Slashdot Mirror


Defending Your Cellphone Against Malware

Hugh Pickens writes "Kate Murphy writes that as cellphones have gotten smarter, they have become less like phones and more like computers, and that with more than a million phones worldwide already hacked, technology experts expect breached, infiltrated or otherwise compromised cellphones to be the scourge of 2012. Cellphones are often loaded with even more personal information than PCs, so an undefended or carelessly operated phone can result in a breathtaking invasion of individual privacy as well as the potential for data corruption and outright theft. But there are a few common sense ways to protect yourself: Avoid free, unofficial versions of popular apps that often have malware hidden in the code, avoid using Wi-Fi in a Starbucks or airport which leaves you open to hackers, and be wary of apps that want permission to make phone calls, connect to the Internet or reveal your identity and location." Pickens continues: "One common ruse is a man-in-the middle attack when a target receives a text message that claims to be from his or her cell service provider asking for permission to 'reprovision' or otherwise reconfigure the phone's settings due to a network outage or other problem. Don't click 'O.K.' Call your carrier to see if the message is bogus. For the more paranoid, there are supersecure smartphones like the Sectéra Edge by General Dynamics, commissioned by the Defense Department for use by soldiers and spies which may soon be available to the public in the near future. 'It's like any arms race,' says mobile security consultant Michael Pearce. 'No one wins, but you have to go ahead and fight anyway.'"

157 comments

  1. Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Use a Blackberry. Lack of apps aside, even if the malware authors want to code one, the antiquate API would drive them to whiskey abuse.

    1. Re:Easy fix by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

      Use a Blackberry. Lack of apps aside, even if the malware authors want to code one, the antiquate API would drive them to whiskey abuse.

      Use a BlackBerry? But how will I get my "totallies freez and safes, I promizz" LOL Catz knockoff? My phone wants catz that wantz cheezeburgerz, and I don't want to spend $1 to do it!

    2. Re:Easy fix by tom229 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not sure why it's status quo now to snidely disparage blackberry. Being in IT I've had experience using every droid on the market as well as the flashy new siri and I still prefer my 9900 over them all. I'll take an actual keyboard and the convenience of BES over an angry birds app any day.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    3. Re:Easy fix by Billlagr · · Score: 1

      I wholeheartedly agree

    4. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And get off my lawn!

    5. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Because Slashdot has long since ceased being a haven for IT folk; rather, it's now a wretched hive of fanboys and people who think they're clever by replacing the s in 'Microsoft' with a dollar sign.

    6. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that you made this post after RIM gets dismantled sometime within the next 6 months.

    7. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And smug jackasses who call everyone else "Fanboys" and think they're clever because of it.

    8. Re:Easy fix by zonky · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Blackberry is perfect for email, but the browser is just terrible :(

      I miss my blackberry everytime i write an email, but i would miss my android more as a useful device.

    9. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you used an BlackBerry in recently? Since OS6 they've had an Webkit based browser and since OS7 it's actually a more standard compliant HTML5 browser then even Android 4.0. It's true that prior to OS6 the browser on a BlackBerry was fucking terrible, but an Webkit browser has been available for over a year and a half now.

    10. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And also because Blackberries really do suck compared to every basically other phone smartphone, but don't let the dumb stereotyping get in the way of the facts.

    11. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blackberry is perfect for email, but the browser is just terrible :(

      I miss my blackberry everytime i write an email, but i would miss my android more as a useful device.

      This blasphemy could only be stated by one who has not had experianced the HELL of upkeeping Blackberrys Enterprize Server.

    12. Re:Easy fix by tom229 · · Score: 1

      It's a standard webkit based HTML5 browser since OS6 which puts it exactly on par with safari. When BB10 releases the browser will also support flash and, perhaps, (don't quote me) java.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    13. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a noun begins with a consonant, use "a". (e.g., a Blackberry)
      If it begins with a vowel, use "an". (e.g., an iPhone)
      There are some exceptions, but I don't want to overwhelm you.

    14. Re:Easy fix by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      There are several reasons to use a Blackberry, and the most significant (from a business user's perspective) is that the Blackberry will do voice-dialing for the phone, while some Android phones (such as my Sprint EVO 4G) need a separate and flaky app to do this, and others (such as my AT&T Samsung Galaxy IIs "Skyrocket") won't do it at all.

      Android "phones" are great pocket computers to which a few phone-like features have been grafted. But they aren't all that hot at actually being a "mobile phone".

      Blackberries are fairly good mobile phones, with a few computer-like features. It's a matter of emphasis.

    15. Re:Easy fix by jc42 · · Score: 1

      It's a standard webkit based HTML5 browser since OS6 which puts it exactly on par with safari.

      So, just out of curiosity, does it also have the same major usability killer as Safari on the iPhone and iPad? I'm talking, of course, about the way that it formats text, drawing it for a window much larger than the screen, and then shrinking it (and the font size) to illegibility. And not "reflowing" if you rotate the screen, showing that it's equally badly formatted for both layouts. To make it legible, you have to enlarge it to get a readable font, and then scroll back and forth horizontally to read each line.

      Funny thing, I've asked about this on Apple's support forums. All the answers I got were of the form "Yeah, I've complained about that for years, and found no answer." A few people have said that the answer is to trade your iPhone or iPad in for an Android-based one that has a browser that knows how to format text. Actually, I recently found a simpler solution on my wife's iPhone: Install the Opera browser. It works fine, and does quite a good job of formatting simple text.

      Part of the puzzle is that nobody can get an explanation from Apple for why it works so poorly. The dominant theory is that it's a ruse to get people to use their "apps" rather than their browser, the "walled garden" theory, but there's no direct support for this idea. This does make a lot of web developers wary of dealing with anything that claims to be "like Safari". What's especially funny is that Safari's formatting on OS X works just fine. Maybe it's just the name that they share, with all the code different.

      (It'd be interesting if someone here at /. described a solution to the problem, when the Apple forums come up with a blank. If it really does HTML5, it should be able to ask the size of its screen and font.)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    16. Re:Easy fix by tom229 · · Score: 1

      As far as I can recall my 9900 doesn't try to "smart format" the page at all. It will zoom the page out and is readable horizontally on the screen up to about a 900-1000 pixel horizontal resolution. Occassionally websites demand they display in a minimum width of greater than this which can cause alot of annoying side scrolling, but I blame this entirely on those site's developers for not having a mobile version under those circumstances.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  2. Android only of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And of course the main platform prone to issues is android. Flame al you want but the endless reports of various significance all show it's true that android is more prone to malware than iOS and windows phone

    1. Re:Android only of course by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Funny. To me the whole issue sounds more like dupe-only than Android-only. That's a social problem, not a technical one. People who have responded to Nigerian emails in the past have something new to worry about. Me? I'm not so sure about that.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Android only of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you can get Avast! or AVG for Android now, so have fun being safe.

    3. Re:Android only of course by NotBorg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a problem with being able to run software of the user's choice. Wall it up and the problem goes away. Users are stupid therefore you make decisions for them and it becomes more secure because the primary attack vector (the user) gets cut off.

