Slashdot Mirror
Google Finally Uses Remote Kill Switch On Malware
Hugh Pickens writes writes "The Google Mobile Team has announced that in addition to removing the 21 malicious applications from Android Market that were downloaded 50,000 times, suspending the associated developer accounts, and contacting law enforcement about the attacks, they are remotely removing the malicious applications from affected devices. 'We are pushing an Android Market security update to all affected devices that undoes the exploits to prevent the attacker(s) from accessing any more information from affected devices,' wrote the team on their blog. 'For affected devices, we believe that the only information the attacker(s) were able to gather was device-specific (IMEI/IMSI, unique codes which are used to identify mobile devices, and the version of Android running on your device).' Google's actions come after numerous complaints in tech publications. "Does Google really want its Android Market to gain the reputation of being a cesspool of malware? 'Certainly not,' wrote Nicholas Deleon in TechCrunch. 'But then part of the allure of the Android Market is that it's open; you don't have to play by Google's rules, per se, to get on there like you do with Apple's App Store.'"
Good job again google. That's why you're on top.
Correction: The malware was downloaded 260,000 times, not 50,000 as initially reported. source
If I was to s/Apple/Google/ people would be declaring how this is censorship and true evil and how Apple kills a kitten every time someone jailbreaks an iPhone.
And the reason for Apple's 'Walled Garden' helps prevent malware for reaching the app store to begin with.
These "remote removal" schemes seem to come with a "sole discretion" clause. Not, say, "after confirmation by the US Computer Emergency Response Team".
But then part of the allure of the Android Market is that it's open; you don't have to play by Google's rules, per se, to get on there like you do with Apple's App Store.
This might be true with respect to application developers but not hardware manufacturers such as Archos. To remain cost-competitive with iPod touch, Archos devices are missing various input and output components not needed in a portable media player, such as a cellular radio, compass, and GPS. However, because certain versions of Google's Android Compatibility Definition Document (CDD) list these components as requirements, Archos hasn't been able to include the Android Market application with the devices. To access the Market (and not the AppsLib that has a far smaller selection), one needs hacks that Google could cease-and-desist, just like it cease-and-desisted CyanogenMod for including Google applications.
What does this even mean? Apple wouldn't use their total control over their devices to remove malware from them? Of course they would, and they should!
And the reason for Apple's 'Walled Garden' helps prevent malware for reaching the app store to begin with.
it didnt stop that flashlight app which doubled as a tethering tool - explicitly against apples rules at the time from getting approved, why would it stop malware?
How the hell did you get to +5 insightful by implying that we can't tell the difference between preventing people from doing what they want with a device, and preventing developers from taking advantage of users?
Seriously, this is like implying that when we say "Good job" about putting spammers behind bars, you're surprised we weren't defending their freedom of speech. I know it's tempting to think in soundbites, but this isn't hard.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Angy Birds, for example, collects a heck of a lot of personal information on the iPhone. Why? Because the user isn't warned about it. Their Android application has so far been much cleaner, mostly because Android asks the user to give the app permission to access certain data.
Link: http://www.observer.com/2010/media/angry-birds-and-other-must-have-apps-collect-more-personal-data-you-think
I was stupid enough myself to buy a Sony-Ericsson Android device only for them to basically drop it a month later, so presumably it will always be vulnerable to the holes used by this round of malware?
The reason for Apple's 'Walled Garden' has little to do with security, and Everything to do with control.
And they didn't catch the tethering app, what makes you think they would catch malware?
Malware could simply do something mundane until after Apple have done their tests, and then activate its malicious functions later down the line when lots of users have it installed.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
What would be nice, is even if the market place is left open, there would be an option to pay Google to certify your application. The idea being that people can then choose between "certified" apps or uncertified ones. This would help give users some sort of reassurance, but still leave the choice option open.
As to the kill switch, does Google print a list of applications to which it was applied?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
One of the things I noticed was "and contacting law enforcement about the attacks". I think that could be a pretty good standard to follow for using a remote-deactivation capability, to prevent it from being abused. "If it's serious enough to use a kill switch, it's serious enough that someone will be filing a lawsuit, and we're sure enough of it that we're reporting it to police (under threat of perjury)."
This is probably the best compromise. Obviously, some people would prefer no kill switch at all, while others would like the kill switch to be used on practically anything they don't like. If "serious enough and sure enough to sue" is the standard being used, it won't affect free speech (since, if you would be sued over it already, we've already lost that battle), and it makes accidents much less likely. Now, requiring that lawsuit to be won would make it even safer, but you run into the problem of it continuing to do damage for the years it takes to finally settle the suit.
Overall, I would like to see that standard officially written and adopted, even if it isn't made legally binding. It would make me feel a lot better about the existence of a kill switch, knowing that it will only be used in truly serious cases.
The fact that Apple's approval process isn't PERFECT at stopping everything doesn't mean that Google's policy of stopping NOTHING until a quarter of a million people have already downloaded the malware is a good idea.
