Slashdot Mirror


Android Data Stealing App Downloaded By Millions

wisebabo writes "A wallpaper utility (that presents purloined copyrighted material) 'quietly collects personal information such as SIM card numbers, text messages, subscriber identification, and voicemail passwords. The data is then sent to www.imnet.us, a site that hails from Shenzen, China.'"

59 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. Thats it! by socz · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm going back to winmo where it's "Safe!"

    --
    My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    1. Re:Thats it! by socz · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course it happens to any platform that you can install/patch/hack on. A lot of people don't even install anything on their winmo phones because its a hassle, yet on iP and droid, it's as easy as pie! But anyone who thinks they're safe is a fool... because unless you compile your own compiler...

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    2. Re:Thats it! by mark72005 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I am anxiously awaiting the safety and security of Windows Phone 7

    3. Re:Thats it! by Rip+Dick · · Score: 2, Informative

      They just updated the article saying that it does not steal txt messages or browsing history.

    4. Re:Thats it! by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Funny

      and write your own compiler.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    5. Re:Thats it! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's absolutely no reason that this should be the case. I can't speak for Windows Mobile, but the Symbian kernel has a capability model that makes it relatively easy to protect against this kind of thing. Applications, by default, can only read a few system locations (shared libraries and so forth) and can only write into their own directory. Each shared library and each application has a set of capability bits. A shared library can only be loaded by processes that have all of the capability bits that the library has (so, for example, if your app doesn't have the SMS capability, it can't load shared libraries that require it). If you install a wallpaper app, and it has the capabilities to inspect arbitrary directories, system configuration, and so on, then you'd expect to know something is wrong. Unfortunately, the Symbian UI sucks so badly that it probably doesn't actually tell you this...

      Interestingly, OS X also has quite a nice subsystem for running untrusted code. On recent versions, there are predefined sandbox settings for preventing writes, preventing Internet access, and preventing writes outside /tmp. It's not used much on the desktop (not at all for untrusted code, where it would be most useful), but it might be used on the iPwn.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Thats it! by brasselv · · Score: 3, Funny

      and run it on hardware you designed and manufactured yourself

      --
      "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
    7. Re:Thats it! by w0mprat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and write your own compiler.

      Your compiler can't compile itself!

      Personally I prefer to tap the bits into the hard drive platter with a magnetized sewing needle, that way I know it's safe... oh wait... what about the HDD's firmware?

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  2. I'm confused... by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A wallpaper APP? Why would you need an app? It can't just display a jpg as wallpaper?

    1. Re:I'm confused... by socz · · Score: 3, Informative
      This is what confuses me:

      The wallpaper app asks for permission to access your “phone calls,” but that isn’t necessarily a clear warning.

      When I started learning android, one of the first programs I made was literally just text and a color background right... and it still asked for permission for calls! I was like hrm, maybe I got a tampered with version of the SDK? But that is why I'm just like *shrugs it off* when I see wall paper apps request phone call access. Now, I don't download wall paper apps lol but, I can see why those who did shrugged it off as well. This is probably something that google needs to explain better, or I need to learn better, or things need to be changed.

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    2. Re:I'm confused... by Vintermann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Never mind that, why would you need a wallpaper app that requests permission to make phone calls?

      Really, there's no helping some people.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    3. Re:I'm confused... by brainboyz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your manifest file is wrong. You request a list of permissions that your app is then allowed to use, but requesting them does not mean you used it. You probably have PROCESS_OUTGOING_CALLS or CALL_PHONE listed unnecessarily.

    4. Re:I'm confused... by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Informative

      honestly, i think that you did something wrong with your test app. there are tons of highly intricate apps that do not request permission to make calls. now, if your app wanted to go to the background when a call came and relaunch when the call is over that's something different. however, that permission is "read phone state" which does not sound the same at all.

      Yes, "read phone state" sounds totally different than "make phone calls" or whatever the exact verbage is... /sarcasm

      Cellphones went mainstream about 10 years ago, and even smartphones like those based on Android are very common. This means they are in the market where you need it to be so simple that someone with a barely functioning grasp of English could figure it out.

      To software engineers, there might be a difference between "read phone state" and "make phone calls" but to a layperson there really isn't. You really need to look at it with the "would it work in a car" mentality: is it simple enough to be put into a car and be figured out by anyone with a mild amount of training in "not crashing"? Hint: "turn key to start" is good, an arrow indicating which way to turn it is better, and "please select from the available options: Activate engine controls. Activate engine starter motor. Activate seat belt latch." is NOT going to go over well.