      I'm not advocating a Great Wall of China but it should be a bit harder to find malware than picking some random app from the platforms officially sponsored market place.

      --
      I want this account deleted.
    4. Re:Android only of course by Relayman · · Score: 0

      And, of course, the main PC platform prone to issues is Windows. But we get called Linux/Apple fanbois when we do...

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
  3. Blackberry? by iozozturk · · Score: 2

    Bitch please :D

    --
    twitter.com/ismetozozturk
  4. Not realistic by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and be wary of apps that want permission to ... connect to the Internet or reveal your identity and location.

    So, in other words, all apps that actually make use of the fact that it's a mobile device able to determine its position in real space to enhance the user's real-world experience...

    Sounds to me like the OS makers need to address this, and give user-level ways of doing things that don't compromise the whole system if something nefarious happens, and then also give the manufacturer of the OS the ability to alert users when the manufacturer learns of malicious applications so that they can be removed.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Not realistic by marcel · · Score: 0

      The real problem I think is the combination: allow outgoing calls & internet connectivity are a fishy combination. However, even banking apps require these two privileges here in The Netherlands at least, so it's real hard for users to validate the necessity of these privileges. I'm not sure the OS can help here, except by giving the users the ability to disable a requested privilege for an application (the application wants internet, but it's a single player Tetris clone: yeah, right). Even better: only allow 'dangerous' privileges for signed & verified applications (mainly, the ones linking the phones primary functions).

    2. Re:Not realistic by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      it's actually pretty simple.

      make the os ask for permission when the permission is needed, not when the app is installed.

      you know why they don't like that? they figured it's not a good way since it hampered app use levels on j2me phones (because most j2me phones lacked "allow always" option or making enabling that option pretty hard, users didn't like that or it was claimed to be too technical, as if it's too technical to ask an user if he wants to send a premium sms or not - ..yea smartphones and smartphone malware weren't really invented last year..).

      and having shitty mandated signing procedures.. well that trusted computing shit sucks too. the only one's lobbying for it were/are companies who figure they'd get all the permissions to make sw and making entry to sw production much steeper, and the companies which geared up sweat-labs in china so they could offer a "testing" service aka "give us 400 bucks and we'll sign it kthx" - that's pretty much why some stuff isn't available on symbian or is available from only 1-2 vendors and as a consequence costs and sucks even if it's some little simple piece of code -- and that actually has had an effect on platform popularity)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Not realistic by vakuona · · Score: 2

      Making the OS ask users for permission is not a clever idea. Either every app they install aks for pretty much the same thing, and they are conditioned to press "Yes", or the users just click "Yes" because they want the app to work.

      Curation mostly works. Yes, there are issues in terms of censorship that need to be overcome, but having a central party that at least tests the app and attempts to screen for malware can be a good thing.

    4. Re:Not realistic by Tapewolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know what Android has been up to since about 2.2, but one thing that has always irked me is that it displayed a list of "This application wants to do: X,Y,Z - Allow or Deny?"

      What I'd much prefer is if you could allow or deny individually, i.e. Internet access but not contacts or phone. However I can kind of see why they wouldn't want to do that - it could cock up the advertising funded ones.

    5. Re:Not realistic by Virtex · · Score: 3, Informative

      What I'd much prefer is if you could allow or deny individually

      If you can root your phone and install Cyanogenmod then you will gain this ability.

      --
      For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
    6. Re:Not realistic by ewanm89 · · Score: 2

      You mean like my modified /etc/hosts/ file on my rooted phone, and Avast Mobile Security firewall?

    7. Re:Not realistic by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      Blackberry does this, it even has allow,deny or prompt so you can have the os ask you each time the app wants to

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    8. Re:Not realistic by Tapewolf · · Score: 1

      What I'd much prefer is if you could allow or deny individually

      If you can root your phone and install Cyanogenmod then you will gain this ability.

      Mine's still on 5.07, so I presume it was added after that. It's working well enough now that I'm a little scared to update it, especially as it's older hardware...

    9. Re:Not realistic by narcc · · Score: 1

      What I'd much prefer is if you could allow or deny individually,

      Blackberry has had that type of fine-grained control for years. I believe that newer versions of Android have something like this as well.

    10. Re:Not realistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what Android has been up to since about 2.2, but one thing that has always irked me is that it displayed a list of "This application wants to do: X,Y,Z - Allow or Deny?"

      What I'd much prefer is if you could allow or deny individually, i.e. Internet access but not contacts or phone.

      Maybe you should get a blackberry instead. This sort of thing is very easy with a blackberry.

      You have very fine-grained control, so that you can allow an app to have wifi https connection to one ip address, but not allow http over the cellular connection to a different ip address.

      However I can kind of see why they wouldn't want to do that - it could cock up the advertising funded ones.

      The suckiness of your business model is much less important than the security of the data on my blackberry.

    11. Re:Not realistic by Rexdude · · Score: 1

      It would be better if they bifurcated internet access permission into 'internet access for only serving ads' and 'general internet access'. That way there's no risk of non internet related applications connecting to it behind your back.

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
    12. Re:Not realistic by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      Cyanogenmod allows you to restrict permissions on a per-app basis, but not at each launch. For per-launch permission management, LBE Privacy Guard is the most popular product (which I use on Cyanogenmod 7.1 on my Desire HD). I also have Lookout installed, but only as an anti-malware solution. I've no idea how effective it is, though, as I don't download LOLZ2URFONE FREE!!!1one apps from shady sources. The only test of Android AV solutions I've seen excluded Lookout, specifically because it was much more popular than the rest. I won't link it, as it's next to useless from an information-gathering perspective, and I'm getting off-topic.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    13. Re:Not realistic by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Cyanogenmod's implementation is buggy - apps force close all the time when you use it. I use LBE Privacy Guard - for whatever reason when it blocks access the app works fine. I suspect it is because the latter lies to the application, and the former generates errors or whatever. Cyanogen for some reason is morally opposed to lying to applications.

  5. Re:Or... by TWX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Avoid malware by using an iPhone. Sorry. Someone would have said it if I didn't.

    And they'd have been just as wrong too.

    The "install an infected app from the app store" route is only one of many ways to infect a device like this. A remote exploit, like how Microsoft's browser brings down hundreds of thousands of PCs a year, is much more likely IMHO to cause real widespread chaos.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  6. Presumably by deains · · Score: 5, Interesting

    By "cellphone" they actually mean "Android". I've never heard of iOS, BlackBerryOS or WinPho7 having any serious malware issues, granted there have been a couple of minor incidents, but Android seems to be the platform of choice to have your phone join a botnet.

    1. Re:Presumably by lostmagik · · Score: 0

      Any person sick of iOS contraints who jailbroken their phone has a lot to worry about malware. I personally blame the person going too slow in the speeding lane when it comes to the accident but that may be just me.

