> but the real issue appears to have been the apps’ use of resource-monetization services that grant cybercriminals access to devices and residential IPs for malicious activity.
So the apps are malware that function as residential proxies.
It's pretty incredible how many apps have this kind of functionality. There are some sketch af sites that sell access to these proxies. I took a look to do some web scraping a while ago. In the end, I just ended up using TOR with a Rust API and that worked a lot better and made me feel a lot less dirty, in addition to being free.
Follow the links in that and it seems to mostly be about people selling Firesticks with software on it that allows purchasers to view piracy streams without doing anything but plug in the device.
Fortunately when it comes to the $20-30 TV devices there are plenty of options that can be made mostly bloat free that you can install anything you want on.
Place the laptop behind/below the TV, hook it up via HDMI, install whatever software you want on it (I use plain linux and VLC, but you can install Jellyfin and use the web interface if you want to), use a bluetooth keyboard/mouse combo to control it. You can enable USB wakeup if you want to minimize power usage, but you have to make sure the keyboard is plugged into a USB port that's powered when shutdown then (if that's even possible given your config).
All I need in a remote, though, is a direction pad and about 6 buttons: power, select, back, home, volume up & down. And those power and volume buttons need to be routed to the display (projector in my case) and sound bar respectively.
nvidia doesn’t push ads. shield runs androidtv and with the default stock launcher, you will see the ads google wants you to. but you can easily change the launcher to something like flauncher and have a streamlined experience.
Don’t disagree but these aren’t harmless programs. They’re explicitly designed to exploit users. I am not sympathetic to a crackdown on them even if I want to keep an eye out on how they are cracked down on.
They're sideloaded by users accepting that risk for themselves.
I'm really not looking forward to the day I can only install sanctioned software from a walled garden on all of the devices I "own." For security reasons, of course…
I would rather have the freedom and whatever risk comes with it, I'm an adult and don't need any part of tech giant paternalism. Even if their overall interests were aligned with mine.
> Flix Vision has been shown to use resource monetizing services that pay app developers in exchange for using the device CPU and network traffic while their app is running. Live NetTV has been criticized for doing the same. These kinds of proxy monetization services have been classified as Riskware and accused of giving cybercriminals access to devices and residential IPs for malicious operations.
> It seems far more likely that Amazon targeted and disabled these two apps because they functioned as residential proxy providers, rather than due to any role in facilitating unauthorized access to copyrighted content. For over a decade, Amazon has shown through inaction that it is unwilling to combat piracy outside of its appstore by endlessly disabling third-party piracy apps. However, the possibility of a network of unknowingly compromised Fire TV devices being used as gateways for cybercrimes appears to have been sufficient motivation for Amazon to take action and block the apps.
Sigh. Yeah no. This is a good thing. I'm sure they're not worried about stuff like Jellyfin or SmartTubeTV.
So the apps are malware that function as residential proxies.
Way to bury the lede.
reply