Slashdot Mirror
Researcher To Release Web-Based Android Attack
CWmike writes "A computer security researcher says he plans to release code Thursday that could be used to attack some versions of Google's Android phones over the Internet. The attack targets the browser in older, Android 2.1-and-earlier versions of the phones. It is being disclosed Thursday at the HouSecCon conference by M.J. Keith, a security researcher with Alert Logic. Keith says he has written code that allows him to run a simple command line shell in Android (video) when the victim visits a website that contains his attack code. The bug used in Keith's attack lies in the WebKit browser engine used by Android. Google said it knows about the vulnerability. 'We're aware of an issue in WebKit that could potentially impact only old versions of the Android browser,' Google spokesman Jay Nancarrow confirmed in an e-mail. 'The issue does not affect Android 2.2 or later versions.' Version 2.2 runs on 36.2 percent of Android phones, Google says"
So many phone makers seem to think the worst thing in the world is to provide users an official update. Maybe this will get them in gear.
As an aside, does anyone know what phone makers are good about keeping updates coming?
Isn't this roughly similar to the effects obtained by the earlier exploits on iOS? However, there many users first feeling was some relief from the monolithic Apple gate system, but here on Android the spin feels more like traditional tech news.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Isn't this roughly similar to the effects obtained by the earlier exploits on iOS?
Technically it is. But unless you bought your Android phone from AT&T, you have the option to put in your own command prompt through "Unknown sources". So any jailbreaks for Android are considered less necessary, and the risk outweighs the benefit.
Because we've seen from history that most companies won't patch an exploit unless it's screaming at them, and that most exploits are picked up by people who wish actual harm on you before security researchers find them.
Hopefully this will force some device manufacturers to release 2.2 updates for their devices, and with any luck it'll teach them to stick with stock android rather than loading crapware.
--sitharus
"A computer security researcher says he plans to release code Thursday that could be used to attack some versions of Google's Android phones over the Internet. The attack targets the browser in older, Android 2.1-and-earlier versions of the phones.
How can he be permitted to release something, which when used as intended, does harm to others? This is insane...and he does it "in the light of day!"
Other tools that folks have used to harm others have dual use...but for this code, I do not see any use save for harm. What am I missing?
He is publishing code that can be used to exploit a vulnerability. This could be used for malicious purposes, or it could be used for security demonstrations, as an example to be taught to infosec students or any of a ton of other academic and/or security-related purposes. He is not actually using the code to do anything malicious. Please tell me exactly what statute he is in violation of? Are you saying that no one should ever publish code for exploits?
Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
This is a known exploit, Google has patched it. It isn't like this is some secret thing that no one would have known about if he didn't release it; anyone who actually cares (and has the technical ability) already has the exploit. So he is not harming you really.
Typically it is considered bad form for security researchers to release exploits before informing the manufacturer. Once the manufacturer has long enough to fix it, if then it is ok to release it. Experience has shown that sometimes this is the only way to pressure manufacturers into patching it.
Another use for the code is so you can learn. I appreciate it when researchers release the code; a lot of hackers try to keep their techniques secret, and we are all worse off for it.
Qxe4
I wonder if there is any law which covers this sort of situation. The original G1 was only released like 3 years ago - not really very old, but T-Mobile has completely abandoned owners/users of the G1 and is not providing any additional updates.
Honestly, I blame Google. From day 1, it should have been mandatory that OS updates would come from Google, forever. Carriers don't give a crap about keeping users in updated code once the phone is sold. To them, it's just a device which comes in a box, gets sold, and if it becomes 'obsolete' within 2 years, well that's just another box they can sell you in 2 years.
It's absolutely inexcusable that a programmable, Internet enabled device of the complexity of a G1 should not have guaranteed security updates for the included software, for a minimum of 10 years.