    2. Re:Presumably by wdsci · · Score: 1

      Only because Google doesn't control what Android users can put on their phones, at least not as tightly as Apple does. If you get an iPhone, it still needs to be defended against malware, but Apple does most of the work for you. That's the advantage you get for the developers giving up some of their independence.

      Also, popularity may play a role. Some metrics have Android as the most popular smartphone OS, which makes it the most enticing target for malware authors. Same reason Windows is the most virus-prone desktop OS. (Well, one of the reasons, anyway)

    3. Re:Presumably by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The major problem is that I can't HAVE Google do the work for me, and I certainly can't look into the source of most of these applications. Nevermind that I don't want to have to look into the source of applications to know if they're safe.

      If Google had a way to force vendors to give us Android updates (to close security holes) and having a separate, vetted market for applications Google has the source of and has inspected for malware and proper behavior, Android would be vastly more attractive.

      As it is, iOS and App Store cover those needs. So I bought an iPhone.

    4. Re:Presumably by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Also, popularity may play a role. Some metrics have Android as the most popular smartphone OS, which makes it the most enticing target for malware authors. Same reason Windows is the most virus-prone desktop OS. (Well, one of the reasons, anyway)

      If that were true then the malware for iOS vs Android would be in proportion to the apps for the two platforms. i.e. More for iOS than Android.

      But there's no malware for iOS.

      As to the market share. Considering just phones, iPhone was ahead until about a year ago. Then Android moved ahead. Then this last quarter, iPhone has regained it's lead.

      Considering all iOS devices vs Android,it's not clear that Android passed iOS at any stage.

    5. Re:Presumably by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there's no malware for iOS.

      Keep drinking the Apple Kool-Aid, fanboy.

    6. Re:Presumably by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      As it is, iOS and App Store cover those needs. So I bought an iPhone.

      Apple doesn't get the source, it only gets the binary. Besides, Apple itself admits that it doesn't inspect the code for Malware (it only inspects the application for proper UI behavior). It doesn't want to open itself up to the liability of having approved an app on the criteria of security when an app could still be Malware.

      The only reason iOS will have less Malware than Android is because the Apple app store has a higher barrier to entry. That's really the only reason. Malware writers need developer accounts to distribute their Malware, and they'll need many of those accounts once those accounts start getting shut down. That is really the only reason the Apple app Store is comparatively safer to Android.

      Just stop misleading yourself. Having a false sense of security because of the Apple app store can make you more of an easy mark for a malicious app.

    7. Re:Presumably by mlts · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Android has a perfect storm for this to occur:

      1: There is a low barrier for entry. One gets Eclipse, some Java tools, the Android SK, and they can write APK files. $25 later, and one can upload into Google's store. Apple is $99/year, and it requires going into ID theft territory to create another account if Apple drops the axe on an app developer. Android development can happen on Windows, Macs, and Linux. XCode only can happen on one platform, be it a true Mac, or a hackintosh.

      2: Android is used on inexpensive smartphones. This makes it a very popular platform in China, India, and other nations developing an ecosystem, as well as countries that separate the phone from the provider. So, there are a lot of the devices out there. iOS devices are very popular, but not as common and wide ranging as Android models.

      3: Android's permission model is strong, and rooting does not affect security in the slightest. An installed app won't get anything that it does not have access to, unless it manages to pull off some successful root exploit (which is difficult as the app has to escape the Dalvik VM first.)

      Where the problem happens, is that permissions are not fine grained enough. Combine this with the user training to mindlessly click on any button labeled "send/accept/OK/submit/pay/download", and an app can be tossed on a device that shouldn't have anywhere near the permissions it requested. For example, a game does not need access to a contact list.

      What would be nice is if Google went back to the modal dialogs with the permission contents in them, forcing a user to look at it, as opposed to displaying them below the button that allows for a quick double-tap purchase.

      3: The current Google app repository is more of a marketplace than a store. The good thing is that a developer can have an extremely tight and fast feedback cycle, churning out updates hourly in some cases without having to wait for a bean counter to approve them. The bad thing is that apps that are not vetted can be an avenue for malware.

      4: In some countries, pirated apps are the norm, so finding a bunch of Angry Birds APK files that have the LVL code yanked is the norm rather than the exception.

      All and all, this isn't really Google's fault -- Android went from being on the sidelines to a mainstream OS in remarkable time, especially with the fact that iOS was well entrenched with an App Store. Android matured from doing the basics to an OS that is not just consumer-friendly, but can support the needs of businesses with Exchange support.

      This is anecotal, but in the US, I'm sure the chance of a malicious app is low, even an inexperienced user just clicks on download, then accepts without looking. A clued user can look at reviews, discount the vague ones that are shills, and look for the scathing reviews. For example, a game that popped up also brought along with it some adware, and it was obvious with the 1-2 stars it was rated that something was afoot. A couple reviews of "one star, spams contact list" will sink an app before Google comes by with the ban-hammer.

      I stated this in another post, but I still think that the current Google Marketplace structure is well done. However, a significant improvement would be a tier of service of Google actively vetting apps, where an app developer who pays for the higher level of assurance (since black box reviewing of apps does take time and money) can release an app as normal. Then, Google can sign that version when they get done reviewing, and this can be on their own schedule. A subsequent update would be allowed on the store, but it would be unsigned until Google reviewed and approved it.

      This way, phones can ship by default only allowing Google-vetted apps. If a user wants to get other apps, they can answer a warning dialog about doing so at their own risk [1].

      IMHO (and I've stated this before): If Android devices shipped with a store/marketplace/repository that hand-approved apps (with facilities for allowing full

    8. Re:Presumably by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      All that link proves is you don't know the difference between vulnerabilities and malware.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    9. Re:Presumably by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

      App Store is at least somewhat monitored - if Google did the vetting, I would trust them more than I do Apple, true, but as it is Google does no inspecting and has next to no barrier to entry.

      Overall, those were the two questions that made me get an iPhone to replace my Android phone. Well, in addition to better availability of games.

  7. Re:Step 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    step 1: Buy a dumbphone.
    step 2: Buy an OpenPandora

  8. Step 2 by TWX · · Score: 1

    Don't ever turn it on, or for heaven's sake, don't take it out of airplane mode...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  9. Nokia 3310 by iozozturk · · Score: 0

    The ultimate solution!

    --
    twitter.com/ismetozozturk
  10. Re:Or... by Mitsoid · · Score: 5, Informative

    My iPhone doesn't tell me when an app wants permission to connect to the internet or share/sell my personal information with 3rd parties :-(

  11. Re:Step 1 by StripedCow · · Score: 1

    Buy an i*****, not an Android.

    If you're ignoring for the moment the spyware that's installed on an i*****, then yes, that's a good idea.

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  12. Be wary of everything, then? by powdered+toast+dude · · Score: 1

    "be wary of apps that want permission to ... connect to the Internet or reveal your identity and location"

    So, pretty much all of them, then. Great.

