I guess my question is how trustworthy is built-in authentication? I'm not really talking about vulnerabilities, but that's a part of this, but how much trust can I put into a small projects login page being secure?
Yes. Many security updates come from upstream AOSP and then are put into GOS.
So when a device has stopped getting AOSP updates, it is unreasonable for GOS to continue support it. They can and I believe they have applied more critical security patches to just barely EOL devices, but this isn't promised or expected.
https://endoflife.date/pixel
This is for googles support. GOS may support a specific device a little longer than google but does not promise to and recomends getting a newer device.
root@skynet:~# ntfsfix -b -d /dev/sda1
Mounting volume... NTFS signature is missing.
FAILED
Attempting to correct errors... NTFS signature is missing.
FAILED
Failed to startup volume: Invalid argument
NTFS signature is missing.
Trying the alternate boot sector
Unrecoverable error
Volume is corrupt. You should run chkdsk.
root@skynet:~# ntfsfix -b -d /dev/sda2
Mounting volume... OK
Processing of $MFT and $MFTMirr completed successfully.
Checking the alternate boot sector... OK
NTFS volume version is 3.1.
Going to un-mark the bad clusters ($BadClus)... No bad clusters...OK
NTFS partition /dev/sda2 was processed successfully.
turned off windows quick start
ran chkdks D: and waited...then shut down and put drive back into linux and reboot.
still no
any ideas? clearly not the larger partition, which is good.
True. I would like to add another authentication.
I guess my question is how trustworthy is built-in authentication? I'm not really talking about vulnerabilities, but that's a part of this, but how much trust can I put into a small projects login page being secure?