Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Snapchats Don't Disappear

timothy posted about a year ago | from the un-disappearing-ink dept.

Privacy 85

Mobile photo-sharing app SnapChat has one claim to fame, compared to other ways people might share photos from their cellphones: the photos, once viewed, disappear from view, after a pre-set length of time. However, it turns out they don't disappear as thoroughly as users might like. New submitter nefus writes with this excerpt from Forbes: "Richard Hickman of Decipher Forensics found that it's possible to pull Snapchat photos from Android phones simply by downloading data from the phone using forensics software and removing a '.NoMedia' file extension that was keeping the photos from being viewed on the device. He published his findings online and local TV station KSL has a video showing how it's done."

cancel ×

85 comments

But on Colbert (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692657)

The two douches who made it said it deletes it off the internet forever.

Re:But on Colbert (2)

neverwhere9 (2597405) | about a year ago | (#43692737)

They also said people use it to "talk," whereas if people really wanted to see each others faces, they'd use Skype. It's really a pointless app. It's boring to use to talk, and people can take screenshots of sexy pics.

Re:But on Colbert (1)

greentshirt (1308037) | about a year ago | (#43693553)

It automatically informs the other user if it detects a screenshot. I've tried multiple screenshot apps as well as the screenshot feature native to CM to test this. Of course, it's still completely pointless since someone properly motivated can simply take a photograph of the phone while the photo is being displayed. People need to realize that nothing that you send to another person can ever be guaranteed to "self-destruct".

Re:But on Colbert (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43693585)

..run it on a emulator? at the very least use a silent screenshot app.
or take the screenshots with the screenshot tool that comes with the adt.

Re:But on Colbert (3, Funny)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#43694573)

People need to realize that nothing that you send to another person can ever be guaranteed to "self-destruct".

Sure it can. I've seen it on Mission Impossible.

Re:But on Colbert (1)

Keybounce (226364) | about a year ago | (#43704719)

Sure it can. I've seen it on Mission Impossible.

And didn't we see that on Mythbusters?

Re:But on Colbert (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about a year ago | (#43695281)

There's a pretty big difference between someone has a small window to archive a pic, and everything automatically archived.

It's not about protecting oneself from a pre-planned malicious act, but from something accidentally surfacing ten years later, or even intentionally, as the default for everything is a fairly permanent archive. The odds that the type of person that is going to go through the effort to make the screenshots (via emulator) doesn't send off so many creeper vibes as to never get relevant pics seems like enough to me.

It'd be nice if it could block the built in screen shot, but the notification should be enough of disincentive for people to do it as a routine archiving.

Re: But on Colbert (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43700729)

If you let the snap load and you're rooted you can just go into the file system and remove the .nomedia extension and you have them saved. On jail broken iOS you can get an extension called pic archiver which does it auto matically

Foresnics software? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692671)

You need forensics software to browse the filesystem of a phone?
My somewhat antiquated Nokia 6600 and N79 allow me to browse it with a simple 3rd party file manager installed on the device, and the built in file manager has some limitations but allows me to look at 60-70% of the filesystem atleast

Re: Foresnics software? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692753)

What makes you think that the forensics software isn't a 3rd party file manager that lets you see more than the 70% of your crappy file manager?

Re:Foresnics software? (1)

greentshirt (1308037) | about a year ago | (#43693559)

Root Explorer

Never trust an "app" to do anything. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692675)

Apps are worthless pieces of junk that never do anything correctly.

If you wanted actual security, you'd use a real program to do it instead of an app.

Re:Never trust an "app" to do anything. (3, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43692729)

If you wanted actual security, you'd use a real program to do it instead of an app.

If you wanted actual security, you wouldn't have it on a computer.

Re:Never trust an "app" to do anything. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692787)

If you wanted actual security, you'd use a real program to do it instead of an app.

If you wanted actual security, you wouldn't have it on a computer.

If you wanted actual security, you wouldn't send it to someone else's computer.

Re:Never trust an "app" to do anything. (1)

Keybounce (226364) | about a year ago | (#43704725)

If you wanted actual security, you'd use a real program to do it instead of an app.