    Increasingly, I find myself alarmed at how many "need" the access to my contacts permission in order to operate. As well as those that need my location (for better targeted advertising, apparently).
    I hope the masses eventually wise up to this and start refusing even the big-name apps until they relinquish permissions they don't *really* need.

    --
    I'm an animal lover -- they're delicious!
  13. Re:And the truth will be modded -1, flamebait. by marcel · · Score: 0

    Well, how open are the apps? This has nothing to do with open/versus closed (which applies only to the applications) but to the screening process for applications. One of the reasons open-source is deemed more secure is that if a bug is found you will be publicly flogged for doing such a stupid thing. Apps however are pretty anonymous as far as the author is concerned (even via a legitimate appstore).

  14. Re:Or... by chentiangemalc · · Score: 1

    Because unlike Android iPhone apps cannot access your personal info unless you give to them. Except location which you do need to explicitly allow per app and can disable later.

  15. Re:Step 1 by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What spyware is installed on an iPhone out of the box, pray tell?

    --
    Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
    The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
  16. everyone knows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    smartphones are for ID10Ts

  17. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    It's cute that you think there's never been a remote iPhone exploit.

  18. Re:Step 1 by darkfeline · · Score: 5, Funny

    iOS?

  19. Re:Or... by the_humeister · · Score: 0

    Easy enough to avoid malware. Just run Windows! Wait a minute...

  20. Two choices about it... by mlts · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With iOS, there is not much one can do about malware, if it gets past Apple's gatekeepers. JB-ing the device and slapping on Firewall iP is probably the best thing one can do. However, the barrier for entry for malware writers is very high. It is pretty difficult (and more expensive) for a blackhat organization create a new account with Apple , paying them a C-note a year), and cook up some personal info (like bank accounts and such to register under) to even be able to see iTunes Connect, much less have the app approved. This has done a good job in keeping iPhone users safe, although in theory, if an app decided to have some type of module that would allow code execution, users would never know about an app that would be slurping contact info, E-mails, and other items then shipping that off to a blackhat server, especially if the app was smart enough to do it only on Wi-Fi, or a small trickle over 3G.

    Because of this, the only permission iOS asks for is for using the GPS. Since the App Store does all the work essentially, there isn't that much of a need to have anything more than that.

    Even with Firewall IP, there is no protection against apps deciding to spam with SMS, other than Apple's gatekeepers.

    So, Apple's security model may have some (in theory) bad flaws, but it has proven to be decently tight, with exploits being used for jailbreaking as opposed to turning the device into a mobile money machine for criminal organizations.

    Android's model is more robust in some ways. If Android phones were shipped with a marketplace that vetted/approved apps [1][2], this would virtually eliminate compromised phones [3].

    The nice thing about Android is that even with full root and a custom ROM, app security is just as tight as it is on a vendor ROM. Unlike jailbreaking on iOS which completely creams the security model, apps on Android still function exactly the same on a rooted phone, other than being able to prompt the user for su access.

    Since Android isn't reliant on a store's gatekeepers, its permission model has to be robust. It has been OK so far, provided users read and disallow apps like a game demanding full access, but it would be nice to have a better model -- something along the lines of minimum permissions needed to run the app, optimal permissions, and maximum permissions (a notepad app that just stores notes in its directory generally does not need full access or access to root unless it has some special features.)

    What can help Android immensely would be an app that runs as root and can allow/disallow access to SD cards, contacts, SMS, phone, and networking. There is an app called LBE Privacy Guard which runs as root and offers features that should really be part of Android (perhaps some features behind an Advanced menu.) CyanogenMod also has similar features for restricting access.

    Another app that is a must have for rooted devices is DroidWall, which is essentially a shell for performing iptables commands. This is an immense help because it can not just block network access for apps, but limit the bandwidth hogs to Wi-Fi (or security sensitive apps to 3G).

    Pretty much for the tl;dr in all of us, Android would be best off with two tiers of stores, and having the user go through a dialog of "these apps are untested, but the reviews will be a good guide. Use at your own risk" before a user gets access to the free-for-all market. Couple that with the functionality of DroidWall and LBE Privacy Guard which can be set to prompt/allow/deny access to critical things (contacts, network, phone, SMS) integrated into the OS, and Android would be a lot more secure.

    [1]: Amazon is good at vetting apps, and it would be nice for Google to offer two tiers of their Marketplace, where one tier would be the current free-for-all, while having another tier (which would cost app developers more because of the time taken) just for apps that would have a "blessed" flag attached.

    [2]: It goes without saying to have a way to add more stores, or if Google w

    1. Re:Two choices about it... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      With iOS, there is not much one can do about malware, if it gets past Apple's gatekeepers. JB-ing the device and slapping on Firewall iP is probably the best thing one can do. However, the barrier for entry for malware writers is very high. It is pretty difficult (and more expensive) for a blackhat organization create a new account with Apple , paying them a C-note a year), and cook up some personal info (like bank accounts and such to register under) to even be able to see iTunes Connect, much less have the app approved. This has done a good job in keeping iPhone users safe

      It's done a good job keeping iOS users safe from blackhat malware. Legit apps on the other hand are having a field day mining and selling user data which most people would consider private.

      What can help Android immensely would be an app that runs as root and can allow/disallow access to SD cards, contacts, SMS, phone, and networking. There is an app called LBE Privacy Guard which runs as root and offers features that should really be part of Android (perhaps some features behind an Advanced menu.)

      Thank you so much. I already had DroidWall, but LBE Privacy Guard was exactly what I've been looking for. It's my phone. I should be able to control what data can be accessed by an app.

    2. Re:Two choices about it... by danomac · · Score: 1

      What can help Android immensely would be an app that runs as root and can allow/disallow access to SD cards, contacts, SMS, phone, and networking.

      I can see this being used as a central point of attack to gain access to the phone. If anything happens to that you can't trust your phone anymore.

    3. Re:Two choices about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If done right, it would have a pretty low attack profile, mainly because with a sane writing style and proper UNIX perms, a non-root app couldn't touch it. Of course, there might be an exploit somewhere, such as filling up logs or the SD card, but if written with any semblance of security specifics, it wouldn't have to be that big a size, and it would add a lot to security.

      Perhaps fuse an active app with SE-Linux, or the NSA's hardening of AOSP?

    4. Re:Two choices about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the rub:

      An app in iOS that has access to contacts can freely do what it pleases to with the info. If you have a firewall program for a jailbroken version, you will be surprised at how many ad sites, tracker sites, survey sites, and other crap an app connects to. A lot of sites don't even have names, just IP addresses.

      However, handing contact data and whom you call isn't considered a breach -- it is lumped under normal functionality because it is heavily hidden, compared to Android where it is very easy to spot compromised data. If an iOS app doesn't do something overtly bad, it can pretty much have free reign over the phone, contacts, photos, and stored videos, and if the app decides to phone home only on wi-fi, nobody would be the wiser.

