Device lock modification in future releases will be helpfull

answered 2015-02-19 08:33:49 +0300

Philippe De Swert
7698 ●74 ●88 ●91

1. This could be considered, however nothing stops you from making a pattern of in the number pad...
2. The limit of 5 is chosen for the very good reason that it increases device lock security (4 is just too low these days)
3. Not a good idea as this gives away the lock code length, which reduces the security and amount of guesses

answered 2015-02-19 15:46:57 +0300

Yo
2799 ●40 ●56 ●69

1. Pattern lock is unsafe. Look from different angles at the screen and you get the code. There is also a paper on that. (For lazy people: Page 8, Chapter 8.)
2. Length of 4 is just too easy to guess. Most of the people use 'patterns' or their year of birth, limiting the number of guesses to ridiculously few. (I just can't find the paper I read on that...)
3. Your idea is good for convenience. But the extra push of the 'this is it'-button adds extra security.

I think Jolla is doing a good job at protecting users not knowing too much about security risks against themselves. ;)

There is one thing left for Jolla to do: ATM you are able to get the minimum length of the security code because you can't push the button unless you typed five digits. IMO the button should always be pushable. So it doesn't give a clue about the length. I guess most people finding the phone will try 4 digits only because 'everyone' uses 4 digit codes...

Nevertheless I'd also like to see other (secure) methods to unlock the device.