If you wanted actual security, you wouldn't have it on a computer.

If you wanted actual security, you wouldn't send it to someone else's computer.

If you wanted actual security, you would ensure that no other computer could access the files on your computer.

Re:Never trust an "app" to do anything. (2, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | about a year ago | (#43693427)

Apps are worthless pieces of junk that never do anything correctly.

If you wanted actual security, you'd use a real program to do it instead of an app.

Sorry, but what's the difference? You do realise that App is short for "Application", i.e. what apple calls every program on your machine. On OS X (and iOS) the equivalent to the .exe extension is .app.

Re:Never trust an "app" to do anything. (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#43693573)

You know what he means.

Re:Never trust an "app" to do anything. (3, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | about a year ago | (#43694383)

Yep. He means: "Do not feed me. I'm a troll."

Re:Never trust an "app" to do anything. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43697231)

Yep, from context it is clear he is trying to argue that just being a guy from Scotland is not enough to make one a real Scotsman.

Re:Never trust an "app" to do anything. (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about a year ago | (#43700755)

No, I genuinely don't know what he means –what's the supposed difference between a program that runs on a computer, and a program that runs on a small computer?

Keep it in memory (4, Insightful)

nzac (1822298) | about a year ago | (#43692695)

How hard could it be to store it in RAM as it is received and then zero out the memory when finished. Sure it is not remotely hack proof but at least when it is broken you can only get new photos.

Or if you don't have the RAM to store the pic store an encryption key.

Re:Keep it in memory (1)

reve_etrange (2377702) | about a year ago | (#43692711)

They could actually delete the file, at least, even if they have to save one for some reason. I have no idea what the Android camera API is like, maybe they wanted to avoid requiring a certain permission?

Re:Keep it in memory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692747)

The dalvik VM has a (small) fixed heap size. Storing received photos in RAM wouldn't be a viable option here.

Re:Keep it in memory (4, Interesting)

Shikaku (1129753) | about a year ago | (#43692859)

Actually I do know how much it is.

It's like 6MB, at worst. While it isn't enough for an uncompressed image, most JPEGS fall under the size limit of this.

http://ryanolson.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/test-how-changing-the-max-amount-of-memory-per-vm-heap-can-effect-your-rom-cyanogen/ [wordpress.com]

Re:Keep it in memory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43694081)

What's the difference if it has to be in memory to be displayed anyway?

Re:Keep it in memory (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | about a year ago | (#43695235)

it would need to store more than one picture in RAM though -- to never touch the flash memory it would need to store every picture you have not yet viewed. Of course, the bigger concern is probably that rebooting your phone would wipe every image you haven't yet seen.

Re:Keep it in memory (1)

pavon (30274) | about a year ago | (#43692873)

Then how do applications even display images to the user if they won't fit in memory?

Re:Keep it in memory (1)

RulerOf (975607) | about a year ago | (#43692899)

Perhaps it's necessary to write it out to the file system before you can transfer it to the GPU RAM, likely due to that tiny heap issue the guys above mentioned? So you'd need to write portions of it to RAM and flush it out to the GPU, tiny chunks at a time perhaps?

Normally works great, but... looks like someone screwed up, perhaps? Maybe a debug flag that renames the file extension instead of deleting the image got left on... We could speculate for hours, but if it wasn't an accident... that's pretty pathetic. Given how small the images are, it'd be trivial to "dd if=/dev/urandom of=/media/dongpic.jpg.nomedia count=filesize" or whatever, for every single one that comes in!

Re:Keep it in memory (0)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43693595)

Then how do applications even display images to the user if they won't fit in memory?

well they do fit.. just keeping a lot of them wouldn't be feasible.

Re:Keep it in memory (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43693593)

The dalvik VM has a (small) fixed heap size. Storing received photos in RAM wouldn't be a viable option here.

they could use the ndk to get around that.

