards decreasing their reputation if they don’t have to? They’re probably not even geared to break into their own devices. Then their PR team ran with it while one of many companies with the capability to crack the phone took a paycheck
This is different - this is genuine security, even if easily bypassed with preparation beforehand. Honestly, I credit some random apple dev who may have been looking to fix a bug related to long uptime as easily as they might’ve cared about security. I don’t think this was even on the radar of Apple leadership
This isn’t some moral superiority on Apple’s part, but it is good practice
My thesis is that GrapheneOS has this feature for a long time as part of the security approach… Apple who love shilling how great they but hey are following a Foss Android project as 3t mega corp.
I find it comical
I don’t see the humor in it…I mean, mega corps can’t innovate, all they ever do is copy or acquire. It’s because even if they acquire a working rockstar team, they’re categorically unable to just write them paychecks and let them cook until they have something
It’s absurd, but it’s too predictable for me to find it funny. What’s even more absurd is how little mega corps watch the small teams for ideas
I understand how “propaganda” works and ultimately realize that Apple included such a feature for good publicity so the normal people of the world who don’t know what a Mulvad or a Tails is, but are still privacy concerned, would go out and shill 1,000$+ for their phones-- I get it. I ain’t saying you don’t have to be distrustful.
I still think it’s a bit silly to look for problems in what is ultimately a good thing, anyways. I didn’t forget about Apple’s letter-of-the-law following of the DMA, I didn’t forget about Apple suing Samsung for “rectangle with button”, I didn’t even forget about Apple reversing course on scanning everyone’s iCloud photos for CSAM-- that last part which was genuinely privacy concerning. I’m still gonna go out of my way to say “i like this” so Apple and other companies continue to at the very least virtue signal for protecting their consumers against an over-reaching & often times distrustful law enforcement.
Unless when it is the other way around, they will sue you to death.
IT support everywhere sigh in satisfaction
Law enforcement shouldn’t be able to get into someone’s mobile phone without a warrant anyway. All this change does is frustrate attempts by police to evade going through the proper legal procedures and abridging the rights of the accused.
Well, when you confiscate a piece of paper, even without a warrant to read it you can do that physically when it’s in your possession, and it’s part of the evidence or something, so everyone else can too, so why even fight for that detail.
They just pretended it’s fine with mobile computers.
I thought that “fruit of a poisonous tree” is a real principle, not just for books about Perry Mason. /s
So - yes. It’s just really hard to trust Apple.
That argument sounds great until you consider that a piece of paper won’t contain almost the entirety of your personal information, web traffic, location history, communications. You may say you could find most of that pre computer era in someone’s house, but guess what you would need to get inside and find those pieces of paper…
It’s not an argument, just a thought.
To confiscate anything, unless it’s lying openly, you need a warrant.
If a cop sees an unlocked phone with evidence of a crime on it, that doesn’t need a warrant. If it’s locked and they only have the suspicion of evidence, they need a warrant. Same as with entering a building or drilling a safe.
Is analogy with people in (very quiet) places who don’t lock doors to their homes correct? Then it’s as if the door is not locked, a cop doesn’t have to ask permission (or warrant)?
No. Even if a house is unlocked, the fourth amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”.
What constitutes “unreasonable”, is of course, up to a judge.
If a cop can look in your window from the porch and see a meth lab, yeah, they’re going to come back with a warrant, mostly because they can’t just pick up the house and take it to evidence. If your phone is lying unlocked, and they see something obviously criminal on the screen, they’re going to take it right then and there.
That’s what I meant. Phones should be treated similarly to houses.
Seems like he’s saying they are. If they see something criminal on the phone then it’s not an unreasonable seizure.
They usually do have a warrant or it was seized lawfully.
This is about keeping them out even when it’s lawful.
The police can engage in rubber-hose cryptanalysis. In many countries, it’s legal to keep a suspect in prison indefinitely until they comply with a warrant requiring them to divulge encryption keys. And that’s not to mention the countries where they’ll do more than keep you in a decently-clean cell with three meals a day to, ahem, encourage you to divulge the password.
That’s what you need distress codes for.
Destruction of evidence is a much different crime.
I would suspect it’d no longer be legal to hold them indefinitely and instead at best get the max prison sentence for that crime instead.
A us law website says that’s no more than 20y as the absolute max, and getting max would probably be hard if they don’t have anything else on you.
You’d have to weigh that against what’s on the device.
Also, even better if the distress code nukes the bad content, and then has a real 2nd profile that looks real, which makes it even harder to prove you used a distress code.
In most cases, destroying evidence will result in an adverse inference being drawn against the accused. It means that the court will assume that the evidence was incriminating which is why you destroyed it.
Lawyer. Not true.
Example: An officer pulls someone over and suspects them of something arrestable. Then says “Do you want me to get your personal belongings from your car?”
Any person agreeing to this allows them to hold your phone as evidence indefinitely in the US now.
That’s all lawful.
