Pixel 6 vs. iPhone 12: Which phone is really more secure? | ZDNet


Pixel 6 is the workhorse of the Google stable

Watch Now

ZDNet Recommends

The best 5G phones The best 5G phones

5G is now standard on US networks, and these are the clear phones that support it .
There is great debate in the diligence as to whether io or Android provides the most guarantee mobile device. In all my conversations with security pros, most, if not all, believe Apple ‘s io to be inherently more secure than the Google-built Android. This late article spells out a number of lastingness io has over Android in the sphere of privacy, such as Apple ‘s modern feature in which users can stop apps from tracking them. In the article, the author states : “ When it comes to privacy, Google and Apple are about on extreme opposite ends. ” however, a raw survey solicit to differ ; a reputation from research tauten Omdia caught my attention. The key determine is that the Google Pixel 6 running Android 12 is importantly more guarantee than the Apple iPhone 12 Pro running io 15. There are comparisons to two other Android-based phones : the Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra and the Xiaomi Mi 11 5G. The report scored each seller on nine different factors and weighted them in decree of importance. The Google Pixel 6 achieved a perfect score of 5.4, while Apple was one-fourth at 4.03. The weight turned out to be irrelevant because of the Pixel 6 ‘s perfect score. Since I had always believed Apple to have better security by a wide margin, I thought it was worth diving into this composition and understanding the standard. One matter to point is that I had always looked at io versus Android software ; this reputation did its analysis at the device flat, meaning a mix of hardware and software. See also: Pixel 6 hardware is balmy garbage and Google ‘s technical school support is worse | Goodbye Google Pixel 6 Pro : 9 reasons it ‘s not the call for me | Google Pixel 6 review After reading through the report card, I found respective questionable points that I felt were worth raising. They are :

Sponsorship

The most questionable fact about the composition is that Google, the manufacturer of the Pixel phones, was the sponsor of a report in which it gained a perfect grudge. It ‘s basically saying the Google Pixel 6 is a perfective device with respect to security system, and that ‘s just not true because any device can be breached. Google has been issuing security patches for the call, indicating there were at least a few issues. not all sponsored research is badly, but it makes one wonder when coupled with a perfect rank.

Methodology

The slant of the security criterion is done by asking consumers to rank the importance of the nine features. While the reputation does not explicitly say this, I believe the 1,520 respondents were asked to pick their top three because the entire percentage adds up to 300 %. In my opinion, this is a questionable way to do it because the average end-user is not a security adept. This would be akin to asking a person on the street what safety features are most authoritative in an airplane. I fly a batch, but I have no estimate of the relative importance of each feature. The survey should have used a dialog box of security professionals .

Scoring

This was besides flawed as the score in each section was derived from counting the number of features versus meeting the objective of the category. A well direction to think about this is that it counted “ tick boxes ” versus how well those worked. It ‘s surely not the most effective manner to score, and I ‘ll elaborate below .

  • Identity protection: This was the top-ranked have by users, but the methodology was completely botched. Google scored highest because it had the most identity options, which makes sense because it ‘s tied to one ‘s Gmail account. Users can choose between erstwhile passwords, FIDO, energy notifications, and others, where Apple entirely has two-factor, so Google got the highest score. What ‘s not told here is that Apple iCloud is the largest and one of the most — if not the most — successful deployment of two-factor security in the industry. With identity, more is n’t always better. Apple besides does some matter to things when users have multiple devices ; for example, it will inform you if you ‘re logging into your Mac in San Jose while your phone has barely been authenticated in Russia .
  • Security updates : The report takes a curious approach to security updates. One of the criteria is how long the seller commits to providing security updates. It gives Google Pixel 6 a perfect score as it commits to what it calls “ a hearty five years ‘ security update period, ” which is the longest of all vendors tested. It grades Apple more harshly because it does not document how long the documentation menstruation is but then states, “ Apple devices tend to receive five to six years of support. ” It besides rewards Google for enabling upgrade via the Google Play memory and refers to Apple ‘s methodology as “ monolithic ” but does n’t define what that means. The fact is Apple does have a prove track record of providing updates to over a billion devices in less than a week when it is required to do so and is n’t that the most significant matter ?
  • Anti-malware: The fact that Apple has a lower sexual conquest here than the three Android phones actually made me laugh. The report states : “ While Samsung, Google, and Xiaomi have anti-malware solutions built into their devices to protect and detect malicious software, Apple is lacking here. ” Apple does not have on-device anti-malware because it offers App Store and ecosystem protection, whereas Google does not. besides, to many users ‘ chagrin, Apple does not allow for apps to be side-loaded, so there can be no “ back-door ” malware. This report from Panda Security stated that Android devices are responsible for 47 % of all observed malware compared to less than 1 % for iPhones. This becomes a poisonous set ; threat actors will often target Android beginning because breaches are easier, adding to the Android problem .
  • Lost devices: The report gives both Apple and Google Pixel top marks for having a web-based tool and fluid app to locate, trigger, lock, and wipe the device if it ‘s lost or stolen. What ‘s omitted is that iPhone supports the find of offline ( and even powered-off ) devices, whereas Pixel must be powered on and connected to Wi-Fi or cellular .
  • Physical access control: here is another area where Apple and Google Pixel 6 each received full marks, but they would not have been ranked that highly if potency was looked at rather of simply having the sport. The iPhone 13 face ID has a 1:1 million false acceptance pace ( FAR ), while Pixel 6 has a 1:50,000 FAR. besides, there have been many reports of the Pixel 6 having a boring fingerprint scanner .

Also: Go Google free : We pick privacy-friendly alternatives to every Google servicing I can make like arguments for fasten backups, hardware security, and network security where Apple is a good or better than Google Pixel 6. The one section I did feel was accurate was anti-phishing, although the write-up was reasonably mislead. Safari uses Google dependable crop, but the report card fails to mention that. The Pixel 6 does have an on-device anti-phishing warning system, which the iPhone does not have. queerly enough, the one area where Google does have a gain acquire over Apple is ranked identical first gear on the importance scale.

The net result is that, after reading the report, I would have ranked Apple as estimable or better than Google Pixel 6 if potency was used rather of counting sub-features. In this encase, Apple is being penalized for having solid features. This is akin to ranking a cable car safe because it has a chute to stop it when it has brakes that are known to fail versus one that has brakes that never fail .

informant : https://coinselected.com
Category : crypto topics

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.