Re:Keep it in memory (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#43692871)

whats the difference, its not 1983 anymore, you dont run one app and shut off your machine, when was your phone rebooted last? why cant they just zero out the flash memory, what is your point of RAM, if they are not going to delete it off your phone what makes you think they are going to delete it off their SERVERs

Re:Keep it in memory (0)

nzac (1822298) | about a year ago | (#43693195)

Without a special API you can't guarantee that you overwrote the right section of storage (wear leveling and copy on write). But as reve_etrange said, just deleting the file would be a very good start.

Re:Keep it in memory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43693217)

That can't stop anyone from saving the picture, as you can always just take a screen shot.

Re:Keep it in memory (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43693609)

Hello Idiocracy!

So you are suggesting the same non-working bullshit snake oil techniques that are DRM?

You know by yourself why this is stupid, don't you? I don't have to explain this to you, do I?

Re:Keep it in memory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43694233)

That sounds hard and like it might increase complexity for the user. The snap chat programmers agreed that it was a better idea to use code that copied and pasted the file to the recycle bin.

Re:Keep it in memory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43694821)

Not hard. There is no reason to save it to disk except to cache, and there is no reason to cache a snapchat.

Re:Keep it in memory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43695845)

Last time I looked at the API for the camera, you could only write output to a file handle. I tried to see if I could write it to a domain socket but there was no support for it. AFAICT, and unless it's changed, when you take a picture or video it MUST be put on storage.

Good? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692713)

Down with DRM in all forms.

Vanishing pictures... thats drm. don't care how you spin it.

Take a screenshot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692741)

Isnt it trivial to bypass by taking a screenshot or even a picture of the phone screen?
IF its something you really want to hide, these ways to bypass make the app useless

Super DURRRRRRRRR! (1, Redundant)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about a year ago | (#43692763)

What morons thought their claims were even remotely possible. You don't even need to be a techie to save the images forever. Just snap a screenshot while the image is being displayed. Done.

Re:Super DURRRRRRRRR! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692799)

Just snap a screenshot while the image is being displayed. Done.

Yeah but that notifies the other person, and I think that it can even be disabled.

Re:Super DURRRRRRRRR! (2)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about a year ago | (#43692879)

I don't see how notifying the sender does anything to change the fact that I now have a permanent copy of their junk. Or I could get a 3rd party screen capture program that doesn't inform anyone that the images has been saved.

Re:Super DURRRRRRRRR! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43693111)

I don't know what kind of capture utilities you niggers are using, but my LG phone takes screenshots via the QuickMemo utility without any sort of notifications.

Re:Super DURRRRRRRRR! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43695063)

Analysis on mental age:
5-8yro - faggot/gay used as insult
9-10yro - nigger used as insult
11-13yro - gay nigger used as insult

Notes:
Many never progress past these stages. This case is likely to progress to stage 3 but no further.

Re:Super DURRRRRRRRR! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43693179)

First, see the whole game. If you take a screenshot when someone doesn't want you to, you'll have one photo but that person won't be sending you any more photos. They'd likely be in your social circles, too, so you'd catch shit for your evil deed.

For this particlar implementation, they have a thing where you need to keep your finger on the touchscreen (or something similar, check wiki if you need details) during the X seconds you have the photo. The idea being to prevent you from accessing the screenshot function.

You could of course take a photo of the screen with a second camera, but you can't really blame the programmers for not closing the analog hole.

Re:Super DURRRRRRRRR! (5, Insightful)

JabberWokky (19442) | about a year ago | (#43693397)

They'd likely be in your social circles, too, so you'd catch shit for your evil deed.

Thank goodness that people sending photographs of their genitals to other people don't have any impulsive friends, make poor choices in who to hang out with, or have ever befriended random people on the net and quickly deem them friends.

Teens in particular are well known for making choices based on long term thinking and a strong sense of never engaging in revenge or social warfare. First world schools are a shining beacon on the hill for compassion, empathy and an overwhelming sense of equality and egalitarian concern for the mental well being of others. You are right: these people would never engage in behavior that damaged another peer. Skilled bullies and social climbers are never popular in middle school and high school, and embarrassing events are quickly hushed up.