They can search you and the area when arrested. They can search the car if they have probable cause that evidence will be in the vehicle
I said have a warrant or seized lawfully, not nust have a warrant.
Edit: I didn’t even write what I said I said correctly. Corrected it lol.
Seized or not, they can not force you to unlock your phone via pin without a warrant. They can only force you to use biometrics.
Right, but this is about them bypassing you entirely.
They don’t need your fingerprint or pass code if they can bypass it themselves. This feature protects you when they’ve seized it lawfully which can be for many reasons.
Or even if they’ve seized it unlawfully. Or if it’s been stolen by a regular thief, a cybercriminal, the mafia, or a cartel.
I’m not sure how much it would actually help for a regular thief.
This is about protecting it against more sophisticated attacks. But the rest probably have those means if wanted.
It is their job to find evidences, not my resposibility to provide them.
I’ve never said otherwise.
It’s their job to find a way to hack into the phone.
This feature makes that even harder.
Other people answered, but to your point, in some cases THEY CAN compel without a court order.
Biometrics don’t conform to certain laws, and it gets even more complicated if you’re entering the US through customs. They can practically hold you indefinitely if you don’t comply. Whether you have legal representation is sort of an after thought.
Yep! The police, being fascists, HATE this.
well it’s kind of a selling point. I’m just too used to using android, though.
Edit - there’s something for that too, cool!
All current stock Samsung phones can do this too, BTW.
You can enable lockdown mode. It forces the next unlock to ignore biometrics and require a pin, which police cannot force you to divulge without a warrant. Once enabled, you get a “lockdown mode” option in the menu when you hold down your power button.
Although lockdown mode is a good step and helps defend against biometric warrents, it does not wipe the encryption keys from RAM. This can only be achieved by using a secondary (non-default) user profile on GrapheneOS, and triggering the End session feature. This fully removes the cryptographic secrets from memory, and requires the PIN or password to unlock, which is enforced through the StrongBox and Weaver API of the Titan M2 secure element in Pixel devices.
If you haven’t done this and need the same ability IMMEDIATELY: reboot, or just shut down
Every first boot requires pin same as lockdown
Also: set a nonstandard finger in a weird way as your finger unlock if you wanna use that, then theyre likely to fail to get that to work should you not manage to lock it down beforehand
Finally: there are apps that let you use alternate codes/finger unlocks to wipe/encrypt/reboot the device instead, allowing you to pretend to cooperate with the cops up until they realize they got played
Also: set a nonstandard finger in a weird way as your finger unlock if you wanna use that
I actually do this. 3 wrong attempts and the phone requires a password.
I consider it a very light measure and not something to rely on alone, but it’s a bit of a no-brainer for how easy and unobtrusive this is.
IANAL, but I’d be very careful about wiping the phone like that. Sounds a lot like destruction of evidence…
When the cops are about to fuck you like this… Defending yourself is the priority lol wtf clown take is this.
Gotta prove there was evidence on the phone in the first place, which would take forensic work to do and be not worth the work in the majority of cases
Plus it would annoy them, and that’s the real goal here
I imagine that would be one hell of a story to tell Bubba when they decide to lock you away for whatever false charges they can pin on you.
sounds like the point
It’s not destruction of evidence though because without a warrant the information on the phone isn’t evidence, it’s just stuff on a phone. Stuff which is your stuff and you have every right to delete it whenever you want.
They would actually have to arrest you and acquire a warrant, try it to getting you to unlock the phone for it to be “evidence”.
The police would have a very hard time in court saying that there was evidence on the phone when they can’t produce any documentation to indicate they had any reason to believe this to be the case. Think about the exchange with the judge.
“Your honor this individual wiped their phone, thus destroying evidence”
“Very well, may I see the warrant?”
“Yeah… Er… Well about that…”
It doesn’t matter what the police may think you have done, if they don’t go via the process the case will be dismissed on a technicality. They hate doing that but they don’t really have a choice.
So many words to explain how you literally have no clue about how the law works.
In what way am I wrong then?
You can use GrapheneOS, a security-focused version of Android which includes auto-reboot, timers that automatically turn off Wi-Fi and Bluetooth after you don’t use them for a certain period of time, a duress PIN/Password that wipes all the data from your device after it’s entered, as well as many other incredibly useful features.
It’s fully hardened from the ground up, including the Linux kernel, C library, memory allocator, SELinux policies, default firewall rules, and other vital system components.
graphene is ONLY for select Google pixel phones though. I wish this was made much clearer by the team and advocates.
its a real shame because pixels, although big in the USA are typically a minority of most android ecosystems elsewhere, and bootloader hijinks keep some perfectly capable phones from being easy to switch over to, even if they were supported.
