You ARE delusional, Fred. I don’t use insults like you guys do. . . You obviously don’t have any facts to rebut the linked article, so you slur them and me, the messenger who merely pointed out what they found. Bad form, Freddy.
Must be a widespread conspiracy of iEvil. Here’s another source citing WIRED from April 12, 2018:
Some Android device makers are lying about security patch updates
by Alex Wagner, PhoneDog, April 12, 2018Security patches for smartphones are extremely important because many people store personal data on their devices. Lots of Android phones out there get regularly security patches, but according to a new report, some of them are lying about the patches that they've actually gotten.
According to a study by Security Research Labs, some Android phones are missing patches that they claim to have. Wired explains that SRL tested 1,200 phones from more than a dozen phone makers for every Android security patch released in 2017. The devices tested include ones from Google, Samsung, Motorola, LG, HTC, Xiaomi, OnePlus, Nokia, TCL, and ZTE.
The study found that outside of Google and its Pixel phones, well-known phone makers had devices that were missing patches that they claimed to have. "We found several vendors that didn't install a single patch but changed the patch date forward by several months," says SRL founder Karsten Nohl.
The number of missing security patches on phones varied between device makers. For example, Google, Samsung, and Sony devices were found to be missing 0 or 1 patches on average. Xiaomi, OnePlus, and Nokia devices were missing 1 to 3 patches on average, while HTC, Huawei, LG, and Motorola were missing 3 to 4 patches on average. Devices from TCL and ZTE fared the worst, missing an average of 4 or more patches that they claimed to have.
When asked for comment on this report, Google told Wired that some of the devices tested may not have been Android certified, meaning that they aren't held to Google's security standards. Google also noted that Android devices have security features to make them more difficult to hack and that, in some cases, a device maker may have simply removed a device's vulnerable feature rather than patching it.
"We’ve launched investigations into each instance and each OEM to bring their certified devices into compliance when we’ve been able to reproduce their findings...[but] each instance really needs further investigation," Google said.
This report is a pretty big deal for Android devices. As I said before, security patches are a big deal because a lot of people store private, personal data on their phones, and so it's important that those devices are secure. And while it is very possible that some devices tested by SRL aren't Android certified and that some devices may have just had their vulnerable features removed, it's also possible that there are some instances in which an OEM said that they had updated a phone with new security patches when they actually hadn't. —Source: Android Device Maker’s Lying About Security Patch Updates.
Oh my, Fred, Your vaunted Motorola is on the list of lying manufacturers! Tsk, Tsk, Tsk! Three to four MISSING SECURITY UPDATES? Who can YOU trust?
How about from the horse’s mouth? Quoting from the researchers YOU CLAIM ARE BOGUS iEVIL shills:
"On Friday at the Hack in the Box security conference in Amsterdam, researchers Karsten Nohl and Jakob Lell of the firm Security Research Labs plan to present the results of two years of reverse-engineering hundreds of Android phones' operating system code, painstakingly checking if each device actually contained the security patches indicated in its settings. They found what they call a "patch gap": In many cases, certain vendors' phones would tell users that they had all of Android's security patches up to a certain date, while in reality missing as many as a dozen patches from that period—leaving phones vulnerable to a broad collection of known hacking techniques."We find that there's a gap between patching claims and the actual patches installed on a device. It’s small for some devices and pretty significant for others," says Nohl, a well-known security researcher and SRL's founder. In the worst cases, Nohl says, Android phone manufacturers intentionally misrepresented when the device had last been patched. "Sometimes these guys just change the date without installing any patches. Probably for marketing reasons, they just set the patch level to almost an arbitrary date, whatever looks best."—Source
Do you realize how high your petard has just hoisted you? I hope you packed your parachute correctly.
Like I said. There is how iSheep feel, and there is reality. The fact is, Apple is no longer a player, either in the mobile space (less than 20% market share in a duopoly) and, as always since their inception, less than 8% market share in desktop computers. Simple, measurable facts.