If smartphones were only owned/used by tech savvy people like most of us commenting/reading here, then their hands off approach to the Android Marketplace wouldn't be such a big deal, but thats not the case. Google and the carriers are marketing Android as an OS not just for the nerds but for everyone, because of that I think Google bears responsibility for what happened. Their hands off policy in the Android Marketplace pu users at significant risk for this malware in the first place, and does nothing to prevent it from happening again. Openness has its advantages, but those advantages are primarily useful to a select few. MOST users want a smartphone that is easy to use and lets them do things like browse the internet, check e-mail, consume media and play some games. MOST users are not tech savvy, and therefore MOST users aren't even going to know what to look for to try and avoid malware like this. Whats worse is that MOST users think Google is a trustworthy company so they will assume that the official Android Marketplace that ships on their phones and is provided by Google is a safe place to obtain apps. As we have found out recently, that is far from the truth. Google's free-for-all marketplace approach is harmful to average users. I'm not saying that the answer is to lock down Android to he same extent that Apple and Microsoft have done, but the totally open Android Marketplace should be an alternative, not the primary source. As the provider of the experience Google needs to set up a trusted marketplace where they put more scrutiny and oversight into apps and make THAT the default experience for the user. From within that marketplace Google could offer access to the untamed wilds that currently exist today, but MOST users wouldn't need to venture into that space, and would therefore be at far less risk than they are now.
Google:
Within minutes of becoming aware, we identified and removed the malicious applications.
But from the comments in the blog post, we can read that:
This is where the problem is. You became aware because someone had a contact inside Google who alerted to right people.
According to one of the developers of the hijacked applications, he had tried for almost a week to get in contact with someone through the normal channels to correct the situation.
I am sorry if I sounds harsh, but Google are a master of data processing, and surely you should be able to pick up a distress call from a developer within hours instead of a week.
Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
Well yes you're right. Control is needed to try and attempt to keep quality high both in content and coding and to help keep security high.
Mobiles are different from desktops and I think resorting to virus scanning on mobiles would be awful. While Apple's approach is by no means perfect it is actually looking like the best solution. I just don't bother with the app market for my Android. There is a lot of shit in the market to sift through and while being concerned with how many apps ask for all sorts of permissions we're now finding out that actually a lot of bad stuff is getting through and not being found straight away.
I do think my next phone will be an iPhone. The games are definitely better and until Google proves to at least be more proactive on filtering out the rubbish then I just can't trust the apps and what is the point of a smart phone without apps?
If Google can tell me what the app needs access too then surely there is some way they could come up with a system that flags apps ask having questionable requirements and requiring someone at Google to personally review it before it makes it onto the market.
When you want people to tie all their personal information and even payment methods (ie Google Checkout) to a device it needs to have some sort of security. It is not good enough to kill it after it's been downloaded a quater of a million times. Alternatively they can come up with some sort of mobile virus / malware scanner and risk complaints about battery life and performance.
Of course if it's in the terms-and-conditions of connecting to the provider, that's something different. But otherwise ... heck, if I want to doodle on my copy of 'The Brief history of time', that's my affair. Not the publishers, or Hawk's.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Because we know that Google has the guts to be controversial and do this, while Apple probably wouldn't.
So Apple got attacked when people heard the iPhone had a "kill switch" for apps - and then Google gets cheered on for actually using theirs on Android many times over - and then Apple gets attacked for not using theirs once?
Fandroids hate facts.
1. Add time trigger to make the app only access bad stuff after a certain date or have it fetch a trigger from some server...
2. Turn over binary to apple.
3. Get verified.
4. flip switch
5. ???
6. Profit?
And the reason for Apple's 'Walled Garden' helps prevent malware for reaching the app store to begin with.
it didnt stop that flashlight app which doubled as a tethering tool - explicitly against apples rules at the time from getting approved, why would it stop malware?
Of course the real question is: if it isn't the walled garden, what else stops malware on iOS? And how can Android use that?
Fandroids hate facts.
Only the IMEI/IMSI!? You know only the things that uniquely identify YOUR phone among millions, and two pieces of information that are necessary required to clone a phone or SIM.
The attackers only got those, they weren't able to get anything important like facebook logins or anything...
Then why has Google required GPS even to be able to download applications that do not use the GPS, a compass even to be able to download applications that do not use a compass, telephony even to be able to download applications that do not use telephony, etc.? Can you recommend a product that A. runs Android, B. costs $200 to $300 like an iPod touch without a telephone service commitment, C. meets the min specs for access to the platform's largest app market, and D. is sold in the United States, which is my home country and Slashdot's? Unlocked phones tended to fail B last time I checked, Archos 43 fails C, and Samsung Galaxy Player failed D last time I checked.
I bought my 16GB iphone for about $189 at my Apple Store. I renewed my 2-yr contract with Verizon and got an additional discount which I assume was for customer loyalty. Hopefully, you have an option like that available to you. I initially bought a Droid X full price. I don't think the iPhone is that much more expensive than full retail price I paid for my Droid.
The one thing I do love about Android phones is that I can write my own app and put it onto my phone. I need only checkmark a setting that lets me load non-market apps at my own risk. I don't have that ability with iPhone. I'm still waiting to get listed as an iPhone dev, but once that happens I believe it will mean I can live test my own homegrown apps on iPhone after (at least if my reading of Apple's terms is correct).
I believe we're giving undue credit to Android for being open. Android itself is open and free. But from what I've seen on the various HTC and Motorola Androids I've bought in the last year, each vendor's specific Android is not that open. Is Moto's Blur not proprietary? What about HTC's Sense UI? I've been told countless times to stop supporting Motorola because Motorola locks down their phones, thus taking away from that openness that is Android. Is it all a lie? People are telling me to buy HTC because they play well with modders.
I wasn't able to install all I wanted on my Droid. I was told I needed to root the phone. I had to wait until someone found a way to, and then risk following the steps. So, if at the end of the day, I'm still forced to root rather than jailbreak, how exactly am I realizing the difference between free and proprietary software? I haven't jailbroken my iPhone yet. I likely won't until I decide I absolutely need to have a bluetooth file transfer (something iPhone lacks), but until I do, I can at least enjoy an app market that is better for my needs.