Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Say Carrier IQ Isn't Logging Data, Texts

Trailrunner7 writes "Security researchers who have investigated the inner workings of the Carrier IQ software and its capabilities say the application has some powerful, and potentially worrisome capabilities, but as it's currently deployed by carriers it doesn't have the ability to record SMS messages, phone calls or keystrokes. However, the researchers note there is still potential for abuse of the information that's being gathered, whether by the carriers themselves or third parties who can access the data legitimately or through a compromise of a device. Jon Oberheide, a security researcher who has done a lot of work on Android devices, also analyzed several versions of the Carrier IQ software and found the software has the ability to record some information, but that doesn't mean it's actually doing so. That part is up to each individual carrier. However, he says the ability to collect such data is a dangerous thing. 'There is a lot of capability to collect sensitive data, which is dangerous in any scenario,' Oberheide said in an interview. 'It's up to the carriers to use the software as they choose, but you could sort of put some blame on Carrier IQ. But they put it on the carriers.'" For those who don't want to trust in the good will of Carrier IQ or carriers themselves, here are a couple ways to get it off your phone.

35 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Old news by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Funny

    If it isn't GPL-licensed and built by a collective herd of protesting armchair engineers, it must be a tool by corporate government cronies to invade our privacy and steal the vital details of how often we wash behind our ears.

    That was sarcasm.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  2. Pet Peeve: SEO and URLs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Something that's been bugging me lately is the recent trend of URLs that are optimized for SEO.

    Here are three random articles from the front page of Slashdot, Reuters, and TheStreet.com:

    Once upon a time, the important part of the URL - the identifier of 2225202 at Slashdot, idUSTRE7B019B20111205 at Reuters, and 11332765 at TheStreet - was all that a potential URL-logger got to see. URLs were not only shorter, they had meaning relevant only to that one particular site's CMS, and it required Yahoo/Google/Bing/government-sized resources to follow every such link and map URLs to content on scales as big as "everyone who uses the WWW".

    Except that nowadays, most URLs are rewritten with-redundant-text-for-SEO-purposes. Slashdot's URLs say researchers-say-carrier-iq-isnt-logging-data-texts Reuters' URLs say us-russia-election and TheStreet's URL says its-official-facebook-buys-gowalla-team.html.

    All of a sudden, if I have access to the URL stream, I can now figure out that you're interested in Carrier IQ's spyware, the Russian elections, and whatever Facebook is up to this week -- with nothing more complicated than "grep".

    I'm not advocating tinfoil haberdashery: there's no grand conspiracy of webmasters to make clickstreams greppable. It's merely a regrettable (for end user privacy) side effect of the relentless push towards SEO that organizations like Carrier IQ can get a lot more "interesting" information out of a user's clickstream than they would have been able to do as recently as two years ago.

    1. Re:Pet Peeve: SEO and URLs. by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:Pet Peeve: SEO and URLs. by discord5 · · Score: 2

      cmdr-taco-sucks-cock-for-crack-money

      And here I was wondering what he was up to lately...

    3. Re:Pet Peeve: SEO and URLs. by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The descriptive URLs are also more useful for situations where you might be seeing the URL on its own, such as in a message from a friend. A message saying "go check out story 2225202 on Slashdot" is unlikely to get someone's attention, but an address mentioning a specific issue might. In a link to an article on an unknown blog, descriptive words can inspire enough confidence to view the article, rather than lead to the expectation that the mess of numbers to be an obfuscation hiding our dear friend Goatse.

      The trend may indeed have its roots in SEO, but I, for one, like it.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    4. Re:Pet Peeve: SEO and URLs. by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      And even before that, back when websites were static things made by hand, URLs were generally human-readable and meaningful. The whole "arbitrary primary key in the URL" was a brief blip due to unsophisticated content management systems. It's not even to do with SEO; ask any consumer of a CMS if they'd rather their customers visit /story/3409u65096890547567 or /story/latest-scandel-breaks. They'll always pick the later. Large, random numbers, to most people, are ugly. If they can hide them away behind something human-readable and friendly, they will. Hence DNS.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    5. Re:Pet Peeve: SEO and URLs. by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      or /story/latest-scandel-breaks

      Spelled that way because latest-scandal-breaks was already taken?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  3. On trusting shit. by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I use any modern mobile 'phone then I assume anything I put on it and where it is can be read by the OS vendor and the carrier. The environment is too tightly controlled and lacking in openness for me to be able to come close to verifying otherwise. We can assume that the facility is only used on rare occasions because one significant revelation of data transmission will put people off buying the product, IOW the only thing keeping anyone safe is the "you're not important enough to matter" card.

