Can't Repro
Status Update
Comments
en...@google.com <en...@google.com> #2
If it were not for NFC unlock I would not use any kind of display lock at all.
Face unlock does not work properly, as well as trusted places.
Bluetooth would not make any sense, since I would have to unlock my phone to switch on bluetooth to have my phone unlocked by bluetooth (wtf ?).
On body detection is useless, too: whenever I carry my phone around in my pocket with the screen unlocked, all kinds of strange things happen when the screen gets activated by some app or another.
As for fingerprint, my phone does not have one. Even if my next phone had a fingerprint reader, it would be of no use when located in the back and the phone is sitting in any kind of holder or cradle.
Face unlock does not work properly, as well as trusted places.
Bluetooth would not make any sense, since I would have to unlock my phone to switch on bluetooth to have my phone unlocked by bluetooth (wtf ?).
On body detection is useless, too: whenever I carry my phone around in my pocket with the screen unlocked, all kinds of strange things happen when the screen gets activated by some app or another.
As for fingerprint, my phone does not have one. Even if my next phone had a fingerprint reader, it would be of no use when located in the back and the phone is sitting in any kind of holder or cradle.
sw...@gmail.com <sw...@gmail.com> #3
We have passed this to the development team and will update this issue with more information as it becomes available.
kw...@gmail.com <kw...@gmail.com> #4
@3 Please do consider re-adding this feature.
There are actually people who think it's an awesome thing to have. Even medical cases, such as this one:
https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/65425413#comment37
There are actually people who think it's an awesome thing to have. Even medical cases, such as this one:
en...@google.com <en...@google.com> #5
Bring back NFC unlock. Or add NFC U2F unlock with something like Yubikey.
bl...@gmail.com <bl...@gmail.com> #6
Another thing I would like to see is custom Smart Unlock providers. This way a company like Yubikey could add support for NFC U2F dongles.
ji...@gmail.com <ji...@gmail.com> #7
It was really useful to me, I had a nfc tag near my mouse pad. It was safer and much more precise compared to gps location!
en...@google.com <en...@google.com> #8
I have found a workaround, though it requires root and manually editing a preferences file.
Details on pastebin:https://pastebin.com/2RSZzERg
Details on pastebin:
mj...@gmail.com <mj...@gmail.com> #9
Instructions found within comment #8 worked well for me to re-enable NFC Smart Unlock, hope it stays that way. This is definitely something Google should bring back anyways as it's a fast and more secure way to unlock the phone that enough people still use plus the adoption of NFC based triggers will only grow IMO over time.
en...@google.com <en...@google.com> #10
This is an absolutely necessary feature for me to unlock my phone by rings inside gloves when I have to wear a hat scarf gloves and sunglasses on cold sunny days, and I don't want to give pickpockets access to my phone through on-body detection
ol...@gmail.com <ol...@gmail.com> #11
Adding myself to the people who used this feature regularly, and miss it now. :(
Now regretting my choice to not "share my usage anonymously with Google".
Now regretting my choice to not "share my usage anonymously with Google".
bl...@gmail.com <bl...@gmail.com> #12
Please bring this feature back. I do fabrication work and my fingerprints are seldom I'm a readable condition.
jc...@gmail.com <jc...@gmail.com> #13
Bring back this feature, please. It was a brilliant idea and deserves further development.
bl...@gmail.com <bl...@gmail.com> #14
Why "won't fix" ? It's so easy to bring it back...
br...@googlemail.com <br...@googlemail.com> #15
Thank you for your feedback. We assure you that we are doing our best to address all issues reported. For now, we will be closing the issue as won't fix obsolete.
ch...@gmail.com <ch...@gmail.com> #16
why? if you are closing this as obsolete and won't fix, why not give an explanation as to why?
bl...@gmail.com <bl...@gmail.com> #17
deleted
da...@gmail.com <da...@gmail.com> #18
Please bring back this feature!
sr...@gmail.com <sr...@gmail.com> #19
Bring it back please!
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #20
Please bring back NGF unlock! There are bracelets and rings that contain NFC tags and would be the easiest to use.
en...@google.com <en...@google.com> #21
I use my smartphone as a navigator on my motorbike,
Unlocking with facial recognition is not possible by wearing the helmet, same with fingerprints since I use gloves.
With NFC positioned on the bike, as soon as I remove the smartphone it locks.
It would be very useful.
Unlocking with facial recognition is not possible by wearing the helmet, same with fingerprints since I use gloves.
With NFC positioned on the bike, as soon as I remove the smartphone it locks.