    5. Re:Two choices about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      permission spoofing would be a handy Android feature

      loads of apps "require" all sorts of permissions, so if you don't allow it the app doesn't install

      if there was a way to let the app only think it had the permission (but not really), it would at least install

      if you locked out a permission that an app actually required, the app would stop working and you would have to restart (or uninstall) it, but if the permsiion wasn't really required for anything but stupid banner ads, the app would run fine but get 404 errors in the banners (maybe)

      of course the app developers wouldn't approve of this, and many of the "free" apps would become pay only, but at least it might clean up the Market

      - crutchy

  21. Dumbphone user here... by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And the more I read about this, the better off I think I am.

    Seriously, this summary sounds like there is really no way around this BS except by using a dumbphone and never connecting anything to the Internet.

    >free app clones of pay ones are a problem

    No, closed source "free" apps are the problem.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Dumbphone user here... by danomac · · Score: 1

      Seriously, this summary sounds like there is really no way around this BS except by using a dumbphone and never connecting anything to the Internet.

      Well, if you're the only one who has physical access to the phone, getting a dumb phone that can't connect to the internet is the best way to avoid getting hacked... although most of the "hacking" is through social engineering.

      As smart phones get more and more prevalent this will get worse. Apple's app store tries to remove the social engineering factor, but it's still plausible to hack the phone through the cell networks, and attack the device directly. If that happens to the iPhone ecosystem all hell will break loose.

    2. Re:Dumbphone user here... by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      And the more I read about this, the better off I think I am.

      Seriously, this summary sounds like there is really no way around this BS except by using a dumbphone and never connecting anything to the Internet.

      Why even step outside.

  22. Simple really by Osgeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't download every dumb shit dancing santa talking cat bullshit app your mom's co-workers recommend

    option B is to not use a smartphone and get over your facebook/twitter addiction

    1. Re:Simple really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got marked insightful for your first comment, and I agree with it.

      But, your second comment is just stupid. Yes, a lot of people use their phones for Facebook and Twitter - and those are valid reasons, despite what us "elite" users here at Slashdot think about it. But, smart phones and growing more rapidly every day and they ARE the next computing platform. What they currently can, and will be able to do has barely been explored. (NFC is just one such thing. Could never do that with a "real" computer because you can't take that real computer with you.)

  23. As long as they don't send spam... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    n/t

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  24. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So we are once again stuck onthe myth perpetuated by the Apple marketing machine that iOS is secure.

    Lets disregard that it's been hacked repeatedly and easily, and lets also forget the tens of thousands of people who've had there iTunes accounts hacked and been charged for apps they have never downloaded (I know of 3 personally, none of whom ever got their money back)

    But yes, the 50 (out of 400,000) malware infected apps are scary.

  25. Re:Or... by John+Hasler · · Score: 2

    > Apple already screen it for you.

    Don't you mean Apple already sold it for you?

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  26. Re:Step 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck getting an OpenPandora...

  27. Really? It's called common sense. by ne0codex · · Score: 2

    And why is there a constant need to feed this fear? If I get a weird text message, I ignore it and delete it. "Security measures" that one takes when browsing the web on a computer should apply for cell phones! If you get a pop up saying "click here to jailbreak now" or "click here to get free i-p-a-d" or "click to see my naughty pictures" or "click here to increase your manhood," etc. of COURSE that's fake and should be closed/ignored! If you download apps for your cell phone, then read the reviews! Try to determine if it's a trusted source if possible! Taking these safety precautions under ANY device will make you 99.9% malware proof! Why is this posted on Slashdot? This is the kind of content that the brainless general media would repost over and over again! Not a technology-savvy site!

    1. Re:Really? It's called common sense. by Relayman · · Score: 1

      Because the whole antivirus industry is at risk. Eliminate malware and a whole section of the economy just shrivels up and dies. I sympathize with those who make good money on others' misfortunes.

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
  28. Re:Step 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iOS,

  29. Re:Or... by Relayman · · Score: 1

    When you have an example of this actually occurring, let me know.

    --
    If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
  30. Re:Or... by Relayman · · Score: 1

    You're right! On phones, security through obscurity. Why would anyone target Mango when they have millions of Android phones available?

    --
    If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
  31. Re:Or... by Wingman+5 · · Score: 3, Informative

    It has been patched but this has happened already.

  32. signing also has content sensoring by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    It's one thing to lock out apps that may send out spam but a other to lock them out based on content.

  33. Apple and malware by Skapare · · Score: 1

    From the article NOT behind the NYT paywall:

    Miller's reward for showing Apple that it, too, is vulnerable? They kicked him out of the app developers program. Nice going, guys.

    Isn't that exactly how Apple deals with malware? Think what would happen if Google did that.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:Apple and malware by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      it would be helpful to actually read what happened.

  34. Re:Or... by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

    50 out of 400k malware infected apps?

    The implication seems to be there's only 50 malware infected apps somewhere. Android Market? Only fifty malware infected applications on *the Android Market*?

    Have you LOOKED into the Android market? It seems like I can't search for anything without having fifty different knockoffs with extremely broad requirements pop up.

  35. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When you have an example of this actually occurring, let me know.

    You are joking? One of the original jailbreaks drive-by rooted your iPhone just by visiting a website.

  36. Re:Step 1 by pnewhook · · Score: 1

    I think you meant buy a Blackberry.

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  37. Re:And the truth will be modded -1, flamebait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Any system which allows users to run 3rd party software of their choosing is going to be vulnerable to the stupidity of its users. You can't fix stupid users without putting them in a jail cell.

    As long as the user is the primary attack vector it's hard to make a blanket statement about a platform's security. Back when Windows would get infected simply by bing turned on and connected to a network without the user doing a damned thing, it was easy to make a blanket statement about how secure Windows was. And even though the trolls told us that there was nothing Microsoft could do because they were the most popular OS, Microsoft did finally do something and the platform did finally become more secure. Once again things have shifted to target the user rather than sending malformed packets and overflowing buffers. It's hard to call a modern Microsoft OS insecure because the attack vector is more commonly stupid user now.

    If we can call MS's slow bloated crap secure because it's all or at least mostly on the user, then we can call Android secure too. Sure neither one is as secure as the walled garden but like I said, it's jail or freedom to fuck yourself.

  38. I defend ANDROID smartphones w/ HOSTS files by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    DO THE FOLLOWING (after obtaining a good reputable solid HOSTS file, like mvps' -> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

    ---

    1.) Get ahold of the "Android Debugging Bridge" (ADB) & install it

    2.) Mount your system mountpoint as READ + WRITE (as powerful of priveleges as you need is this)

    3.) Using the PULL command, copy the file over from your PC (or even on your ANDROID if its there already) using PULL & overwrite the etc. folder's copy of HOSTS

    ---

    * DONE!

    (Yes, it's THAT simple vs. hosts-domain based threats which ARE THE MAJORITY OF THEM OUT THERE (because hosts-domain names are recyclable unlike IP addresses)... &, it works - you CAN'T be burned if you can't go into the malware kitchen!)

