Top
Best
New

Posted by erohead 11/13/2025

Android developer verification: Early access starts(android-developers.googleblog.com)
1362 points | 676 commentspage 3
ramshanker 11/13/2025|
Ancedotal: I used to believe in this "freedom to install". Than my Father got scammed (~$1000) in the name of Electricity recharge. The APK was sent over WhatsApp. Now I am not so sure how to implement this freedom. At the bare minimum there has to be big red warnings.

One thing which can immediately improve security is forbidding SMS read access forever. Just like Apple does. No App should be able to read SMS.

atoav 11/13/2025||
So your father: 1. Downloaded a weird file from a stranger

2. Went to the settings and about pyone sceeen

3. Tapped the thing 5 times to activate developer mode

4. Activated installing from third party sources despite the warning there

5. Installed the APK

May I suggest the problem is not that this is possible, but a lack of education? If your father is the type that would jump into the bathtub with a toaster because someone on whatsapp told them to do so, I am afraid it is not the existence of toasters that is the issue.

peterdn 11/13/2025|||
Yes, education around these scams and their methods could be better, but there is also a reason they target the elderly and vulnerable. Unless something else terrible happens, I assume I will count in one or both of those groups eventually. I feel like when I get there, I would appreciate empathy rather than disdain, if I were ever taken advantage of.

Regardless, you do not actually need to enable developer settings to install APKs from unknown sources (at least, not on my Samsung). When you open an APK from within another app (e.g. Google Drive or WhatsApp), Android "helpfully" forwards you straight to the relevant security settings page, allowing you to immediately toggle the "Install unknown apps" permission for that specific app. It's a streamlined flow, only a couple of taps, no scrolling/searching/reading, therefore likely easy to coach a victim into performing.

So, I expect what the Android team is alluding to in the original post is to enable additional friction like you describe.

yoavm 11/13/2025||||
One does not need to enable developer mode to install a 3rd party APK.
computerdork 11/13/2025|||
eh, think this is a bit much to ask. Are we going to educate a majority of the baby boomers who just never got a feel for how technology works? Yeah, my Dad also just got scammed by a phishing scheme on his PC (and if a scammer had walked him through how to install an apk on his phone, he'd probably do that too).

In my humble opinion, in the design of a UI or any type of system, kind of have to go where the users take you to some degree. And Android, being an OS for consumer devices, should be geared toward the masses and the mistakes they'll make.

atoav 11/13/2025||
Should we ban refilling your own cars oil because some idots keep filling coolant into it?

I worked in IT support and I am deeply aware with the issues people are having. Some issues are systemic (aka bad design) and those should be fixed. Other issues are human.

It may not seem like it, but I have the patience of an angel, because I remember when computers where new to me. I like people to understand. Understanding is power. But when I did work in IT support I saw some things. Grown adults repeatedly clicking away error messages without reading them while I stand and watch over their shoulder. When I ask them what their error message read they say they don't know. Then we read it together and they go: "Ohhh".

Yeah. Ohhh. You have a weird error that prevents you from working and there is a red error message and you don't bother to read it. That isn't a technological problem that is a educational problem.

I stand by what I said, we cannot dumb down our system because people don't care, are lazy and act dumb. Because that leads to a cycle where it gets ever dumber and lazier all while making life hell for people who are not dumb or lazy.

If you want to use a car you need to know certain things. Same is true for digital systems, the internet, a smartphone, a toaster, a hair dryer, a knife, a simple plastic bag, etc. The solution is education, not dumbing down the world.

computerdork 11/13/2025||
Well, yeah, everything has limits and this issue seems like a very practical one. Seems like it depends on how much work would be needed to teach the user base, which, at least to me, feels out of reach. As your being in IT, you may agree that teaching a large majority of 60+ year-olds standard things on something like Windows is difficult and extremely slow. Feels like it would take at least a month of dedicated training, where they are full on board. Having helped my older friends out, don't see that happening anytime soon (a half hour here and there is all they seem willing to do).