    But if you're doing anything remotely interesting, whether that's in industry or activism, you'd be a fucking idiot to use the routine features of a smartphone.

  4. Re:Old news by StripedCow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Indeed, and carriers of course could already view and record text messages. They don't need an app for that.

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  5. I don't care if it is harmless by Snotman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If CarrierIQ is making money from studying my behaviors, then I want a cut or I want to uninstall their craptastic software. I should not be forced to consume software I do not want. If Android wants analytics, then build it into Android OS. My relationship is with my phone manufacturer and the OS manufacturer. I should be able to decide what other relationships I want. CarrierIQ can contact me if they think their software somehow adds value to my experience. Otherwise, do more testing.

    1. Re:I don't care if it is harmless by Fnord666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If CarrierIQ is making money from studying my behaviors, then I want a cut or I want to uninstall their craptastic software. I should not be forced to consume software I do not want. If Android wants analytics, then build it into Android OS. My relationship is with my phone manufacturer and the OS manufacturer. I should be able to decide what other relationships I want. CarrierIQ can contact me if they think their software somehow adds value to my experience. Otherwise, do more testing.

      Just to be clear, CarrierIQ didn't put the software on your phone. Your mobile phone provider, with whom you do have a relationship, put it there. If you feel that is a violation of said relationship, take it up with them. No one forced your provider to install CarrierIQ.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    2. Re:I don't care if it is harmless by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No one forced your provider ti install CarrierIQ

      And you have not a single shred of leverage to get the carrier to remove it.

      Unless and until the hue and cry becomes so loud and congress takes an interest, they will all continue to foist
      this stuff on the user, so your threat to take your business elsewhere means nothing.

      If you don't object this camel's nose, you'll have the neck and forelegs soon.

      CarrierIQ makes its living selling burglar tools. They can't survive without your acquiescence. Your carriers won't help you.

      Go Senator Franken!

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:I don't care if it is harmless by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 2

      CarrierIQ makes money if you buy a phone and install a custom kernel - most likely a per-device contract.

      CarrierIQ is making money by selling a service that carriers want. To reply to the original:

      If Android wants analytics, then build it into Android OS.

      Android doesn't, the carrier does, that's why they put it in.

      My relationship is with my phone manufacturer and the OS manufacturer.

      No, just the phone manufacturer, and only if you bought it directly. If you bought it through the carrier, your only relationship is with the carrier. They build and customize the OS because they can.

      I should be able to decide what other relationships I want.

      You buy something, sign an agreement, and don't understand all of the implications of the agreement. And blame the other party.

      You can't get a closed software phone, or closed anything, and trust anything about it. This has been proven repeatedly, and there are people who investigate everything - from what Microsoft sends with its crash or WGA data, to what Apple stores in its GPS logs.

      If you care about your privacy, but you trust closed software until someone else tests it and brings up concerns, you don't deserve your cut of anything.

      Your carriers won't help you. Go Senator Franken!

      And if you depend on Congress to investigate and change the rules, remember Citizens United. It will only go so far, and it won't protect the next technology company on the next wave of technology. They investigated Apple for GPS logging, it didn't stop this. They investigated Facebook's privacy settings, it didn't stop this. Even if Congress puts a complete halt to this, it won't affect anything that comes next.

      If you value privacy, you will not use anything you don't understand completely. Packet captures, wireless dumps, debugging, hell disassemble everything. Either care about it, or accept that everyone is spying on everything you do until you make sure they aren't. If that means coating your house in a Faraday cage so your TV can't be made out, it's up to you to understand that your TV can be viewed through your wall, or don't use a TV.

      You can't leave this up to Congress. Talk with your wallet. Cancel your contract AND ACCEPT THE ETF. If you want to fight the fee, good luck in arbitration because you probably agreed to "data collection in support of our network" and "arbitration instead of a lawsuit". And unless you contributed more to a Senator's PAC than the wireless company did, you have a very slim chance of getting results. Franken can make a stick, but he can't change anything unless the majority agrees, and the other chamber. And I guarantee you didn't contribute to every congress person's campaign. Sometimes the system works, but it's rare.