    APK

    P.S.=> Of course, your HOSTS file will need to have the domain/hosts name of the C&C servers, & that you have to obtain for this to work vs. threats like bogus servers &/or maliciously scripted sites. Here's some good sources for that above & beyond mvps.org (I noted them above):

    http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
    http://www.malwaredomainlist.com/hostslist/hosts.txt
    http://mirror1.malwaredomains.com/files/ (justdomains here)
    http://pgl.yoyo.org/as/serverlist.php?hostformat=hosts&showintro=1&mimetype=plaintext
    http://sysctl.org/cameleon/hosts
    http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
    http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html
    http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/
    https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=lastupdated
    https://spyeyetracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=lastupdated
    http://www.malwareurl.com/
    http://www.safer-networking.org/en/download/ (updater for Spybot "Search & Destroy" & it fortifies HOSTS files)

    Those are some of my regular sources that are reputable & reliable for custom HOSTS file data populations vs. known threats online - I consolidate them here via programs I wrote that normalize/deduplicate repeated entries, sort/alphabetize the results, & change from larger + slower 127.0.0.1 (longer & loopback ops happen here) to the faster & smaller 0.0.0.0 (or even 0 on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003): Enjoy!

    ... apk

    1. Re:I defend ANDROID smartphones w/ HOSTS files by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, it's THAT simple

      Only on Slashdot could you say that with some vague sense of truth to it.

    2. Re:I defend ANDROID smartphones w/ HOSTS files by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so what website this you plagiarize all that from?

      you so remind me of that geek on a movie called "The Core"

      have you EVER had sex... like... with a girl?

      ...and no reference to "open sores"?

    3. Re:I defend ANDROID smartphones w/ HOSTS files by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, don't download shit you don't trust?

      Mind you, that might be too straightforward for most people to follow, I know.

    4. Re:I defend ANDROID smartphones w/ HOSTS files by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about AdFree?

    5. Re:I defend ANDROID smartphones w/ HOSTS files by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Layoff the drugs.

    6. Re:I defend ANDROID smartphones w/ HOSTS files by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Layoff the drugs!

  39. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, this is totally the place to brag about your device of choice.

    And of course, Android devices doesn't let an App access personnal info unless you give them the right to. What kind of moron are you for imagining it any other way ?

  40. hello by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hello there my friend

  41. iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buy an iPhone. nuff said.

  42. Google by Henriok · · Score: 1

    This artichle seems to be solely about Android and it's not that surprising since it's the operating system from the company whose business model is to sell your personal information to everyone who wants it. The users of Android are the advertisers, you are a part of the product packaged by Google for the OEMs and carriers. Welcome to the open!

    --

    - Henrik

    - when the Shadows descend -
  43. True iOS barrier is lack of ability by app by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The thing about iOS is, let's say you get malware past Apple or manage to get arbitrary code executed in an app.

    What then? You can't do anything interesting (to malware authors). You can't hook into the system keyboard. You can't send an SMS silently to rack up charges. You can't snoop the contents of other applications to pull back data from something like a Chase app.

    All of those things are potentially possible on Android, if the user simply agreed to the laundry list of permissions presented to them on launch. Few would look them over, and even if you do granting permission to send an SMS might seem perfectly reasonable for an app even if actual use engaged in foul play.

    It's not just Apple's gatekeeping that has kept iOS Malware free, it's that Apple has been far more paranoid about allowing applications access to the system or each other.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:True iOS barrier is lack of ability by app by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      WTF are you talking about? The malware can simply execute the latest jailbreak exploit are the fanboys are so excited about. Then it can do whatever it wants.

    2. Re:True iOS barrier is lack of ability by app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the malware can connect the phone to a computer by USB to enter DFU debugging mode?

      The days of "Load this PDF to root" have been LONG over, and remote exploits like that got patched ASAP, and there hasn't been another one like that for some time now.

      If you wanted to compare the first iOS release, then be fair and compare it to the first Android release, which didn't even have detailed and specific install permissions yet.

  44. Wrong, "dupes" not affected on iOS by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    To me the whole issue sounds more like dupe-only than Android-only

    That may be true that only "stupid" people get Android viruses (if you define stupid as simply non-technical, which is rather egotistical but whatever).

    However iOS users, "stupid" and smart both do not get viruses or malware on iOS because there is none. It's not a matter of degree, it's a matter of Android users can get viruses/Malware and iOS it is not possible (today) to catch anything no matter what you download.

    The truth of the story is that mobile malware to date is a WHOLLY Android phenomenon and to try and cast it as a problem everyone has is simply wrong.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Wrong, "dupes" not affected on iOS by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "However iOS users, "stupid" and smart both do not get viruses or malware on iOS because there is none.

      You clearly live on Paradise Island and make love to Wonder Woman when you can free yourself some time from pleasuring the other Amazons.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    2. Re:Wrong, "dupes" not affected on iOS by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      There was a time when Android executed every single keystroke you typed as root in the background. No platform can lay claim to being perfect. What matters is exploits that are out there in use in the wild.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  45. Or buy an iPhone by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    The article likes to make it sound otherwise but iOS does not have this issue.

    No, closed source "free" apps are the problem.

    It's not realistic to think that everyone would compile applications if they could, or be able to do a source audit to see they are truly safe.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Or buy an iPhone by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not realistic to think that everyone would compile applications if they could, or be able to do a source audit to see they are truly safe.

      No, it's not that *I* necessarily need to see the code (while I appreciate the freedom that I could), but I know other people *can* and *do*

      That's the advantage.

      Nefarious code does not live long in open sauce. Basically because not everyone is Ken Thompson to quote Tom Christiansen.

      Tom Christiansen has a pretty good rant about why the source-code world is superior. I have saved this as a text file since I read it the first time here, because it is that good.

      http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2540&cid=1522840

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:Or buy an iPhone by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      No, it's not that *I* necessarily need to see the code (while I appreciate the freedom that I could), but I know other people *can* and *do*

      No, you only know that they can, not that they do. Nor do you know that even if they do, would they recognise the few lines of code that are performing a malware task. Code review is slow and tiring.

    3. Re:Or buy an iPhone by bmo · · Score: 1

      In order for people to contribute to an open source project, one must do code review anyway as a matter of course, and most projects are multiple people.

      Sure, maybe you can slip your nefarious code past a few end users if you are a sole developer, but try getting it past your fellow developers in a project.

      "Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead." - Franklin.

      --
      BMO

    4. Re:Or buy an iPhone by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Most open source code is a produced by a sole developer. There are way ore calls for programmers to join projects than there are programmers interested in joining projects.

      And even where there are multiple programmers, they tend to find their own specialist areas of the code that are probably never looked at by anyone else.

      The idea that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" is a fallacy.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus'_Law

    5. Re:Or buy an iPhone by bmo · · Score: 1

      Then Linux and its utilities and all the desktop stuff must be full of malware, right?

      Because nobody ever looks at code, right?

      --
      BMO

    6. Re:Or buy an iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you only know that they can, not that they do.

      What I know doesn't matter. What's important is that someone inserting malware doesn't know that other people don't review the code.

