Maple Grove Report

Maple Grove Report

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.


Maybe it’s because I come from the pre-smartphone era, but I hate phone cases. Smartphones are beautiful devices (at least the ones I buy are) that feel great in the hand and are lovely to look at, so why slap an ugly case on it? So it will sell for more when I’m done? So someone else can get the enjoyment I denied myself?

Opinions on the merits of cases aside, the fact is that most of my smartphone history has been case-less. I had a dalliance with leather cases just in time for them to fall completely out of favor, but apart from that, my first instinct was to avoid them.I recently got a good deal on a Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra as my carrier got rid of this outgoing model, and I did not want to put a case on it. However, thanks to a boneheaded decision by Samsung, that’s exactly what I ended up doing.

Switching to Samsung broke my “caseless + MagSafe” setup

Bye-bye clean setup

I guess I also have to put some of the blame on Apple here, too. I took a break from Android for about four years, during which I became used to the convenience of MagSafe. I use a MagSafe charging stand on my desk, which turns my phone into a desk clock plus whatever other useful widgets I can squeeze onto the always-on display.

There’s also a wealth of cool accessories, such as wallet attachments and power bank backpacks, that I’ve used on occasion and would like to keep using if at all possible.

The problem is that Samsung chose not to put any actual alignment magnets in the phone! So sure if I hold my S25 Ultra to the charging pad, it will charge, but if you let go, it just falls down.

It’s too bad, because to me, having a magnetic attachment point on my phone with no case is the perfect minimalist solution.

What’s most ironic to me is that, in an interview with the Verge, the Samsung R&D chief explained that part of the rationale for leaving magnets out of the latest S26 Ultra was that most people use cases, in which case the internal magnets do nothing. But, in my situation, I wouldn’t be using a case if there were magnets in my phone! Thanks, Samsung.

s26 ultra product image

SoC

Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5

Display

6.9-inch Dynamic Super AMOLED 2X

RAM

12 or 16 GB

Storage

256GB, 512GB, or 1TB

Battery

5,000 mAh

Operating System

Android

Get the new Galaxy S26 Ultra with AI smarts and an all-new privacy display. It’s big, powerful, packed with AI, and you’ll love the S-Pen stylus. 


The awkward reality of magnetic accessories on Android

It’s a mess

I had a look around online to see which Android phones do have built-in magnets, and for now it seems the answer is “none.” The Qi2 standard does make provision for magnetic charging, and it’s not like there’s some sort of patent conflict with Apple’s MagSafe, so I have to assume that other phone manufacturers are also making the decision based on the same logic.

I also don’t know what sorts of costs or trade-offs there are to putting this feature in a phone. Who knows? Maybe Apple had to make some major sacrifices with its iPhones to get magnets in them. What would actually be lost in an S26 Ultra in exchange for built-in magnets? In that aforementioned Verge interview, one answer is that magnets would mean added thickness.

If that’s the case, just how thin would the iPhone Air have been without MagSafe? Maybe Apple had no choice but to put in those thickening magnets or the Air would have to be reclassified as a knife, which would mean you couldn’t take it on a plane.

Again, if my phone had magnets in it, I would not need the case, and then the bit of extra thickness would be irrelevant, but apparently, the number of case-less users is such a minority that I wonder why they don’t just rubberize the phone in the factory and save everyone some time.

Now, before you say it, I am fully aware that I could also just buy a magnet ring sticker for my phone instead of a whole case, and honestly, I might end up doing that, but right now I don’t want to for a few good reasons.

First, I hate the idea of stickers. I have never stuck one on my car, my laptop, my phones, or my tablets. If you like attaching stuff with adhesive to your devices, then more power to you, but all my Apple stickers are still in the boxes they came in, so that tells you how I feel.

Second, I need my phone to have a flat back. This might be a total personal peeve, but if I had a bump or raised surfaces I could feel on the back of my phone, it would be like a tooth cavity you can’t leave alone. It would drive me nuts!

Third, I just don’t trust the adhesive to keep my phone safely secured. Call me paranoid, but I don’t want my expensive phone held up by a thin circle of glue. I guess I’ll have to check in again a few years from now to see if Android phone makers have changed their minds.



Source link


Nearly half a Million mobile customers of Lloyds Banking Group affected by security incident

Pierluigi Paganini
March 31, 2026

Lloyds Banking Group data incident exposed transactions of ~450,000 mobile banking users due to a faulty update.

A faulty software update at Lloyds Banking Group exposed transaction details of nearly 450,000 mobile banking users on March 12. The issue caused some customers to see other users’ account activity within the app, prompting the bank to disclose a data security incident affecting current account information.

According to Lloyds Banking Group, transactions were exposed only if users accessed their transaction lists at nearly the same time. A customer would need to view their own transactions within fractions of a second of another user to see or be seen. The faulty update, rolled out on March 12 at 03:28, was fixed by 08:08 and has not recurred. Exposed data could include amounts, dates, payment identifiers, and potentially National Insurance numbers.

“Up to 447,936 Lloyds, Halifax and Bank of Scotland customers saw other people’s transactions or had their data shared with other users during an IT glitch on 12 March, according to a letter published by the Treasury Select Committee.” Lloyds told the UK’s Treasury Committee. “114,182 people clicked on other people’s transactions when they became visible and then may have been shown more detailed information such as account details, national insurance numbers and payment references.”

The banking group reported that some exposed transactions involved payments to non-Lloyds customers. The company pointed out that the account balances remained unaffected, and no unauthorized actions were possible. Customers only saw other users’ data briefly, and the information alone was insufficient to commit fraud. During the incident, 1.67 million of 21.5 million mobile users logged in, with 447,936 experiencing transaction exposure or having their own transactions briefly visible to others.

“In total, £139,000 of compensation has been paid out to 3,625 customers for distress and inconvenience. No customers have, so far, been identified as suffering financial loss.” concludes Lloyds.

“Modern banking methods mean we can now perform a variety of tasks on our phones in a matter of seconds, and almost anywhere.” said Chair of the Treasury Committee, Dame Meg Hillier. “What this incident brings into focus is the fact that there is a trade-off. By moving more interactions with our bank online, we place our faith in technology which can suffer unpredictable errors. It’s critical that consumers understand this, and that’s why my Committee continues to push banks to be transparent when things go wrong.”

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, Lloyds)







Source link

Recent Reviews