      All this nonsense about "well the user was advised that SIM activity could be perturbed by the inclusion of application permission" as an excuse for a poorly implemented security platform needs to be thrown out the window unless you want Android to turn into Windows Mobile 6 in a matter of months while security and usability problems fly out of the woodwork and people flock to a different platform without such headaches.

    5. Re:I'm confused... by socz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, what was interesting *to me* was that when I sent the program to the emulator, i left it blank! So I hadn't even made any changes to the default and it was asking for permission. In my mind, if it does nothing, why does it need access?

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    6. Re:I'm confused... by arth1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wallpapers aren't just static images.

      The wallpaper I have here, changes colour depending on the time of day.
      You can even show a view adjusted for the weather where you are.

    7. Re:I'm confused... by mafian911 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think this post is flamebait. Ok, well, "dumb" is harsh, but I do think the iPhone is targeted toward people who really just don't know any better. That's why the phone is so easy to use, bc hell, a baby can figure it out.

      Android allows you to do more, but at the cost of a little extra complexity. I think an average user can handle it, I know a lot of people with average intelligence that have no problem with it. It's the users that aren't so smart that may have a hard time with it. Those users may want to consider an iPhone.

    8. Re:I'm confused... by disambiguated · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes that is exactly how it works. You specify which permissions your app needs in the xml manifest. These permissions are displayed to the user. If your app attempts to use an API which requires permissions not specified in the manifest, the app gets a security exception. It doesn't rely on the developer being honest.

    9. Re:I'm confused... by beakerMeep · · Score: 2, Informative

      IIRC this has to do with the API change from 1.5 and earlier to 1.6 and later. Because that permission never existed in 1.6, any app targeting that platform will show as requesting the permission on 2.0+

      See the second comment here: stack overflow

      The problem is that it comes up for any dev targeting 1.5 and earlier, so it comes up pretty often. Google probably could have handled the permissions differently but I cant think of any better ways off the top of my head at the moment.

      --
      meep
    10. Re:I'm confused... by johnthuss · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, this is known bug that occurs when you want to support android 1.5, which is the oldest used version still in active use (and fairly significant usage too). See this post for more info.

    11. Re:I'm confused... by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is what Apple figured out : KISS, keep it simple and stupid. The user (even the ones that understand it) shouldn't be bothered with this shit, if you're going to sell apps through a store you might as well do quality control at that point by a third party. Of course that approach comes with its own set of well publicized drawbacks and no approach has a 100% success rate.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    12. Re:I'm confused... by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Android allows you to do more, but at the cost of a little extra complexity. I think an average user can handle it, I know a lot of people with average intelligence that have no problem with it. It's the users that aren't so smart that may have a hard time with it. Those users may want to consider an iPhone.

      It's not about smartness but intuitiveness. Apple doesn't want the user to have to learn a new OS (the different types of permissions, etc.) to be able to use his/her phone. The user should just be able to pick it up and do a task with as little interference as possible. We used to call this KISS and it's actually a lot harder to do correctly than to just offer up a bunch of options and configurations to the user. I picked up an android phone in a store the other day and my first thought was how busy the user interface was.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  3. This is a job for Droidwall by mlts · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is a very good reason to run Droidwall. However, the bad news is that Android apps are going to a model where they ping one of Google's servers to check if they are licensed for that user. Of course, Droidwall can be updated to allow any apps to connect to that server farm's IP address range even if they are disallowed from anywhere else, but that may take some programming.

    Droidwall also requires root access.

    1. Re:This is a job for Droidwall by jsnipy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      this is a job for common sense. Whenever you install an app it shows you what it is requesting accessing to. If you see a 'wallpaper of the day' app wants access every aspect of your phone, you might reconsider installing it.

      --
      -- if you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
    2. Re:This is a job for Droidwall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Common sense is the worst possible defense for the average user. If you want Android phones to have a tiny amount of market share among technically skilled users, that's fine. If you want a large number of Android phones available to, used by and recommended by the average user then showing such warnings is near completely useless.

      Dancing bunnies, man. Dancing bunnies.

    3. Re:This is a job for Droidwall by abigor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean they'd have to wait for approval by the App Store? An interesting proposal!

    4. Re:This is a job for Droidwall by mlts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is the problem: People like you, me, and almost all Slashdot readers would click "no" if a generic fart app requires a slew of security privs (power, Net, access to SMS, access to contacts, ability to kill other apps, etc.), or even worse, prompted for root privs via su.