Even on samsungs, which are much better for flashing than they used to be - my options on a year old flagship for a decent ROM are pathetic compared to the old days.
so I would really love to use graphene, and go back to an open source ROM without crap on it, but pixels are such a bottom tier phone for their price in a lot of places, as much as I really really want the project go gain traction for their transparency and objectives.
but pixels are such a bottom tier phone for their price in a lot of places
Not sure what you mean, you can get a used Pixel 6a for 120 EUR, which will continue to get updates for another 2.5 years. Show me another phone with such a great value proposition. There’s a website that calculates how much each Pixel would cost you monthly (it’s basically just price divided by update lifetime): https://pixel-pricing.netlify.app/
There are some really good deals, and I’d rather pay a little more for a phone that can actually be used privately, instead of buying some cheap Chinese, spyware-infested garbage that will fall apart after 2 years, and never gets any security updates.
Not sure what you mean, you can get a used Pixel 6a for 120 EUR, which will continue to get updates for another 2.5 years. Show me another phone with such a great value proposition. That’s exactly my point, outside of the EU and north america, you’re just very unlikely to find that scenario. I don’t want to doxx myself here, but the going rate for the phone you mentioned is at minimum 300 euro equivalent - comparable flagships significantly cheaper. I have nothing against Pixels specifically - before the re-brand, I had nearly every Google Nexus phone ever made, and they were all amazing. They’re just not acceptably priced in all markets for what they are, even used.
I’d argue however that there’s much more to android than either Pixels OR chinese spyware crap - Samsung, Sony, and LG aren’t always perfect, but often make very good products that if running a custom ROM, are every bit as secure as any pixel, while the hardware of pixels is generally a bit worse, but compensated for with better software optimisation. Buying into a false dichotomy that there is only one good android manufacturer puts us no further ahead than apple fanboys beholden to a largely good, but sometimes flawed ecosystem.
My ideal is that development can expand to other mainstream brands and OEMs, and that the interest in the graphene/ROM community picks up steam more broadly, rather than being siloed into pixels alone, and bound to the fate of google-specific hardware going forward.
I’m the only guy in my (small) friend group who still used pattern code instead of fingerprint so I take that to mean my phone is by default more difficult to break into than most. Giving my fingerprint to a giantic tech firm has always seemed like a bad idea so I never did. Though the fingerprint reader acts as a power button too so who knows if they’ve scanned it anyway.
Patterns are too easy to breach via brute force is my understanding like comically easy
Any modern phone os locks to pin after 3 tries.
Now depending how good they are, it’s often possible to guess it by looking at the smear patterns on the phone.
Most phones aren’t letting you try more than 5 attempts before you’re locked out. You can even set it up to erase after the attempts
You are showing a limited understanding of law enforcement’s capabilities for brute force attacks.
They make an imagine ofnthe device and then brute force it so you better have that 16 character password.
Makes sense, but in that case, why do law enforcement even care if the OS reboots itself if they already have a copy of the encrypted contents?
properly passworded os still has vulnerabilities that they want to exploit.
OP is just one vulnerability closed.
You mentioned wipe feature after fialed tries, thats a tactic that a person with serious threat model can use but cops go a work around it.
Most attacks are done offline. If they clone the encrypted partition, they can brute-force as fast as they want. Pin lockouts can’t protect against that.
Afaik the fingerprint is stored on dedicated hardware on your device, it never leaves your phone and cannot be “read”
I think this used to be possible with tasker, ironically though probably not anymore before of all Google’s restrictions on Android. (maybe if you have root)
GrapheneOS periodically (once a day or so) forces me to put in the passcode. If this isn’t a stock Android feature that’s another reason to use Graphene. It also has a “lockdown” button in the power button menu that forces the same behaviour.
Pretty sure it’s stock android, my phone does it every so often as well.
Sho does, annoys the hell outta me when it happens but I’d never disable that feature
And grapheneOS also reboots if it hasn’t been unlocked in the past 36 hours. Maybe the amount of time is different by default though, I might have changed it.
I have mine set to 18 hours
Archived version (skip sign-up wall): https://archive.is/dxL65
Not even just a sign up verification wall in this case - It’s a straight up paywall.
If possible in your situation, reader:
Give 404 your proxy emails y’all… Proton, Mozilla, iCloud, whatever it is. They deserve the metrics.
Yeah 404 doing journalism in the world of fake news…
Corpo shills can get fucked.
i agree, they do deliver pretty good researched articles. it’s the only news site that gets monthly donations from me, and i’m not even interested in podcasts
They are absolutely shredding.
Good on you!
Does anybody know if LineageOS has an equivalent feature?
It wasn’t quite, I had to opt in.
What’s the setting name?
Inactivity reboot.
If this is true, then it’s not a setting that users can access. At least not that I can find.
BFU has always been useful, it’s nice there’s a bit of autonomy to it now.
It’s also a good time to mention Shortcuts app has lots of useful functions that can automate your phone for security reasons. There are several community made / managed shortcuts that can do things like lock down the phone, enable certain features, and even start recording audio/video on the off chance you’ve been pulled over or are in some sort of situation. You can also tell the phone to power off / reboot via shortcuts which can be a final step after recording and uploading content to the cloud.
Stay safe out there.
On one hand, Fuck Da Police
On the other hand, Fuck Apple