Re:Super DURRRRRRRRR! (1)

SkimTony (245337) | about a year ago | (#43721057)

This is a fantastic piece of literature that you've created. I want to turn it into a pamphlet or something, to pass out to people.

Actually, I'd make this part of the login/click-through screen for uploading anything to FaceBook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. Imagine what it could change!

Re:Super DURRRRRRRRR! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43693031)

Just snap a screenshot

Most of the idiots using this program don't know such a thing is possible.
But they do know how to have a friend take a picture of their phone with the image displayed - and that's why this solution was silly as soon as it was proposed.

Re:Super DURRRRRRRRR! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43693647)

Indeed. It can NEVER EVER work . For the exact same reasons that DRM can never ever work. It's actually physically impossible, unless you add a TCPA chip and encrypt ALL the data.

It's shocking how many people claim to be programmers and computer experts, but do not even remotely comprehend the concept of a computer or how it works.

Hell, most people cannot even tell the difference between a fixed-function appliance (iPad/iPhone) and an actual freely programmable information processing device (computer. Even the one used by an iPad/iPhone which is not accessible to the user unless rooted). And even then, most "people" still use their actual computers like fixed-function appliances. And Windows, OS X, KDE and Gnome make damn sure that's the impression you get from using the thing, so you'll never learn. Because apparently, you're such a total moron that you don't even know how to write a list of tasks to do (imperative programming), how to give something another name (variables), how to say "if this is the case, do that" (conditionals), "do this x times" (loops), or "Betty has 3 cats" (records/objects). Even though we all already know all that's needed to program.
I find that insulting to our intelligence. Even to that of my grandma.

Yes, I bet you a $1000 that your grandma can program. Given the right introduction and the right tool.

Re:Super DURRRRRRRRR! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43694315)

unless you add a TCPA chip

this won't stop a very motivated adversary with physical access to the hardware. example look up mod chips for xbox.

not to mention there is still the analog hole...taking a picture of the screen with another device.

Wut. (3, Insightful)

WedgeTalon (823522) | about a year ago | (#43692791)

Forensics software? Just open up the folder. I mean, you have to rooted, but that's not really weird. Look, here's someone talking about getting pics and vids [reddit.com] before even viewing them in Snapchat. Back in March. If you have to output something to the user, they're going to have to be able to get at it one way or another.

Re:Wut. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692991)

If you have to output something to the user, they're going to have to be able to get at it one way or another.

So true. A lot of people don't seem to get that the goal of apps like these is to obfuscate the copy process. It's not actually possible for them to stop the user from being able to reproduce the photo completely, except maybe in a vacuum where they can only access it through your app in ways you approve of, and even then it is doubtful. I mean, by virtue of being able to access the photo at all, they are given access to all the information necessary to reconstruct it.

Re:Wut. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43693003)

True that, you could always fetch it at the hardware level if the software happens to successfully forbid it.

Re:Wut. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43696349)

cp -r /data/data/com.snapchat.android/cache/received_image_snaps/ /storage/sdcard0

Pooh loves his honey (1)

Torodung (31985) | about a year ago | (#43692885)

And that, my friends, is what we call a honeypot. Don't trust anyone with your data if you're about to do something stupid/illegal with your computing device.

So, Uhmm, Yeah... (1)

jampola (1994582) | about a year ago | (#43692887)

My data doesn't disappear when I run # mkfs.ext3 /dev/sda either. Make ya think eh?

This is a surprise to anybody? (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#43692901)

Seems that people still do not have a clue how computers work. None at all. Here is a hint: If it can be viewed, it can be copied.

Re:This is a surprise to anybody? (1)

slashkitty (21637) | about a year ago | (#43697001)

Yeah. I never understood this app. Screenshot to keep the photos..

Re:This is a surprise to anybody? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43697255)

The creators of the app explicitly state that people can still take screen shots or photos of the phone app. That should be well understood. The fact that the app automatically saves the photos around and doesn't clean them up though is not a matter of "how computers work" but an extra level of suckage beyond what is inherent in such systems.