    7. Re:Or buy an iPhone by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Then Linux and its utilities and all the desktop stuff must be full of malware, right?

      It's had more than closed source OSX has.

      Because nobody ever looks at code, right?

      I didn't say nobody. The Linux kernel has lots of eyes. But most open source software is not the Linux kernel, and most of it is never code reviewed.

      You can be sarcastic all you want. That's all you've got, because what I've said is true. And if you're a developer you'll know it. If you're only a user you might not realise it though.

    8. Re:Or buy an iPhone by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Then Linux and its utilities and all the desktop stuff must be full of malware, right?

      Because nobody ever looks at code, right?

      So Linux must be the most secure kernel around with NO priviledge escalation bugs since 1991, right? Oh wait, there was one that was fixed a couple of weeks ago that was being exploited.

      And surely there wasn't a 30+ year old bug in BSD, I mean, everyone's looked through it so many times.

      Even having a ton of eyes on the same code, bugs/holes/vulnerabilities are still glossed over. Open source's record may be better than closed source, but it's still not a surefire way of guaranteeing code quality or that the code's been reviewed and bug-free.

  46. Re:Step 1 by danomac · · Score: 2

    Probably CarrierIQ. Apple has admitted it's there, but not enabled by default.

    CarrierIQ is on a lot of phones, including Android phones, so this point is moot anyway...

  47. Easy way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a REAL cellphone, not a smart-hd-mini-tablet something. One that looks like a phone, and is HANDY to talk to it.

  48. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love my iPhone, and I feel relatively secure using it. But I have executed a jailbreak on my older iPhone, and it only required me to visit a certain page in mobile safari. Yes, Apple is working hard to defend iPhone users against malicious apps. But they have no control over malicious websites or emails or SMS's.

  49. Year of mobile malware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has been the year of mobile malware since 2006. It didn't materialize then, the same experts keep predicting it, why should it materialize now? Yes, they will eventually be right but they'll be as surprised and unprepared to deal with it as they were with every new threat that came along while they were waiting for the year of mobile malware.

    1. Re:Year of mobile malware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember when bluetooth, then MMS, vulnerbilities were all the rage. I even remember seeing one bluetooth worm in the wild - we were on a bus, someone's phone uploaded a worm on my friend's phone. It didn't go much further, because it popped up a confirmation prompt after that. I think it was 2005.

      6 years later and still no armies of zombie phones out there. Most malware is still of "I didn't know it will send my personal data" variety.

      With smartphone and tablet sales in hundred of millions range, I'd think blackhats would try harder to get a botnet or two running.

  50. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because it's so easy?

  51. Re:Or... by Relayman · · Score: 2

    To me, deliberately jail breaking your iPhone isn't malware. And, from the article you quoted, "the security impact of these vulnerabilities will remain theoretical." You're making a big jump by going from something that you initiated to something that happens by visiting a maliciously-coded Web site.

    --
    If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
  52. more firewall granularity by denbesten · · Score: 1

    I've often wished the android permission model considered "phone home" and "access the Internet" separately. It seems much less risky to me to allow an application to access a predefined small set of sites than to access "everything".

    1. Re:more firewall granularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh. So you'll know com.totallynotinterestedinyourdata.irkedavians wants to send data to totallynotinterestedinyourdata.com, you still don't know if it sends just hi scores or your phone id, browsing habits and number of times you had sex (calculated with smart use of accelerometers)

  53. VPN over wireless by koan · · Score: 1

    If I go to the coffeeshop I use VPN to connect, I do have a paid VPN account but I also have a VPN server set up at home on my NAS so I can use that as well if I don't want to pay.

    Normally WiFi is off as is Bluetooth.

    The only apps that get permission to use my location are TomTom GPS and some camera software both of which are vetted, everything else gets denied as I don't use social sites or any other crapware.

    I only give out my real phone number to a very small group of friends & family, everyone else including businesses and stores get my Google voice number, which then allows me to block if it's spam or that Ex that's stalking me, Gvoice best thing ever as spam filtering is to email Gvoice is to my phone (if you don't mind being recorded)
    Personally I would pay for Google voice it's that useful to me.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  54. How original. by Seumas · · Score: 1

    Kate Murphy writes that as cellphones have gotten smarter, they have become less like phones and more like computers,

    Really? Did she come up with that all by herself? I don't think I've heard the "cell phones are becoming more like little computers" line before in the last ten years. Boy, they better keep this one on the payroll. Pulitzer, here she comes!

  55. Amazon by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you want a curated market for Android like Amazon Appstore, you know where to find it.

  56. Re:Step 1 by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

    The problem is that the version of CarrierIQ on IOS have the spyware bits disabled. The "spyware" parts were only active on Androids, and even then, it wasn't even spyware.

  57. Re:Or... by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So we are once again stuck onthe myth perpetuated by the Apple marketing machine that iOS is secure.

    Oh boy, "Apple marketing machine" eh? Queue "imperial march."

    Lets disregard that it's been hacked repeatedly and easily

    Hardly easily. The first jailbreak admittedly was easy, but take a look at the iOS hackers blogs: jail breaking these things is now crazy hard. Jailbraking now takes multiple exploits and a phone which is physically connected to your system. The latest exploits took months to develop, all the while people are told not to upgrade because the upgrades invariably patch the holes.

    Anyway jail breaking is a red herring, what counts is exploits used in the wild. And to the best of my knowledge that's still a big fat 0 for iOS, which is why these articles invariably talk about Android.

    and lets also forget the tens of thousands of people who've had there iTunes accounts hacked and been charged for apps they have never downloaded (I know of 3 personally, none of whom ever got their money back)

    But yes, the 50 (out of 400,000) malware infected apps are scary.

    iTunes is not iOS. They are completely separate products. The security of one has no bearing on the security of the other.

    --
    If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  58. But was no malware by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Are you fucking retarded? There was a period of time when you could totally own an iPhone remotely just by sending it a text message.

    Read more careful, dense Apple Hater.

    Did I claim there were no VULNERABILITIES? No.

    Instead I claimed there is no MALWARE, which was and is true.

    Once upon a time, you could have assumed Slashdot readers could understand the difference...

    You must be one of the "dupes" he was talking about.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  59. Nope by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The malware can simply execute the latest jailbreak exploit are the fanboys are so excited about.

    That is why Apple quickly fixes remote exploits but leaves tethered jailbreaks alone.

    The ability to do what you are suggesting is never an option for long enough that malware can make use of it.

    Of course, on Android you have another problem - since many carriers are so reluctant to update, you have vulnerable Android versions handing around a LONG time. That makes it even more appealing for malware writers.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  60. Re:Or... by dissy · · Score: 2

    My iPhone doesn't tell me when an app wants permission to connect to the internet or share/sell my personal information with 3rd parties :-(

    Mine does. Requests per domain per app (asked once when the app tries to connect), and requests for listening sockets.

    http://isource.com/2009/11/05/firewall-ip-a-firewall-app-for-the-iphone/

    If you are not jailbroken, then you can only use the Apple store, and those apps are tested at the API level to verify what they do.
    Sure you can't block banner ads this way, but that is by design.