But you know, if there is a method that you know that can teach the masses these skills, then am all for it (maybe barrage them with youtube commercials teaching basic tech skills?:)

master-lincoln 11/14/2025||
Shouldn't the logical conclusion be that if it's too much/hard to teach these people how to operate a device safely, they operate the devices in an unsafe way, bare the cost of it by being scammed, learn that it's not safe for them to operate the device for certain use-cases due to the experience, they tell others about it and it's in media -> people who do not feel confident operating such a device securely are scared away from using it due to the potential consequences they heard about -> problem solved (from a banking security perspective)

(except now the bank needs more staff behind the counter)

computerdork 11/15/2025||
Not 100% sure if you mean this genuinely or joking around a bit. Will assume the former

Well, think just letting the knowledge of user failure expand organically is definite a method of deterrence, and some amount of this probably going to happen to some of the users. But to me, seems like it's a question of what percentage of your user base would be exposed to being scammed. Of course you'd want his to be zero, but if it's significant, yeah, probably should put measures in place to reduce the amount of scamming. Even on a purely practical level, it's bad for the reputation of your product...

...Am thinking, since there is so much resistence to locking down android, one problem might be was it was initially billed as a more open OS that tech people could enhance in whatever way they wanted. But yeah, times have changed, it's now a product that is used by the masses, and guessing the masses are now their most important users. Not saying this is wrong or right, but probably why there is so much push back as compared to say if iOS did the same thing (which they may have already done).

jonathanstrange 11/13/2025|||
I wrote a longer post about that elsewhere but there is morally no good justification to restrict everyone else's devices just because a small minority falls for scams. This is a very principal issue in a free society and in most societies we allow all kinds of individual risk taking because we believe that adults should make their own choices even if that means that some people sometimes make mistakes.

On a side note, it is technically very feasible to help antivirus and security software makers to lock down phones for people who would benefit from it. For example, you could have a strict whitelisting approach for vulnerable users (e.g. elderly, bitcoin entrepreneurs, annoying kids, Google engineers) who prefer it that way, making installation of arbitrary software impossible. Giving up choices voluntarily is fine, taking away choices by force is not fine.

Biganon 11/13/2025|||
> The APK was sent over WhatsApp.

Why did your father enable installing APK packages from third party sources? That's a setting buried deep inside the developer settings, which themselves have to be activated with a very arcane manipulation

floppyd 11/13/2025||
I believe this only works this way on some android forks, iirc you are talking about Samsung. Stock android would show a warning "do you want to install apk from this app?" and lead you to a settings page that enables apk installs from this particular app. No need to separately enable the ability to install apks in general.

I always thought this is a very weird flow, it adds hoops yet accomplishes nothing because the hoops are all trivial and the same for every app.

peterdn 11/13/2025||
This is also how it works on my Samsung Galaxy S21. There's no need to enable developer settings.
floppyd 11/13/2025||
I have definitely seen this "you need to go deep in the settings to enable 3rd party installs at all" flow before, but I don't remember which device it was. (Just saying that the commenter above is not just inventing something, I was surprised when I saw it as well)
imp0cat 11/13/2025||
There definitely is such setting, but I have no idea when it was introduced. S21 is an old phone (not to disparage it in any way).

    Your Galaxy phone or tablet is configured by default to prevent the installation of apps from sources other than the Play Store and Galaxy Store.
https://www.samsung.com/ae/support/mobile-devices/how-to-ena...
peterdn 11/13/2025||
Hah, yes, this is also how S21 works. But to still refute the OP's point: (1) it is in stock settings, you do not need to enable the developer settings menu via any arcane method. (2) When you tap on an APK in e.g. Google Drive or WhatsApp, Android "helpfully" forwards you straight to this settings page, allowing you to immediately toggle the "Install unknown apps" and installation will begin (there may be another "do you want to install this app" confirmation).

The point being that there is not a whole lot of friction in this flow -- one or two taps -- likely making it easy for scammers to coach victims to perform.

I agree that activating the developer settings menu is substantially more friction, and may arouse more suspicion in a victim, but [on many/most devices] is not currently required. I guess the original article is alluding to putting this kind of friction in place.

bpye 11/13/2025|||
> No App should be able to read SMS.

I disagree - one feature in KDE Connect that is super useful is being able to forward your notifications, including your text messages. This would also harm non Android smartwatches, such as the recently revived Pebble.

a2128 11/13/2025|||
There seems to be a whole market of Google Play developer accounts and apps for sale, developers like myself regularly get emailed by scammy companies offering to buy the account or to publish an app, and malware is regularly found on Google Play[0]. There's no reason to believe that bad actors would be stopped by install restrictions if their scam is effective enough to overcome the financial hurdles

[0] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/malicious-and...

b112 11/13/2025|||
The built in Android SMS app seems to be horrible in every incarnation I've seen. The one that comes with the Pixel, the one Samsung has. Some may like it, but I can't stand them. I tend to install my own SMS app in each case, and I don't use computers to be locked into something I don't prefer.

