Work profile has never meant to be a user facing application/feature. It aims at enterprise. That’s why you need workarounds like Island or Shelter for that, not something you can simply turn on/off in the settings.
On the contrary, Secure Folder is a user facing application. It’s meant to be used by the user, independence of any 3rd party app.
And shitty?
I don’t think so. Work profile does not necessarily require the password to access, while it’s mandatory for Secure Folder. The security and privacy of work profile can go as far or there’s none, all depends on the admin/admin app, hence different usage.
You’re comparing apple to orange here. Secure Folder should be compared to Private Space, not work profile.
By non-standard, KDEBacon is referring to how Samsung doesn’t follow the AOSP mechanisms. Secure Folder has the features of Private Spaces, but because Private Spaces didn’t exist when Samsung was making this feature, Samsung opted to modify the Work Profile feature and implement features that Work Profiles didn’t have (i.e, encryption, exiting, hiding etc). It is just a heavily modified Work Profile.
Work Profiles are the AOSP standard. If they followed the standard it would just be a Work Profile, not a Secure Folder
Work profiles do not have separate encryption (you don’t need to unlock a work profile, it is unlocked when you unlock your user profile), can’t be hidden (they are quite prominent in the launcher) and you can only turn off work apps or delete the profile, not hide the profile.
Just because the workaround is reimplemented in as an app that came with the os doesn’t mean it’s not a workaround
So choice is now bad here? Setting a password for a work profile is a standard setting built into android, and by default it uses the same password as the main user. If your main profile is not properly protected you already have bigger issues anyway
I am comparing Apple to Apple, secure folder IS work profile
Not necessarily the case, you can set a different work profile password on android settings
Except that they do, according to Android Work Profile page Android work profile
Help prevent data breaches
Protect your company’s data with full encryption on the work profile, even if there are compromised apps on the personal profile.
The point is not about how it works, but the fact that no one will ever know so much to the point that they could be able to claim that the feature is a heavily modified version of work profile, or that it’s not following standard in AOSP. Unless one can back up/prove it with the source, or it’s made public officially by Samsung’s communication division.
Otherwise, it’s just one’s assumption based on the analysis or whatever, which is not the point.
Samsung could’ve follow every inch of work profile, adding thing on top, and called it a day. That wouldn’t not be altering the standard, or considered to be heavily modified.
IMO, to say things that cannot be proven as facts, those things that was said is totally BS.
It depends. If the chain of trust is an issue, this is not a workaround, since one have to trust another party for a ton of permissions including device administrator privilege.
There’s contradiction here. If Secure Folder is just work profile, then why did you say that Secure Folder is a shitty non-standard reimplementation of work profile? It is or it isn’t a work profile, pick one, not both.
Edit: Fun fact here:
Samsung’s Secure Folder was first introduced in Galaxy S6 that was released in 2015, and was updated to Android 7 (with Secure Folder) in 2017. That’s almost a decade ago before Android 15’s Private Space.
Even when comparing to the admin apps like Island and Shelter that could achieve similar functionalities, it came before these apps a few years.
The only permission required for Shelter is device admin privilege on work profile, because obviously it’s an app to manage the work profile. It doesn’t even have network permission
Would you understand better if I say that it’s a shitty fork of work profile? A work profile with more restrictions on top, combined with marketing speak for standard work profile features.
Because it’s a work profile reimplementation, not private space
So it historically opens up the work profile to standard user faster than FOSS implementations. Ok, so what?
When you give 3rd party apps the admin privilege, the problem is not what they use the permission for, but that fact that they can use this permission however they want, thus required trust. Luckily, the app in question is FOSS. But even then, it’s still good practice to limit the use of 3rd party apps whenever is possible.
It’s strange that your post survive. I think my post was flagged because of the similar question to this tone. But whatever.
Again, source?
Again, Google and AOSP have never exposed work profile to the user, not even in the settings. Secure Folder is a user facing application. This fact alone makes Secure Folder a different feature set for a different usage than work profile.
And now you’re saying that Secure Folder is just a marketing speak for standard work profile features, but at the same time, you’re saying that it’s non-standard/shitty reimplementation of work profile. Just pick one, not both, they’re contradict with each other.
Private Space itself is a reimplementation of work profile, reintroduces as a user facing app that more secure and private.
Samsung devices, historically, were more secure faster than other Android devices. Does this make sense?
It’s privilege only for the work profile, I am 100% sure secure folder also gets that and far more
It’s a consumer version of Knox workspace, which now uses Work Profile. Even if you don’t have the actual in depth detail you can literally just check wikipedia
You’re just preinstalling proprietary version of shelter
You get water (Work Profile) and mix shit (Knox) to it, and tell people it quenches thirst. Sure it does but that’s from the water and not your shit
Good, it’s an upgraded shelter then
You mean when they shipped substandard encryption and fucked over everyone?
Or when everyone shits on Exynos for being a slower and hotter version of their snapdragon counterpart? What past were you living in?
None of the info in the wiki link talks about Secure Folder. They could’ve just used a completely different code base. To prove means there can’t be any other ways.
To be able to claim on how they implemented the feature, and also about whether it’s a heavily or shitty modified version takes a lot more than your assumption.
Wrong. Why?
Because you can’t install Secure Folder on any other devices.
I don’t have to trust another party than Samsung, which I already trusted them with the kernel, etc.
Again, give me the source, not your assumption.
Stay on the topic. Otherwise, feel free to open another thread.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
And considering that
I don’t have a proper Samsung right now so you do the test. This test will be based on one of the “weakness” of Android Standard Work Profile. Get an app, install it on the main profile. Then patch the app so that the signature is different, try to install it on secure folder. If it fails then you can conclude that they implemented it the same way
Because it’s an implementation that requires the crap that is knox
You’re the one who started bringing up samsung security
I thought you already know everything, including how it actually works and its vulnerabilities. If that’s not the case, on what basis do you conclude that it’s a heavily or shitty modified version?
Moreover, the test doesn’t make your argument better in the slightest.
It doesn’t prove that to what extent Samsung based their Secure Folder on work profile, code-wise. The same feature set can be achieved through a completely different code.
You can’t deny the fact that Secure Folder’s password is mandatory to use the feature in the first place, of which you considered it to be more limited, while work profile doesn’t require as such. Therefore, from the security standpoint, which is indefensible, Secure Folder is already more secure than work profile without having to do such test.
At least, now, you’re not presenting your assumptions as facts. Thanks for the clarification.
Regarding Secure Folder, how Knox is “crap”?
Of which is the security related to Secure Folder in comparison to work profile.
Not necessary reflects the app’s code, since you just have to put the blob back and make sure any security verification doesn’t trigger, as shown in the thread you link:
Samsung Knox (as-is, legacy support only) - Bypass Samsung Knox trip protection, only confirmed working for secure folder.
And those are workarounds which didn’t seem to work for everyone:
Secure folder doesn’t seem to work on Android 10. (OneUI 2.x)
right now, Why would I stick with OneUI trash when custom roms are available
Sure, we can’t be 100% sure it’s the same without in depth code analysis or samsung code leaking, but practically speaking it is the same shit, functionally speaking it’s the same shit (with added knox junk and restrictions)
And a dead phone is less hackable than a working phone. Still crap