      However, the dancing bunny problem strikes here. Joe Sixpack will click "Install" to install a cool app, only to find all his contacts being spammed with "I need $900 ransom" notices, a sky high SMS bill because the app grabs a list of phone numbers and starts sending out text messages with ads on it, maybe even drained bank accounts if he left his banking info and passwords in the Web browser.

      I think Google made one mistake with Android, and that was assuming all users would be clued Linux types who know basic UNIX sanitation. I worry though, if there are more bad apples in the bunch that Android would be start being known as a hive for malware just because there is nothing stopping Joe Sixpack from installing a "pr0n viewer app" that reams his phone.

      I like the walled garden idea, with a way to hop out, that is foreboding to a nontechnical person, but for someone with half a clue, wouldn't pose a problem. For example, the "oem unlock" command with the N1 phones and the warning staying to say buh-bye to the phone's warranty if the user wants to continue. Something to make Joe Sixpack not want to do it and actually pass on watching the dancing bunnies.

  4. Not SMS history or voicemail passwords by mdm-adph · · Score: 3, Informative

    According to this [http://phandroid.com/2010/07/29/another-app-stealing-data/].

    "Your voicemail's password is also not transmitted unless you included the password in your phone's voicemail number field."

    --
    It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
  5. WHAT app? by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Informative

    What was the NAME of this evil app? Neither TFS nor TFA bother to tell us that. We got the Dev Name which is almost as good, but geez.

    1. Re:WHAT app? by blowdart · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are multiple wallpaper apps from that developer; 75 in fact if the doubletwist search is to be believed.

    2. Re:WHAT app? by black_lbi · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not just one single app ... all apps from Jackeey Wallpaper
      http://www.androidzoom.com/android_developer/jackeeywallpaper_bofz.html

    3. Re:WHAT app? by jgoshorn · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are several - they show up as, for example Naruto Wallpapers by callmejack. The dev's email is jackeey.wu@gmail.com. Most, if not all, appear to have gotten a comment from helpful souls indicating that they are malicious. The quickest way to find them might be a google search. ;-) Cheers.

  6. Face off? by notaspunkymonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    God help anybody who used facebook and this app... there's every chance they will get home tonight and find an imposter in bed with their wife.

    1. Re:Face off? by jsnipy · · Score: 3, Funny

      the Chinese accent would be a tipoff :)

      --
      -- if you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
  7. Unfortunately by wraithguard01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is one good reason to have a unified app service, where all the apps are first vetted before they are released. I think mozilla's addon collection is a good model to follow.

    1. Re:Unfortunately by Pojut · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right. Because that's worked so well. Keep in mind that these refer to apps that made it through the vetting process.

    2. Re:Unfortunately by AndrewNeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Excuse me? I somehow doubt you've ever submitted an addon to Mozilla before. I have, and a real person does indeed check your code.

      From the Editor's Guide:

      Every line of add-on code must be reviewed. The code validator can't detect all possible security or code quality issues, so we must always be in the lookout for bad code.

    3. Re:Unfortunately by diamondsw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amazing what a gets a +5 Informative these days. Adding links?

      The first example was due to a developer "hacking" accounts (i.e., guessing passwords).
      The second example is the same story as the first, from a different source.
      The final example is the only one that holds any water. And that allowing crap apps through, not malicious ones.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    4. Re:Unfortunately by c0d3g33k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've come nowhere near Mr. Job's ass. I am no Apple fan by a long shot (I've never purchased an Apple product in my life) and have no interest in going where the (reality distorted) sun does not shine.

      Your evidence is that malicious apps can exist in an environment where vetting takes place. You have not demonstrated that vetting has no effect on the number of malicious apps a person is exposed to. Nor have you demonstrated that the vetting was effective in your example. You might have demonstrated that Apple's vetting could use some improvement - I'll grant you that.

      I am claiming that an *effective* vetting process will *REDUCE* the number of malicious apps a user is exposed to, not that it will necessarily eliminate them entirely. So an effective vetting process is worth pursing, because in its absence, there is NO BARRIER to the presentation of malicious apps to the user, and a user will experience more of them.

      Ok, the volley is in your court. I await your reasoned and logical response.

    5. Re:Unfortunately by cmorriss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right. Because that's worked so well. Keep in mind that these refer to apps that made it through the vetting process.

      Actually, your examples do in fact prove how well the process is working.

      Not one of the apps you describe scammed people out of money or information. They are all examples of developers using other methods to get their apps to the top of the store list to get more people to buy them.

      If that's the best you can come up with, then I think that speaks volumes to how good a job Apple is actually doing.

