| 29 Oct 2024 |
 oak 🏳️🌈♥️ | I hope the issue is not inside the closed source binaries | 01:00:02 |
 Atemu | In reply to @samueldr:matrix.org
Atemu: and that activity launcher app filters activities in packages too, so e.g. finger will find the fingerprint-related ones under settings Yeah it didn't like that ^^' | 01:00:15 |
| oak 🏳️🌈♥️ | I wonder if the FP vendor library sources are available | 01:00:27 |
 @samueldr:matrix.org | oh, yeah, launching random activities might not work when they require params | 01:00:31 |
| Atemu | It's also not like the settings are at fault, this is almost certainly just the settings reacting to biometrics not working at a lower layer | 01:00:46 |
| @samueldr:matrix.org | yes, was about to say; it wasn't meant to imply that the settings page are to be looked at, but an example that it will filter "deeper" than package names | 01:01:23 |
| Atemu | In reply to @oak:universumi.fi
I hope the issue is not inside the closed source binaries Given that it also affects stock ROM... | 01:01:32 |
| @samueldr:matrix.org | it sure smells fishy | 01:01:54 |
| oak 🏳️🌈♥️ | It might be that the problematic code runs inside TEE | 01:02:03 |
| Atemu | Ohoh | 01:02:13 |
| Atemu | That could also be a state that I'd wipe by wiping userdata, huh | 01:02:32 |
| Atemu | Because android would presumably re-init TEE state when it's got a clean slate | 01:02:54 |
| oak 🏳️🌈♥️ | Yeah it probably resets the Keystore / Keymaster at least | 01:04:12 |
| oak 🏳️🌈♥️ | Fairphone has Qualcomm chip so they are probably running QSEE | 01:04:32 |
| @samueldr:matrix.org | that fairphone? (I forget which model is the latest) | 01:05:01 |
| @samueldr:matrix.org | (I thought it was fairphone 5? and here remember FP4, but might be wrong?) | 01:05:21 |
| Atemu | All of them run QC chips AFAIK | 01:05:30 |
| oak 🏳️🌈♥️ | * Fairphone 4 has Qualcomm chip so they are probably running QSEE | 01:05:22 |
| Atemu | * All of them have QC chips AFAIK | 01:05:39 |
| @samueldr:matrix.org | definitely not, initial ones were mediatek based | 01:05:51 |
| Atemu | Oh indeed | 01:06:15 |
| @samueldr:matrix.org | * definitely not, initial ones were mediatek based | 01:06:20 |
| Atemu | The first one is MediaTek | 01:06:40 |
| @samueldr:matrix.org | right, the last four were qualcomm | 01:06:47 |
| oak 🏳️🌈♥️ | I think Qualcomm announced recently they will lock the secure side of their SoCs so it's only going to be running TEE OS signed by Qualcomm keys in the future. Even for companies that make phones with those chips | 01:07:41 |
| oak 🏳️🌈♥️ | So phone makers won't be able to implement their own TEE OS on Qualcomm hardware | 01:08:16 |
| Atemu | Is anyone actually doing that? | 01:08:29 |
| Atemu | I'd assume everyone takes the vendor's software to get the device to work | 01:09:06 |
| oak 🏳️🌈♥️ | Well there are alternatives for what you can run as TEE OS using TrustZone | 01:09:08 |
| oak 🏳️🌈♥️ | Vendor's software is usually a pain | 01:09:50 |
