I suspect that especially banks have paranoid lawyers that probably don't understand the situation entirely, and perhaps because of that, mandate that all means have to be used to prevent non-official builds from being used, so that they cannot be sued (for some reason) if "something" goes wrong. Though I don't know if they are consistent and also apply the same reasoning to phones that don't have active security updates any more.
Re:LineageOS 24.0
by AnthonyMouse on Sunday October 11, 2026 @12:43PM
(#50045114)
I feel like "the lawyers told us to do something stupid for no legitimate reason" is just one part of a bureaucracy trying to blame another part for the fact that the bureaucracy itself is doing something stupid for no legitimate reason.
While you’re correct there’s also no ambiguity about who has the final say in that scenario. The lawyers always win out.
Re:LineageOS 24.0
by AnthonyMouse on Sunday October 11, 2026 @02:08PM
(#50046029)
This is objectively not true because there are companies, even banks, where this level of stupidity has not prevailed. In turn this implies that the others are doing something which is different but possible, and the scoundrel companies could be doing that too.
Even if the something is no more than engaging less fatuous attorneys.
> This is objectively not true because there are companies, even banks, where this level of stupidity has not prevailed.
All it takes for this to happen is the lawyers not knowing.
Re:LineageOS 24.0
by AnthonyMouse on Monday October 12, 2026 @02:14AM
(#50052005)
You seem to be assuming that there is actually a law requiring them to do this. If you believe this to be the case, please identify it so it can be targeted for repeal.
Whereas if there isn't, the obvious alternative is that the other banks have lawyers who don't erroneously advise their client that they're required to do something they're not.
> there are companies, even banks, where this level of stupidity has not prevailed
Yes, because that particular set of lawyers haven’t said it has to be blocked. Doesn’t mean my statement that lawyers have final say is “objectively not true”.
Re:LineageOS 24.0
by AnthonyMouse on Monday October 12, 2026 @01:31AM
(#50051736)
Somebody is choosing which lawyers to employ. They have the ability to choose differently.
What possesses companies to do things like this? A customer running a current version of LineageOS is going to have better security than running the out of date Android version that came with the phone. An attacker who wants root on something that will run the bank app doesn't have to use a different OS, they can just use any of this month's CVEs to root the "approved" version. Even requiring the latest patches -- which would exclude entirely too many actual customers' phones -- wouldn't stop attackers from controlling their own devices, because they could root the device before installing the patch and then install the patch for the vulnerability they used to get root on the device where they already have it.
And attackers who are going to modify the system to carry out an attack inherently have some kind of software development capacity, so measures like this have no effect on them and all they actually do is interfere with the ability of honest normies to replace their out of date OS with a version that is less likely to be compromised by attackers.
Are they just taking kickbacks from Google or something?