It would be very useful.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #22
deleted
je...@gmail.com <je...@gmail.com> #23
Dear Google Team,
Please bring this feature back.
It's useful and with proliferation and awareness of NFC these days (thanks to contactless payments and other applications), this could become a real benefit for users, and the low-usage of the past won't be an issue anymore.There's a huge number of use cases.
Please bring this feature back.
It's useful and with proliferation and awareness of NFC these days (thanks to contactless payments and other applications), this could become a real benefit for users, and the low-usage of the past won't be an issue anymore.There's a huge number of use cases.
ch...@gmail.com <ch...@gmail.com> #24
Please bring it back. Only reason I got NFC tags in the first place.
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #25
[Comment deleted]
[Deleted User] <[Deleted User]> #26
I have the same problem. I use a reply message to check remote server and restart socket if remote host was closed connection ( can not reply ).
ku...@gmail.com <ku...@gmail.com> #27
I have an issue regarding disconnection of WiFi in remote PC.
Connection bewtween "Android device" and "Remote PC" through WiFi.
I am able to connect remote machine through WiFi (Router-dongle) and When I disable WiFi in android mobile, the connection is successfully disconneted.
Issue is:
But when I disconnect WiFi by removing dongle from the remote machine the connection is not disconnected it still shows as connected.
How can I solve this issue?
Please provide me the solution. Thanks in advance.
Aravind.
Connection bewtween "Android device" and "Remote PC" through WiFi.
I am able to connect remote machine through WiFi (Router-dongle) and When I disable WiFi in android mobile, the connection is successfully disconneted.
Issue is:
But when I disconnect WiFi by removing dongle from the remote machine the connection is not disconnected it still shows as connected.
How can I solve this issue?
Please provide me the solution. Thanks in advance.
Aravind.
sn...@gmail.com <sn...@gmail.com> #28
Issue still persists for me. Please let us know if resolved
ji...@ladsnet.com <ji...@ladsnet.com> #29
I noticed this on a Kyocera E6560 in a loop. wrote to the socket every two minutes long after the socket was closed on the server end.
Works fine on may other phones.
Works fine on may other phones.
Description
Android's Socket implementation fails to detect socket closure by remote.
This basically means Android breaks every client/server TCP application
known to mankind.
I have found numerous other bug reports in various places all indicating
issues along these lines. I suspect they are all related to this
fundamental socket bug; as it breaks all applications which rely of proper
TCP socket semantics.
Test Environment:
Tested on CyanogenMod 4.2.13 and stock emulator running 1.6. Both have the
exact same broken behavior.
Setup:
Client is running on Android within a service. Service initiates connection
to server. Server accepts connection. Netstat clearly tracks connection
state. Below you can see the connection has been established.
tcp 0 0
I can send a message from the client to the server. I log the socket's
state both before and after the write to the socket. Notice both the local
and remote ports match, clearly indicating this is the same socket. State
before and after are exactly as one would expect.
D/xxx( 388): socket_: Socket[addr=/
D/xxx( 388): isConnected: true
D/xxx( 388): isClosed: false
D/xxx( 388): isConnected: true
D/xxx( 388): isClosed: false
So far so good. I'll now terminate the server which will cause the TCP
connection to be reset on the client (Android). Netstat clearly tracks the
state of the socket exactly as it should. This seems to indicate it is not
a Linux kernel and/or TCP stack bug. Again, make note the local and remote
ports are identical and the state is properly indicated.
tcp 0 1
At this point the client is unlikely to know the socket has been closed as
keep alives are not in use and the client has yet to written to the socket.
So let's fix that.
I'll now have the client write to its socket. This should immediately
result in an error as the stack absolutely knows the socket has been
closed. Once again, the socket's state both before and after the write, is
logged. Notice the local and remote ports are identical. Also notice the
socket's logged state does not change. That's BAD! Remember, the Android
device absolutely knows the socket has been closed at this point.
D/xxx( 388): socket_: Socket[addr=/
D/xxx( 388): isConnected: true
D/xxx( 388): isClosed: false
D/xxx( 388): isConnected: true
D/xxx( 388): isClosed: false
Notice the socket indicates its connected and not closed both before and
after the write. An exception is never thrown. An error is never provided.
And yet, netstat still shows:
tcp 0 1
Clearly the socket is closed. Clearly the stack is properly tracking state.
The server is no longer running. The socket is absolutely not connected.
And yet, the socket provided by Android continues to write to a completely
broken socket and never properly reports the state change to the
application nor does it provide any type of error or exception indicating
that the write absolutely is failing.
In short, Android's socket implementation is completely broken to such a
degree, every client/server TCP application on Android is broken.