Title is Spot-On Accurate! (3, Informative)

Warhawke (1312723) | about a year ago | (#43692909)

Wooh, another completely incorrect Slashdot title for the win. Because the pics DO disappear when you open them. Both from your phone and their servers. There's just an exploit where rooted phones can view/copy the pictures before they are opened/deleted. "Don't disappear" =/ discretely copyable.

Re:Title is Spot-On Accurate! (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#43693177)

> Because the pics DO disappear when you open them. Both from your phone and their servers
> There's just an exploit where rooted phones can view/copy the pictures before they are opened/deleted.

No. This is explicitly about recovering the images AFTER they have been viewed. Grabbing them before they have been viewed is old news.

This guy has proved that "deleted" just means renamed and pending actual delete. Even then it sounds like an undelete file tool could get some back. Snapchat should be overwriting the files instead of just renaming them and queuing for delete in the future...

Re:Title is Spot-On Accurate! (3, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year ago | (#43693565)

Snapchat should be overwriting the files instead of just renaming them and queuing for delete in the future...

No. Due to wear-leveling and the likes that is not good enough for data that is supposed to be gone forever. The correct way would be for the app to generate a random encryption key in RAM, encrypt the file with that, save the file to the filesystem but keep the key in RAM, and when the app is done with the file it should overwrite the encryption key -- with proper encryption there is no way of reversing the encryption in any sort of a reasonable amount of time (1000 years) without the key.

Re:Title is Spot-On Accurate! (1)

hankwang (413283) | about a year ago | (#43693807)

Due to wear-leveling and the likes that is not good enough for data that is supposed to be gone forever.

You're presenting it as an all-or-nothing issue. There are a couple of shades of gray in between. The internal storage of Android devices is typically formatted as ext4, wtih the wear-leveling (I think) done by the flash memory controller. Accessing the "overwritten" data would require quite a bit more work than just analyzing a block-device image. I suspect that you might have to desolder the NAND memory modules.

And even if the file is deleted but not overwriten, I don't think it's that easy to find the right blocks in the correct sequence; compressed JPEG data past the header data looks pretty much like random data.

Re:Title is Spot-On Accurate! (1)

swillden (191260) | about a year ago | (#43694509)

Still, the encryption approach is the right one. It's fast, easy and much harder to circumvent.

Re:Title is Spot-On Accurate! (1)

hankwang (413283) | about a year ago | (#43694719)

the encryption approach is the right one. It's fast, easy and much harder to circumvent.

If you are paranoid enough to encrypt the data locally after receipt at the phone, then you had better also examine the how the sender and the snapchat server deal with the data. Better setup a public-key system and figure out how to do the key management without discouraging Joe and Jane User.

Re:Title is Spot-On Accurate! (1)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | about a year ago | (#43695123)

. Due to wear-leveling and the likes that is not good enough for data that is supposed to be gone forever. The correct way would be for the app to generate a random encryption key in RAM, encrypt the file with that, save the file to the filesystem but keep the key in RAM,

If you are at the level where you have to worry about an attacker who is able to pull data off of a drive's internally managed wear-leveling management buffers then you also have to worry about all kinds of other less complex attack vectors like a daemon process that silently takes a screenshot every time snapchat displays a photo.

Re:Title is Spot-On Accurate! (1)

dcollins117 (1267462) | about a year ago | (#43697095)

Because the pics DO disappear when you open them. Both from your phone and their servers

How do you know the pictures "disappear" from their servers? We've already ascertained they are not actually removed from the phone. How do we know the server admins don't keep some of the more "interesting" photos for their private collection? Of course, they wouldn't disclose that publicly.

Furthermore, in the United States, the Stored Communications Act mandates that providers must preserve stored data for up to 180 days upon government request. For an application whose target demographic seems to be horny teenagers, I can see this law being used (or abused) in cases of suspected child pornography.

Or.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43692913)

You could just screenshot them like everyone else does.....?

Of course you're able to save them, people generally just use snapchat because it's funny, I don't think most people are actually using it for sexting. I would assume if you're actually sending naked pics then you trust the people you're messaging to not to try to save them/don't care if they do.