      --
      10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
  8. Implied Racism! by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am surprised, shocked, and dismayed to see a fine journalistic source such as Slashdot stoop to yellow journalism, as it were. There is absolutely nothing suspicious about the origin of the website being being in Shenzen, China and the summary's implication of this is absolutely untoward. I expect a full apology posted immediately, then duped again tomorrow.

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  9. Re:News flash! by bonch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, part of the news here is the comparison to Apple's heavily-controlled store model. Would this have happened on the iPhone? Would the app have even been approved?

  10. People will click through anything by Coopjust · · Score: 5, Insightful
  11. Re:Why would you need it by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, you don't need the name in order to avoid it, but it might be useful, I dunno, to see if one already HAS it.

    Just sayin'.

  12. Update from TFA - No capture of text messages by miknix · · Score: 2, Informative

    Update from TFA:

    Update: Lookout notes it does not capture browsing history and text messages: It collects your browsing history, text messages, your phone’s SIM card number, subscriber identification, and even your voicemail password, as long as it is programmed automatically into your phone.

    Looks like it doesn't collect browsing history and text messages after all.

  13. I was going to troll, but... by Xaedalus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When I read TFA, I saw the part where 47% of Droid apps use third party coding, and 23% of Apple apps also use it. Then I realized, there's no safe place to hide. I like my walled garden, but even that has leaks.

    --
    Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
  14. Android needs a sandbox. by yog · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is sort of like the early days of MS-DOS, back when everyone trusted everything they downloaded.

    Although Android apps do run in a security "sandbox" whereby they can't access the user space of other apps (see http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/security/security.html for more information), they can and do access the general configuration information of the phone such as personal data, phone calls, and SIM information, and some apps obviously need to use the phone's dialup or networking capabilities.

    At install time, the user is shown a list of resources the app will access, but since most apps need at least some resources on the device to be useful, we are all in the habit of just clicking past this screen and installing, and then hoping the app is not malevolent in some way.

    I think there needs to be some sort of sandbox where apps can reside prior to full release into the wild. Probably, most users won't understand how to use such a feature, but knowledgeable users would make use of it, and ultimately it would help promulgate security concepts into the general consciousness. Power users who write reviews and prominent blog pieces on Android will be able to help guide the masses to safer use of apps.

    --
    it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
  15. Re:Developers Bitch by mdm-adph · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As we've seen from the "colored flashlight app that's really a tethering app," I don't know why people are still putting their trust in Apple's "approval" process as far as safety is concerned. They obviously don't check the code behind an app -- today it's a tethering app, tomorrow it's one that's sending your data to China (if it doesn't already exist, and I'd be surprised if it didn't).

    --
    It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
  16. Re:Why would you need it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Nobody has it in use. Once they discovered it, millions of Google security researchers downloaded it
    to run sandboxed or on AVDs." - Google Spokesperson

  17. Re:News flash! by abigor · · Score: 2, Informative

    None of those apps stole data from people's phones. Instead, they artificially voted one another up to generate sales, and users' iTunes accounts were hacked. That's obviously still a grievous security failure, but it's server-side, and has nothing to do with the app store's approval process.

  18. Re:Middle Ground by cduffy · · Score: 2, Informative

    The apps (or rather, the Android Market) told you at install-time that they wanted access to your Google accounts. Anyone who didn't back out on seeing that... well, I wouldn't say "deserves what they get", but I will say "was adequately forewarned".

  19. Re:Why would you need it by AltairDusk · · Score: 2, Funny

    Instead, I have to say 'the droid is known to have data stealing apps and no I can't tell you which ones suck ass, just get yourself an iPhone so apple can protect you, its far easier on all of us'

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

    You imply that you're tech-savvy and then in the same post assume Apple will protect them? Sneaking code by Apple is completely impossible! Oh wait...

  20. Re:Developers Bitch by kyz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apple is doing an equally bad job of protecting its ecosystem.

    There have been several customer-data-grabbing iPhone apps, and these have only been yanked after members of the public alerted Apple to them.

    Pinchmedia: http://i-phone-home.blogspot.com/2009/07/pinchmedia-anatomy-of-spyware-vendor.html

    Storm8: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail??blogid=150&entry_id=51077

    MogoRoad: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/30/iphone_security/

    Smuggling tethering past the censors: http://top10.com/mobilephones/news/2010/07/app_smuggles_tethering_onto_iphone/

    Apple don't look at the source code of apps, they just test the binary and scan it for badness.

