1. Set visible as false until completely finish the feature.
2. This preference has no action temporally, and will continually integrate features into.
Bug: 211503117
Test: manual test
Change-Id: I1404e6eca6bd8246ae844f1a287e6c4872a8fded
In onReceive of AppRestrictionsFragment.java, there is a possible way to
start a phone call without permissions due to a confused deputy.
This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional
execution privileges needed.
We should not allow the restrictionsIntent to startActivity simply
because it resolves to multiple activities.
Instead, we should call resolveActivity and check the result's package
name is same as current package name, then it is safe to startActivity.
Bug: 200688991
Test: manual verify
Change-Id: Iaa2d3a9497c3266babe0789961befc9776a4db7a
Merged-In: Iaa2d3a9497c3266babe0789961befc9776a4db7a
(cherry picked from commit 359512cd95)
In onReceive of AppRestrictionsFragment.java, there is a possible way to
start a phone call without permissions due to a confused deputy.
This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional
execution privileges needed.
We should not allow the restrictionsIntent to startActivity simply
because it resolves to multiple activities.
Instead, we should call resolveActivity and check the result's package
name is same as current package name, then it is safe to startActivity.
Bug: 200688991
Test: manual verify
Change-Id: Iaa2d3a9497c3266babe0789961befc9776a4db7a
Merged-In: Iaa2d3a9497c3266babe0789961befc9776a4db7a
(cherry picked from commit 359512cd95)
In onReceive of AppRestrictionsFragment.java, there is a possible way to
start a phone call without permissions due to a confused deputy.
This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional
execution privileges needed.
We should not allow the restrictionsIntent to startActivity simply
because it resolves to multiple activities.
Instead, we should call resolveActivity and check the result's package
name is same as current package name, then it is safe to startActivity.
Bug: 200688991
Test: manual verify
Change-Id: Iaa2d3a9497c3266babe0789961befc9776a4db7a
Merged-In: Iaa2d3a9497c3266babe0789961befc9776a4db7a
(cherry picked from commit 359512cd95)
In onReceive of AppRestrictionsFragment.java, there is a possible way to
start a phone call without permissions due to a confused deputy.
This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional
execution privileges needed.
We should not allow the restrictionsIntent to startActivity simply
because it resolves to multiple activities.
Instead, we should call resolveActivity and check the result's package
name is same as current package name, then it is safe to startActivity.
Bug: 200688991
Test: manual verify
Change-Id: Iaa2d3a9497c3266babe0789961befc9776a4db7a
Merged-In: Iaa2d3a9497c3266babe0789961befc9776a4db7a
(cherry picked from commit 359512cd95)
In onReceive of AppRestrictionsFragment.java, there is a possible way to
start a phone call without permissions due to a confused deputy.
This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional
execution privileges needed.
We should not allow the restrictionsIntent to startActivity simply
because it resolves to multiple activities.
Instead, we should call resolveActivity and check the result's package
name is same as current package name, then it is safe to startActivity.
Bug: 200688991
Test: manual verify
Change-Id: Iaa2d3a9497c3266babe0789961befc9776a4db7a
Merged-In: Iaa2d3a9497c3266babe0789961befc9776a4db7a
(cherry picked from commit 359512cd95)
In onReceive of AppRestrictionsFragment.java, there is a possible way to
start a phone call without permissions due to a confused deputy.
This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional
execution privileges needed.
We should not allow the restrictionsIntent to startActivity simply
because it resolves to multiple activities.
Instead, we should call resolveActivity and check the result's package
name is same as current package name, then it is safe to startActivity.
Bug: 200688991
Test: manual verify
Change-Id: Iaa2d3a9497c3266babe0789961befc9776a4db7a
Merged-In: Iaa2d3a9497c3266babe0789961befc9776a4db7a
(cherry picked from commit 359512cd95)
When run UT case with atest SettingsUnitTests, test failed due to
"Unable to get provider androidx.startup.InitializationProvider: android.content.res.Resources$NotFoundException".
Bug: 208883742
Test: atest SettingsUnitTests
Change-Id: I9843b01fb9d3c2a64e7b52080b2594703cee78a6