  6. seriously by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do people try and point a finger at CarrierIQ? Do you blame Smith & Western every time someone gets shot? Do you blame Volvo when someone steps in front of one of their busses? Do you blame Jack Daniels when someone drinks themself to death? If anyone wants to do any finger pointing it should be at the one responsible for installing and configuring the software - the carriers themselves.

    1. Re:seriously by confused+one · · Score: 2

      Damn. It's almost like you planned it... I'm certain S&W has been sued over use of their guns. Volvo... Look up European regulations requiring manufacturers to make their cars and trucks safer to pedestrians. Jack Daniels has been sued by the families of alcoholics. So, apparently, people do blame the vendor for irresponsible use of their products even if it is outside of the vendor's control or the intended use of the product.

    2. Re:seriously by Vegemeister · · Score: 2

      Because there are no legitimate uses of this software. And no, data mining is not legitimate.

  7. Re:Don't confuse the masses with legalese please by TimeOut42 · · Score: 2

    Go to jail over what? Nobody has really proved anything. Driving a car is dangerous under any scenario; someone should go to jail over this!

    Bottom line, knee jerk report about stuff showing up in the logcat; research done. I didn't see anyone listening on the wire to see what was actually being sent, how it was being sent or give Carrier IQ and the carriers a chance to explain. It was just people with pitchforks and torches.

  8. Re:Old news - maybe not by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This was known days ago. Of course that fucks up your nice little conspiracy theory, so it wasn't posted.

    Carrier IQ has admitted that it records URLs of every web site you visit on your mobile device, and sends it to the carrier.
    So there is another subpoena target for the authorities. Even your ISP doesn't necessarily get that information. Why should your carrier?

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  9. Re:Why is CarrierIQ an issue? by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to this video Carrier IQ has the ability to capture URLs that are entered, including HTTPS URLs. When a browser makes a secure connection (HTTPS), the URL is encrypted before the browser transmits it to the target webserver to protect any sensitive information it may contain. So the carrier would not be able to log such URLs through their equipment -- Carrier IQ allows them to do it by intercepting before encryption is applied.

  10. Re:Old news - maybe not by TimeOut42 · · Score: 2

    Do you really think that the carrier doesn't already know that information? Your ISP does get that information; it has to route your packets using something other than magic fairy dust. They even use that information to shape their traffic and optimize their proxy servers.

  11. Re:Don't confuse the masses with legalese please by Luckyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why does someone "have to go to jail"? Will it fix something? Or is will tickle your sadistic fetish?

    We don't live in times when lynching the first black guy who crosses the path of lynch mob was the right way to get justice for rape done by your neighbor, and that's exactly what you're asking for here.

    People signed the contract that allowed them to do this. There are no laws that were broken. You and your neighbors elected people who decided that there was nothing illegal about this, as long as they were using it properly, to monitor the status of your phone in relation to their network. So far there has been no evidence of this being untrue. Just because the program gives them the ability to do much more then that doesn't mean it was USED to do much more. This is the argument used to allow us to do things from driving cars to owning guns for fuck's sake. Why does it suddenly become invalid here?

    Therefore if someone should "go to jail", perhaps a long look into the mirror is in order?

  12. Re:Old news - maybe not by pclminion · · Score: 2

    Carrier IQ has admitted that it records URLs of every web site you visit on your mobile device, and sends it to the carrier.

    In other news, Netgear admits that sometimes malicious packets travel through routers made by Netgear, and Intel concedes that it enables x86-based malware by continuing to produce microprocessors. The software was paid for and installed by the carriers. Carrier IQ is a solution provider.

  13. Re:Old news by migla · · Score: 2

    Yeah! Stupid freedom mongers! Corporations would never lie to us! It's so stupid being a little person interested in sharing. Being a corporate lackey is where it's at. Kiss up - kick down! :)

    --
    Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
  14. Re:Old news by Pf0tzenpfritz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fact is: They sold you a phone with a rootkit installed that could record and transmit anything without your notice or your consent. That's still fucking bad enough for me. Claiming that "it wasn't activated by default" doesn't change a bit of it.

