New answers tagged permissions
No, there is not any inherent risk here. If some kind of attack is accessing files owned by root, it could access files with any other permissions anyway.
If Bob already owns /home/bob, having a file in there owned by root and editable by him or another group does not pose any security risk in and of itself. The risk in having files editable by bob but owned by root would lie in shell scripts, or files that are sourced/referenced by shell scripts. E.g. if a script in /root/backup.sh soruces a world-writable ...
It could hardly be worse than if he could put arbitrary content into -rwxrwxr-x 1 bob bob 61K Aug 24 13:59 dangerfile.txt which he probably can.
I think it highly unlikely this would represent any risk. Even if dangerfile.txt were executable, it would still be executed as bob and lack the ability to do root-like things.
Developers get the MINIMUM VERSION and TARGET VERSION confused. The minimum version acts as a filter in the play store to show only compatible apps. The target version is a measuring stick to how up to date it is with newer operating systems. Here is the problem: Android OS will automatically grant additional permissions to an application if it hasn't ...
Android Permissions are a tricky subject - there are a range of reasons why an App might require some fishy sounding permission to private data: Intent to steal you data and use it for advertsising or selling it Lazy coding / incompetent coding ( I'm not sure what exactly we need, so let's just get this general permission to all files ) Bad Android Design ...
Top 50 recent answers are included