It's my tool. Mine. I'll do with it as I please.

I agree there are issues. But preventing installs aren't the answer, just like removing all windows and doors from a house isn't the answer to neighbourhood crime.

I'd be more inclined to say the problem is allowing apps to be funded by advertising. If all apps were paid apps, and using personal data in any way was immensely, "thrown in jail" illegal, then you'd find yourself approving access to contacts, SMS, Pii quite rarely.

It would really stand out in such a case.

"What?! I've been using my phone for 10 years, and some app wants to see my contacts. Why?? No one reputable asks for that, ever!"

So much of the problem with the internet is that Pii is paying the way.

On GrapheneOS, when I install anything, it flat out asks me if I want to give it internet access at all. SMS could be the same way. Off by default, try to grant it, big warnings.

At a certain point, if you have big warnings saying "Are you serious?!" and people turn it on, it entirely ends up being the end user's fault.

eviks 11/13/2025|||
- warning - SMS read access

So you do know - inform users, increase privacy,...?

basilikum 11/14/2025|||
Genuinely curious: would you mind telling more about how your father got scammed and how the adversary managed to get your father to install an app from WhatsApp?
mcherm 11/13/2025|||
I receive all my SMS messages through a separate app, because my SMS provider is not my TelCo. Please propose solutions that will not harm people like me.
tcfhgj 11/13/2025|||
For real? No, thanks I'd like to keep my SMS app
callc 11/13/2025|||
Freedom and protecting tech illiterate people are not mutually exclusive.

Our right to choose install software on our own devices should not be encroached because over-trusting elderly follower scammers instructions.

We can protect people like your dad with an opt-in system like parental controls. Have a responsible family member lock the system down however you deem fit.

gumby271 11/13/2025||
Sounds like an iPhone is the better option for your dad.
0xbadcafebee 11/13/2025||
Damn. I was excited by the prospect of Google shooting themselves in the foot, inspiring people to make Android replacements that aren't privacy and process nightmares. With this (partial) capitulation, the path of least resistance will remain a proprietary, corporate-controlled, bloated walled garden.
qwertox 11/13/2025||
> Keeping users safe on Android is our top priority.

Then let me decide which apps can access the internet, and which app can access which domain names / IP addresses.

Because it feels like there are a lot of DATA THIEVES out there, selling my data to companies you work with.

We call them Firewalls on the PC.

poulpy123 11/13/2025||
I don't understand the title, it's exactly the reverse, they will force verification for sideloading, even if they say they would have lighter requirements for hobby apps with low install number
yellow_lead 11/13/2025||
> Based on this feedback and our ongoing conversations with the community, we are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified.
rcMgD2BwE72F 11/13/2025||
aka "Trust us bros"
arnaudsm 11/13/2025||
@dang this post title was editorialized against the rules, and is highly misleading. Should we revert it ?
tomhow 11/13/2025||
Reverted now, thanks!
uneven9434 11/13/2025||
There are many real-world sideloading abuse cases in China. Attackers often trick victims with plausible stories—e.g., claiming a flight is delayed—and ask them to sideload an app (a remote‑meeting or remote‑control tool) to share their screen. Once installed, the attacker can view the victim’s screen and intercept SMS 2FA codes for online banking or other sensitive accounts.

Other schemes include impersonating sex workers to lure victims into nude video chats, then persuading them to install an app that harvests private content and contacts for blackmail.

derbOac 11/13/2025||
Why should that mean anyone else should lose control of their device? Maybe at some point you have to accept that it's the user's responsibility? Maybe empower users to be aware of what the apps they install are doing, without take their control away?

This is how loss of autonomy always happens in every sphere: make an argument that it's for their own safety that individuals are losing autonomy, and the entity gaining control is superior in knowing what's best, and is taking control only out of the goodness of their heart.

Spivak 11/13/2025|||
Yes, this is called malware and isn't the fault of being able to install software on your device.

If someone tricks you into handing over the keys to the kingdom, the solution isn't to remove your door.

Ms-J 11/13/2025|||
These unfortunately gullible people would be tricked in many different other ways throughout their daily lives even if it wasn't for the ability to install something on a device that you paid for and outright own.