    --
    Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
  15. Re:Don't confuse the masses with legalese please by erroneus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, the trend of late is to use customers as additional products for sale often without the consent of the customers who are being [ab]used. It may take some doing to get law to reflect the moral problems of this sort of thing, but you can bet if the kind of data they are collecting on others was collected on the perpetrators and made public, it might make a few of them a bit upset to the point to taking legal action. No one want this done to them and especially not the ones doing it. So the morality of all this is certainly not in question. Now we just need some "do unto others" put into law.

    Someone needs to go to jail to stop the avalanche of "me-too-ism" on this gold rush to exploit consumers.

  16. Re:Old news - maybe not by trikes57+ · · Score: 2

    Your ISP does get that information; it has to route your packets using something other than magic fairy dust.

    Wait,,,,
    Doesn't ones browser resolve the IP address using DNS, and then send the request directly?
    Do ISP DNS servers log such look-ups?

    I can't imagine an ISP, unless they are running a caching proxy, having the ability to log every single URL from every browser on their network. Even when they do run a caching proxy its a LRU+Currant content computation, not a logging operation. High volume pages stay current because they are hit frequently.

    I think the GP meant that your ISP does not log URLs other than those on their own web servers. The rest pass thru as data.

  17. Nature of the install by wickerprints · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As usual, the crux of the matter has to do with TRANSPARENCY and CONSUMER CONSENT. The question of whether or not CarrierIQ is actually capturing user behavior through the software is important, but actually secondary to the fact that the carriers themselves do not TELL the consumer that (1) we've installed this logging software on your device; (2) it is not possible through normal means to deactivate it; (3) this software runs without any disclosure or agreement in your contract; (4) this software runs on your device even if you are no longer under contract or even subscribed as our customer; and (5) this software is not an integrated component of the device's operating system.

    And why don't they tell you these things? Because they can get away with it. The fact that this software is so hidden from the user, and is NEVER mentioned in any of the legal documentation you are asked to sign, is all the reason why the consumer cannot and should not be expected to simply take either the mobile network operator or CarrierIQ at their word when they say they're not tracking personally identifiable information. Yes, researchers have chimed in with their findings. But such broad, unregulated, and pervasive tools as CarrierIQ have enormous potential for abuse, and it is simply unacceptable to allow these companies to just chalk it up to "sorry we kept this a secret from you, but TRUST US, it's all perfectly innocent." Yeah, bullshit. If it were truly so innocuous, why did you go through such lengths to hide it and make it difficult to disable or remove?

    1. Re:Nature of the install by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 2

      If you read your contract, you agreed. And, they can already see nearly everything anyway. If you bought the phone directly and not through a carrier, you probably have a valid legal situation, but they most likely don't install CARRIERIQ on a direct purchased phone. And as for the post-termination data collection, I haven't seen anything showing the data is sent anywhere after the contract is terminated, or in fact any actual packet capture of any data sent - only internal events being fired.

      Every text you send, they already have because they have to send it. Every non-encrypted request, they have the full URL If you're counting on SSL to protect you, consider SSL and TLS 1.0 plaintext

      If you start a proprietary app like Yelp or Shazam, you have no guarantee they are using any encryption, and should assume everything is being seen by your carrier.

      Their disclosure should read, very simply, we are going to know everything you do because it's going over our network. But that would freak people out, so they don't.

      Carrier IQ allows a higher level of detail, but it has not been proven to send anything but aggregate statistics which legitimately could help your carrier isolate problems without people having to call. The only concern I have is that the captured events might be a target for malware.

      They don't want users uninstalling it because it's useful information.

      If you want full disclosure, you're going to have to build the kernel yourself, and read every line of the code, or disassemble it. Otherwise, read every line of your contract and assume the most lenient interpretation.

      Short version: do not buy a subsidized phone.

  18. Intelligence Everywhere by clonehappy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's the thing. I think this whole CarrierIQ debacle is being played up in the media for exactly the reason stated in the title, because it ISN'T logging data, texts. It really isn't sending your data back to the carrier, government, or whomever. What it does, is far beyond the understanding of the average consumer of the nightly news. So the media will trot out the experts who say, "This software does not send your data back to the carrier, it just hooks the keyboard for diagnostic purposes at a level beneath the userland of the Android operating system."

    And, whoosh.