I don't get it (1)

Dominare (856385) | about a year ago | (#43693037)

I'm probably going to show my age and/or a great deal of naiveté here, but can someone please explain why this service is even a thing? I just can't think of a situation in which I would send a photo to someone and subsequently care whether they saved it or not. I mean, if I want them to see it I send it, if I don't want them to see it then I don't send it. How is it more complicated than that?

Sexting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43693145)

So people can show strangers on the Internet their tits/dick/both at once with the promise not to save pics enforced by the software? (except not really)

Can't think of any other remotely useful scenario. Maybe this one was the author's plan all along?

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43693259)

Kids now days enjoy sending each other photos of themselves engaged in various sexual acts but don't want them being posted to facebook where their parents might see them.

Re:I don't get it (2)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#43693411)

And then they trust something like this? "Digital natives", my ass. If that is really the use case for this thing, then people have even less of a clue today.

Re:I don't get it (1)

hankwang (413283) | about a year ago | (#43693429)

"I just can't think of a situation in which I would send a photo to someone and subsequently care whether they saved it or not. "

Sending nude pictures to your (teen) lover while reducing the risk that they get to be seen by the rest of the school if the relation goes sour. Or to prevent being charged for spreading child porn, like these kids: http://www.connectsafely.org/Commentaries-Staff/teens-convictions-for-child-porn-upheld.html [connectsafely.org]

Maybe cheating husbands and wives who don't want to leave too many trails. Although I'd be rather suspicious if my significant other had Snapchat installed on her phone...

Re:I don't get it (1)

Si (9816) | about a year ago | (#43694855)

Snap. Chat. Supposedly a method of instant messaging, but with photos. Yeah, I don't get it either. My (still a teen, but just barely) niece uses it to send me pics of her goofing around with her younger siblings. Beyond that I think whatever appeal there is exists in how simple it is to use. Heard a story on NPR where the kids aren't even using SnapChat for sexting.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43707371)

There are definitely legitimate legal and adult reasons for wanting to have a confidential IM-like conversation, that isn't recorded.
For example, if you are discussing a civil lawsuit with someone, and you don't want the conversation discoverable.
Or, you are discussing your opinion on something, and you don't want that conversation seen by a news reporter.

Then there are the conversations you don't want seen by a spouse. (still perfectly legal)
WIth regard to photos, I agree with Dominare that I don't see the usefulness of a photo with a 10-sec expiry, except for Sexting.

Shocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43693245)

My god, I'm in my 30s!

news for nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43693757)

stuff I saw on reddit days ago

Easy fix! (5, Funny)

closer2it (926190) | about a year ago | (#43693841)

All they need to do is create the ".NoMediaNoMedia" file. This will keep the photos and the file ".NoMedia" from being viewed on the device.

Re:Easy fix! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43693855)

Another fix would be changing the file extension to ".NothingToSeeHereMoveAlong".

Or... (1)

DrYak (748999) | about a year ago | (#43701553)

Another fix would be changing the file extension to ".NothingToSeeHereMoveAlong".

Or Maybe :
".TheseArentTheBoobiesYoureLookingFor.HandWaving"

Try wickr (1)

grub (11606) | about a year ago | (#43694011)

I've been happy with Wickr. No ties to the company, just a happy user. https://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/wickr-self-destructing-secure/id528962154?mt=8 [apple.com]

Re:Try wickr (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43694417)

Fuck off with your itunes DRM-laden proprietary bullshit.

Code Analyisis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43694881)

It is unreasonably easy to recover SnapChat images on a rooted android phone. They are NOT deleted after the timer goes off. They are stored in data/data/com.snapchat.android/cache/recieved_image_snaps as "h1a81hurcs00h" + currentTimeMillis + .jpg.nomedia! Looking at their code, they have the deleteVideoDirectory method, but no deleteImageDirectory method. I'm not so sure it's a bug.

Surprise! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703007)

Surprise, surprise as the mobile OS of peace is once again creating privacy issues

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...