Google Has Android Remote App Install Power, Too

Trailrunner7 writes "The remote-wipe capability that Google recently invoked to remove a harmless application from some Android phones isn't the only remote control feature that the company built into its mobile OS. It turns out that Android also includes a feature that enables Google to remotely install apps on users' phones as well. Jon Oberheide, the security researcher who developed the application that Google remotely removed from Android phones, noticed during his research that the Android OS includes a feature called INSTALL_ASSET that allows Google to remotely install applications on users' phones. 'I don't know what design decision they based that on. Maybe they just figured since they had the removal mechanism, it's easy to have the install mechanism too,' Oberheide said in an interview. 'I don't know if they've used it yet.'"

Comments

kinda scary

[grapeape]

So how long until we see someone attempt to exploit this?

Re:kinda scary

[FooAtWFU]

How long until someone exploits this? Well, I bet Google or some other vendor will try to sell it as part of an offering for businesses within the next 2 years. Remote software installs would be very useful in the enterprise.

Re:kinda scary

[MrNaz]

I think that remote anything should be opt-in by the user, or, in an enterprise setting, should be added on by the enterprise before distributing the units. I do not welcome the idea that *all* Android handsets will have remote add/remove package functionality out of the box, for all users.

Imagine the fun law enforcement and government agencies will have with this. Remote install app that silently forwards mic input to an eavesdropper.

Is there even a way to turn this feature off? I.e., lets say I buy a handset and I definitely do *not* want Google nuking my apps remotely or adding apps to my phone remotely without my knowledge.

This is the reason that I think the FOSS community should back MeeGo. It's the only *true* open source system out there that's open enough that the Many Eyeballs principle can be applied to, and that is open enough that we'll eventually see custom distros of the OS emerging.

Re:kinda scary

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine the fun law enforcement and government agencies will have with this. Remote install app that silently forwards mic input to an eavesdropper.

Then they can remote install some kiddy porn images so they have excuse to raid his house and confiscate all his computer equipment.

Re:kinda scary

[Lemming Mark]

MeeGo also has the advantage of not reinventing the entire userspace, thus remaining closer to what we generally consider a GNU/Linux system. Android is quite slick in practice but it does upset me that it's so non-standard in every possible way :-(

No

[Mr2001]

I'm sure someone could create a honeypot wifi network that forces all Android devices that connect to it to install a particular app.

Not unless they manage to compromise SSL in order to make the phone think it's talking to Google when it really isn't. If someone manages to do that, we have much bigger things to worry about than a malicious phone app.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this moves android from "my next phone" to a "definite maybe".

I do NOT like back doors. This makes the SSL Cert that would be used to prove one is google a very valuable target indeed. It really makes me wonder if it is a question of "if" or "when". On top of that, why should I trust google with this? If something needs to be installed, on MY PHONE, I want to be, at least, asked.

-Steve

Not so terrible

[Darkness404]

Really, this makes a bit more sense than having 234234234324234 OS updates every year. The majority of updates can be done by removing/updating apps, not to mention security patches. Really, some phones already have the latest Android they will ever get, barring rooting. But people will keep using that phone for 4+ years, that is a long time to have a security flaw out there that could steal information. Since the browser is going to be the main attack vector which is an app, it makes sense.

While this could be used to push more carrier crapware, I think updates and upgrades of installed apps are more likely to work for more phones and easier for the average user to use.

In all honesty, would you rather be using an outdated version of a browser with security flaws because your phone doesn't support Android 2.75 Double Chocolate Chunk Cookie or just have your browser update to a more secure version OTA?

Re:Not so terrible

[gandhi_2]

As the android user base gets more mainstream, the "vocal" nerds will be drowned out by people who just want cute shit.

This crowd will accept what-ever crapware the carriers want them to have, they always have....and Google won't find it so hard to just give in.

Inevitably, the OTA install function will be abused.

Re:Not so terrible

[Americano]

Yep, because google's not an advertising company, and would never want to, say, install an app that brings you the "great new feature" of automatically pinging their servers with a GPS coordinate and downloading location-relevant ads right to your phone!

Point is - you aren't offered a choice. Point is - you aren't being asked, "is it okay if we do this?" I don't care what the feature is, I'd take severe issue with someone deciding, "here you need this." And let's be honest - updates aren't always flawless... if Google bricks my phone accidentally, will I be able to recover any important data I might have had on there?

Re:Really?

[FlyingBishop]

The line between OS version and app is entirely arbitrary, and Google is working to move more of the OS functionality into apps.

From a security standpoint, if Google has access to this, they have access to the OS anyway, installing/removing apps is not a big deal. They already have root on your device (and you don't.)

Re:Really?

[TheEyes]

...he seemed to think of the phone's owner more as a security threat than as the person who should be setting security policy.

To be fair, he does have a point, if in fact that was his view. I mean, how many zombified PCs are out there now, DDoSing servers and spamming the planet, just because their owners can't manage (at a bare minimum) to enable Automatic Updates? Millions? Tens of millions?

I know hating Google is in vogue these days, but let's be honest here: so far, they're no Microsoft. They're not a convicted monopoly; they've gone out of their way to invest real resources in opening their services, actually spending money to make it easier for people to migrate away from Gmail and Google Docs; they sponsor and promote open source; and they compete by constantly making their products better, rather than trying to strong-arm people into buying their junk. So yeah, until they show otherwise, I'm going to be cautiously optimistic and give them the benefit of the doubt.

The question is, is there a way for paranoid individuals to turn this capability off if they want to. Let the Joe Sixpacks of the world live in blissful ignorance, and let Google keep them from bringing the cell networks down with their inability to properly patch and protect their phones; just give me the ability to opt out if I know the risks, and choose to take them.

Re:This is great news

[iluvcapra]

I'm not trying to troll, but really. if you compare the the two platforms one is mostly open and one is glued shut.

I'm not trying to troll, but really; if you compare the two platforms one is mostly bought and paid for by the handset purchaser, the other is free to the consumer and OEM but is distributed with the intent of selling mobile eyeballs to advertisers. What could possibly go wrong?