Coolpad M30
From Wiki-IoT
Revision as of 17:38, 24 September 2025 by 20222747 (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Classification |name=酷派 M30 |brand=酷派 |parent_company=酷派 |website=https://www.coolpad.com/#/ |release_date=2024-06-06 |generation=30th |model=A3101, A3103, A3104...")
Classification
| Coolpad M30 | |
|---|---|
| Classification | |
| Grade | F |
| Calculator version | [[:Category:Calculator v|]] |
| Classification date | |
| Information | |
| Name | 酷派 M30 |
| Brand by Parent | 酷派 by 酷派 |
| Generation | 30th |
| Model(s) | A3101, A3103, A3104, A3105, A2848, A3102, A3106 |
| Release date | 2024-06-06 |
| Type/Category | Smartphone |
| Website | [1] |
| Status | In sale |
| More | |
| Dimensions | 146.6 mm x 70.6 mm x 8.25 mm |
| Mass | 187 g |
| Operating system | Android |
| Companion App | https://www.coolpad.com/#/ |
| CPU | |
| GPU | |
| Memory | |
| Storage | |
| Battery | |
| Power | |
| Charging | |
| Display | |
| Camera | |
| Sound | |
| Connectivity | |
| Device | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion | Value | Proof(s) | Comment |
| Known hardware tampering | Rare | [2] | As a legitimate brand device, widespread hardware backdoors are uncommon. However, risks in the low-end supply chain cannot be entirely ruled out. |
| Known vulnerabilities | Very common | [3] | Runs an old Android version with no ongoing security patches, leaving it exposed to numerous publicly known vulnerabilities. |
| Prior attacks | Rare | [4] | No widely reported targeted attacks, but the high vulnerability count makes it susceptible to generic malware. |
| Updatability | Rare | [5] | Official support for both OS upgrades and security patches has been discontinued. |
| Category score | 3 | ||
| System | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion | Value | Proof(s) | Comment |
| Authentication with other systems | Partial | [6] | Supports basic screen lock methods (pattern, PIN, password). Unlikely to have a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) for enhanced security. |
| Communications | No encryption | [7] | Relies on basic knowledge factors (PIN/pattern). Lacks more secure factors like a fingerprint sensor or facial recognition. |
| Storage | Encrypted with obselete encryption | [8] | Likely uses legacy Full-Disk Encryption (FDE) which is considered less secure than modern File-Based Encryption (FBE). The encryption strength may be outdated. |
| Category score | 3 | ||
| User Authentication | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion | Value | Proof(s) | Comment |
| Account management | Basic | [9] | Supports basic screen lock methods (pattern, PIN, password). Unlikely to have a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) for enhanced security. |
| Authentication | Basic | [10] | Relies on basic knowledge factors (PIN/pattern). Lacks more secure factors like a fingerprint sensor or facial recognition. |
| Brute-force protection | Basic | [11] | Includes fundamental protections like timed delays after repeated failed unlock attempts. |
| Event logging | Partial logging | [12] | The system has basic logging capabilities, but these are not accessible to users and unlikely to detail security-specific events. |
| Passwords | Default/Common/Easy to guess | [13] | No evidence of forced password change or complexity requirements upon first use. Security relies heavily on user awareness. |
| Category score | 3 | ||
| Grade | F |
|---|