    In the minds of the masses, it was harmless.

    But it isn't harmless. The software certainly has the capability of monitoring/logging/reporting every keypress on the phone and sending it to whomever it's configured to send it to. No one outside the "slashdot-esque" crowd knows much about rootkits, system hooks, etc. etc., however. But now, whenever someone mentions the fact that phones are spying on you, everyone can come out and say "No, they're not. Didn't you hear? CarrierIQ was harmless. You're a tinfoil-hat nutter!" Even though they still will be monitoring everyone, either through this method, ones hidden better, at the switching center, or voluntarily (Facebook, etc.) And it'll be business as usual.

    Right now, you can be pretty certain your phone isn't doing any real, wholesale spying, since to transport that amount of voice/video, or whatever type of data will kill your connection and drain your battery faster than you can say "fourth amendment" (until you connect to wi-fi, of course). The real trojan horses are the 4G networks. Especially once LTE connections are the norm, it will be trivial to log a tremendous amount of real-time "intelligence" (because that's exactly what these phones are, intelligence gathering tools) and quickly whisk it up to whomever wants to see your data without you noticing. I'm sure it'll be as simple as someone in a spook hideout pressing a button and, voila, the 4G network is providing them a real-time peek and listen into your life.

    They're not kidding: Intelligence Everywhere!

  19. Re:Old news by alienzed · · Score: 2

    In fact, by definition they do do this as they act as the intermediary between any two devices.

    --
    Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
  20. What is Carrier IQ for? by microphage · · Score: 2

    "United States Patent US 7,551,922 B2 Jun. 23, 2009"

    "tracks the data collection activity occurring on the devices and maintains detailed information about the specific data collection profiles that are active on the devices .. The queries may be structured in such a way that performance information is gathered about the effect of a simple activity, such as a button press by the user, or information may be gathered about more complex transactions" link

  21. This isn't a rebuttal by izomiac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here's a quick summary regarding keystroke logging made by the two recent articles:

    Original video that demonstrated CarrierIQ logging keystrokes. I.e. not a theoretic capability, nor a risk, but actual entries into the system log. This was performed on an stock HTC Evo 3D.

    This article is asserting that CarrierIQ does not contain the necessary hooks for keystroke logging on the Samsung Epic 4G Touch.

    IOW, the two articles are not making the same claim. It is already known that different phones have different versions of CarrierIQ. This article isn't claiming that no phone has the capability to log keystrokes, merely that the Epic does not. The original article wasn't claiming that all phones are logging keystrokes, merely that the Evo is. Methinks someone is trying to manipulate public opinion, as the original video is surprisingly difficult to find, and this article's claims were immediately exaggerated and that version of the story was popularized.

  22. Re:Old news by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 2

    If it isn't GPL-licensed and built by a collective herd of protesting armchair engineers, it must be a tool by corporate government cronies to invade our privacy and steal the vital details of how often we wash behind our ears.

    That was sarcasm.

    No, that was below the belt! We were on a rant high and there you come and spoil the party.

    Seriously though, logging stuff you would send over SSL is pretty scary. It circumvents the whole concept of being able to communicate securely over an insecure medium. Then CIQ isn't killable or removable by mortals. Still CIQ cs. claim they only press petals.

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  23. Not the point by Casandro · · Score: 2

    The point is that if I buy a computer, I should do exactly what I want it to do. Installing any sort of software which I don't want for any reason is a step in the wrong direction.

    Seriously, we need to get the operators and the hardware companies out of the software loop. I get my software from one place, the hardware from another and the wireless service comes from a third.

  24. Re:Old news - maybe not by bentcd · · Score: 2

    Carrier IQ may still be snooping at a level closer to the user, and therefore getting more accurate information.

    I have set up my Android browser (Firefox) to use a local proxy which is an ssh tunnel to a trusted web server somewhere. I do this so I can happily use all manner of suspicious open wi-fis at restaurants, hotels and such. (I wouldn't mind running without the ssh tunnel when I'm using mobile broadband from my telcom but switching Firefox back and forth between the two modes is just too impractical.)

    In this case, my telcom/ISP wouldn't see my web traffic only by inspecting my packets because they're all ssh traffic. Carrier IQ might still have the actual URLs though if it captures them directly from the web browser.

    --
    sigs are hazardous to your health