We don't cater the most stupid in society.

fulafel 11/13/2025|||
What's the Android situation there? Last I heard Google didn't license Android there and they were using Chinese app stores with forked AOSP Android. Which would seem to put the sideloading decision in the hands of the forked OS.
z2 11/13/2025|||
If by necessity you need to leave the door unlocked more, then you can expect more bandits to pass through. The frequency is a result of China's banning of all Google services, and the mess of Google Play alternatives making the universal option to request users to just install the APK off of a sketchy cloud link.
pabs3 11/13/2025||
> intercept SMS 2FA codes for online banking

Google should just ban all apps that use SMS 2FA codes for login.

sprior 11/13/2025||
This brings back memories of "sure you can root your phone, but if you do secure apps like payment won't run anymore"
spaqin 11/13/2025|
I can only imagine that allowing "unverified" apps to run would also disable payment/banking apps. Just in case, you know. For your own good.
lern_too_spel 11/13/2025||
That should be up to the bank to decide, and it already is. https://developer.android.com/privacy-and-security/safetynet...

None of my banks have complained to me because I'm running a patched YouTube app.

rbits 11/13/2025||
That doesn't seem to have anything to do with what apps you have installed, just whether you have Play Protect enabled. I have Play Protect enabled, and I can still install apps without having to scan them first.
lern_too_spel 11/13/2025||
See the listHarmfulApps() documentation on that page.
metadat 11/13/2025||
Are there any entities on earth with resources to compete with a complicit global duopoly?

If Android is open source, why can't/won't a community fork it? Graphene OS exists but many folks claim Netflix and banking apps do not work with it (despite allowing logins from any common desktop browser)?

If all widely-accepted phone operating systems are de-facto proprietary, what does this say about the current phase of society?

What choice do non-billionaire/millionaire humans have for living in a single-planet society where technology is so highly integrated (and the inherent non-consensual compromises)?

What If the little people are going to get squeezed even more?

Troubling questions.

opan 11/13/2025||
LineageOS is based on AOSP and works well. I don't understand the banking app thing either. I suspect it's a regional issue. I can log in to my credit union account via any browser, and if something needs MFA it should be able to use TOTP which works on anything.

Android in practice is full of proprietary blobs, stuck on old kernel versions, and the hardware is barely supported. Lots of downstream crap from the vendors not playing nice. Most devices running Android are instantly doomed to be e-waste. You can look through devices postmarketOS supports, and anything without mainline kernel support and most stuff working is basically e-waste unless someone puts in a lot of work for that particular device. It's a little bit like how modern GPUs don't work without blobs in the kernel anymore and you have to go back to Haswell era or older for things to work with all free software, but the state of smartphones is a few steps worse than that due to their locked down nature.

Pretty much any OnePlus device (other than ones still too new) seems to be a good bet for decent software support (both LineageOS and pmOS). Though annoyingly stuff like the 3G shutdown makes a lot of the earlier models unusable as actual phones these days. At least they can still be computers. Not quite e-waste.

devsda 11/13/2025||
Yes we have banking websites but they are increasingly moving to an auth model where you have to enter an otp generated in the app but the app refuses to work on non-verified devices.
Gigablah 11/13/2025||
Well, would the community be willing to respond to AI-submitted CVEs without funding?
p0w3n3d 11/14/2025||
I had been Android fan from the start. When first Android phones went out I was astonished by the amount of possibilities. There were linux phones available, my colleagues used to set up ssh servers and more. Samsung had Baidu at that time which at least to me appeared more closed than Android.

Things have been going bad since then. Closing of root access, closing of software, youtube not working in split screen etc. All the changes make me think of Android as more and more repulsing. Recent changes like removing old software from the store because they didn't update API and now this... Google stop being evil

oblio 11/14/2025|
> Google stop being evil

You think this is evil? :-)))

Watch what happens as they can't grow by 10% per year and their share price tanks in 5-10 years.

nunez 11/13/2025||
Glad to see Google come to their senses on this. Disabling it entirely would have basically guaranteed an exodus of power users over to iOS. If your only choices are walled gardens, you might as well pick the easiest, prettiest one.
gowthamgts12 11/13/2025|
it's not

> "Google come to their senses on this"

it's

> "Google was forced to their senses on this"

a96 11/13/2025||
"For now."
Ms-J 11/13/2025|
Google still hasn't changed anything but took the opportunity to again insult their customers within the first headline, titled "Why verification is important".

Google goes on to say how taking away one of your last remaining rights is good for you, if you like it or not.

It is clear to everyone why Google is partnering with governments around the world to remove our rights to installing apps. Laws are not on your side and must be reevaluated on an individual level to move forward. You decide your own terms, you have the power.

Only we can stop this together.

More comments...