    Provided the binary encrypts its strings, and does nothing dodgy during the short testing window (less than two weeks), Apple approve it.

    Apple's custodianship doesn't protect you from determined data thieves, only the incompetent ones.

    Android market, while just as bad as Apple, at least gives you the opportunity to decide if you want an app based on what permissions it demands. If it demands too much, you reject it. Once you give it the "OK", it can't turn around and demand more. I'd prefer that Apple added that (telling you what permissions the code has, not letting it have more), even if they keep their approval process.

    --
    Does my bum look big in this?
  21. Re:Developers Bitch by diamondsw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The tethering app wasn't discovered because it was extremely difficult to trigger - it required very specific network settings, a multi-step setup process, and tapping different colors in a specific pattern just to enable the tether. Very different from discovering an app is sending your data off wholesale.

    The hidden tethering app is only going to be discovered via thorough code decompilation and analysis. Sending chunks of data to a random server for no appreciable purpose can be found easily via tcpdump.

    --
    I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
  22. Re:Developers Bitch by diamondsw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Such reporting wasn't disallowed until very recently. There was a very good reason for it as well - developers then got that data back so they could tell how many people were still on old OS versions, what the uptake was on a new OS, and could plan their features and releases accordingly.

    The only reason Apple got upset is it revealed prototype OS versions in their lab as a side effect.

    --
    I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
  23. Re:I'm not by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What malicious apps have gotten through Apple's approval process? I'm open to any links you may have. Don't bother linking to the guy who hacked into iTunes accounts and used them to buy his otherwise legitimate app -- the app itself was not malicious, so there's no reason to blame the approval process for the incident.

    You say "tethering apps" as if that's a bad thing. The app didn't steal any data, or use any APIs that could reveal the user's personal data. Apple checks all submissions against their list of approved APIs... an app that steals personal data would have to use unapproved or custom APIs and would therefore be rejected from the app store.

    I'm not saying Apple's approval process is perfect, but it *is* set up to catch malicious data-stealing apps.

  24. Re:Developers Bitch by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The approval process didn't do any good when data was stolen from Apple users a month or two ago. A bunch of people were charged for apps they never bought, and several apps were removed from the app store, but a full explanation from Apple was never offered.

    So I guess you think that it's totally irrelevant that a) the stolen data had nothing to do with the app approval process, and b) the data was not stolen by the approved apps?

    Yeah, let's blame the approval process for something to which it is completely unrelated. *eye roll*

  25. There is a lot of FUD in these stories by gotpoetry · · Score: 3, Interesting

    These wallpaper apps cannot access your contact's phone numbers, SMS messages or personal information.

    Check out the manifest permissions on the apps in question. It is the last item that is the problem.

    !Storage
    modify Delete

    !Your location
    coarse (network-based) location

    !Network communication
    full Internet access

    !Phone calls
    read phone state and identity

    The permission only allow the app to read the IMEI number of your phone (your hardware's unique identifying number), your phone number, and your currently programmed voice-mail number. If you hard coded your voice-mail password as part of your voice-mail number, then they have that too.

    They shouldn't be stealing this info, and Google should separate "read phone state" from "read identity", but the stories on this app stating that your SMS's, contacts and grandmother's girdle being stolen and sent to China just plain wrong.

  26. Re:Gee, if only... by DeskLazer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    you apparently missed the comments in the threads above; things have still snuck by the apple store folk. the only real way to catch this stuff is be conscious of what you're installing, and report suspicious items.

    from user -kyz:
    Apple is doing an equally bad job of protecting its ecosystem.

    There have been several customer-data-grabbing iPhone apps, and these have only been yanked after members of the public alerted Apple to them.

    Pinchmedia: http://i-phone-home.blogspot.com/2009/07/pinchmedia-anatomy-of-spyware-vendor.html

    Storm8: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail??blogid=150&entry_id=51077

    MogoRoad: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/30/iphone_security/

    Smuggling tethering past the censors: http://top10.com/mobilephones/news/2010/07/app_smuggles_tethering_onto_iphone/


    the moral of the story is, it doesn't matter if it's closed or open-source. the end user is still the difference maker.

  27. Re:News flash! by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2, Informative

    Read the paper by Nick Seriot to see what iPhone apps can do without users being aware of it. And given that iPhone apps can be obfuscated to avoid automatic analysis by Apple, the real question is, how many apps are on the app store that steal your data without anyone knowing about it? Bear in mind that this report is here because Android apps tell you what they can do when you install them. All this company did was grep the market for apps that seemed to request more permissions than they should for their category.