    Jailbreak it, and you get the Cydia app, and access to multiple stores (same repo system as apt-get, which you get installed too)
    First thing you install with Cydia is the patch for the local exploit if you have any in your version of iOS. Most these days require locally rebooting the phone in a specific debugging mode, so not a remote exploit but a local one. Yes, if you ever lose a smart phone, assume you have no security in place.. For any brand/model/OS. Physical access and all that.

    Between Firewall-iP and iBlacklist, I fully control every piece of data going into or out of my phone, be it calls, sms, or data.

  61. Know and Think by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    No, it's not that *I* necessarily need to see the code (while I appreciate the freedom that I could), but I know other people *can* and *do*

    I can set up a project on Github. There can be a long history of commits supposedly accepted from "other" people.

    And it can all be a sham, I may never even let anyone else submit anything.

    It doesn't even matter if someone looked and found something, if I simply didn't accept changes back. How would you know?

    And the truth is, how many real-world people could or would even go so far as to glance at Github? Your manager? That sales guy you met a few times?

    What you are asking for is nice in theory but of no value to the world (within a rounding error) in practice.

    I am all for open source, don't get me wrong - it's extremely valuable and I make heavy use of it myself. I just don't kid myself that it provides any real security value for all but the most well-known projects (where not only do you have a lot of people looking but real malware would be called out far and wide).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  62. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [Citation Needed]

    Hearing that Billy Joe Jim Bob's ex wife's in law's cousin's grandmother had a problem with iOS doesn't mean that they got hacked through their phones.

    Occam's Razor -- it is a lot more possible that the compromised accounts were due to malware slurping up iTunes usernames/passwords from an iTunes cache, a keylogger, or a fake dialog asking for the iTunes password, rather than an iOS hole. Compromised PCs are the norm, not the exception it seems.

    Realistically, iOS shows that Apple's method of security works -- there has yet to be any reliable reports of infected/compromised iPhones out in the wild, barring JB-ed devices with an open sshd and default root/mobile passwords. (Cydia needs to take from the old Rock app store and allow changing of the device's user passwords without needing to get a half-broken terminal app working, or ssh-ing in.)

    This doesn't mean the device is unhackable; it just shows that even though Apple's closed system may be annoying, in the real world, its security model is extremely good.

  63. This has more than security benefits... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Alternatively, don't download shit you don't trust? Mind you, that might be too straightforward for most people to follow, I know." - by Nemyst (1383049) on Sunday January 29, @11:08PM (#38861647) Homepage

    Per my subject: When you use custom HOSTS files, the sources I point out not only SECURE YOU vs. known malicious sites/servers/hosts-domains (BONUS), but additionally?

    Well, you also gain SPEED (The truly DOUBLE-BONUS)!

    How so? Well, because most of the HOSTS file data sources I listed also blockout adbanners too!

    (Which are a HUGE %-age of the mass of most websites' pages, & their scripts eat CPU too as well as adding to the mass to download & process... Plus, adbanners have also been known to carry malicious script in them too more than just a few times over the years...)

    Blocking adbanners is NOT the ONLY SPEED-GAIN either!

    You can also "hardcode in" your favorite sites into it - this you MAY have to maintenance once in awhile though (because sites change their hosting providers, but, for example? I hardcode 250 of my fav. sites into my HOSTS files, & I have only had to change 10 of them since 2005)!

    Anyhow/anyways:

    The hardcoding of favorites into a custom HOSTS file's a speed gain by not having to call out to a remote DNS server for their IP address resolution too!

    (That often takes 100's of ms, whereas resolving favs from a HOSTS file? Mere ns from RAM once the HOSTS files' cached... TRIPLE - BONUS!)

    APK

    P.S.=> Custom HOSTS files are a "win-win" on both security and speed gain fronts... no questions asked!

    Now, per your statements:

    Agreed!

    However, when folks perceive they WANT/NEED an app, & find it interesting??? Good luck stopping them... & that's the ones that are "semi-aware", & the rest who have no clue about the threats potentials online???? Hey... come on, you KNOW they're going to get burned (& this is where things like HOSTS files protect they)...

    ... apk

  64. Solution for rooted android devices by Rexdude · · Score: 1

    Install Droidwall, a powerful FOSS IP tables firewall. Use the whitelist feature to only allow network access to apps that need them to function.

    Next, use an ad blocking hosts file. Either manually update /system/etc/hosts, or use AdAway, which will auto update your hosts file with ad server entries and is also FOSS.

    Third, get LBE Privacy Guard. This monitors permission usage and lets you override the defaults (something which I believe is baked into CyanogenMod) on a per app basis by alerting you whenever an app tries to access the internet, or your phonebook, IMEI or other personal information.

    With these three set up, I really don't have to worry either about ads on the phone platform or of any app accessing the net or doing things behind my back.

    --
    "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
  65. Re:Or... by Wingman+5 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I was not showing malware, I was showing a "Remote Exploit". It does not matter if you wanted the remote exploit to happen or if some infected website did it. It is running executable code on your device that was not through the app store, which you asked for a example of and I gave. And let me put that quote you took out of context back in to full context. Emphasis mine.

    There's always a first time, but I think there's a good chance the security impact of these vulnerabilities will remain theoretical. Despite JailbreakMe 2.0 being open sourced after an updated version of iOS was released, which would have made it relatively easy to modify the code into an attack, I didn't hear about any such modification except a proof of concept that showed up much later.

  66. solution: signed code by smash · · Score: 1

    Like it or not, requiring code signing is going to cut out 95% plus of the malware out there. Sure, you may still run into security vulnerabilities in preinstalled apps (this will always be a problem), but the easiest piece of the puzzle to break has always been the user. Disallow the user to run unsigned code (either controlled at the vendor level, or the corporate IT admin level) and that problem goes away.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  67. RIM, Blackberry + Android by Tim12s · · Score: 1

    RIM should have released their new BB based on Android with their value proposition being corporate security & corporate manageability.

    They should have focused on their corporate platform and ensured android apps are sandboxed and isolated improving corporate "trust" and security.

    I use a BB and will stick with it for a number of reasons but the BB market cannot compete with the Android market.

    -Tim

  68. Just don't use Android by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    IMO, Android seems to be the windows of mobile phones so avoid it.

  69. Whatever works for you man... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However HOSTS don't only block ads: They block malicious sites/servers too & a LOT more -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2644205&cid=38861707

    * Thus, you MAY find that an "interesting read" (was rated that way), because it might "turn you on" to the other gains hosts file yield (speed, not just security).

    APK

    P.S.=> Enjoy - because putting both methods (& in combination with others noted on this page) is only practicing the best thing we've got going vs. these threats - "Layered-Security"/"Defense-In-Depth"... Especially possibly THIS "recent development" (SeAndroid) -> http://selinuxproject.org/page/SEAndroid

    ... apk

  70. Err.. what? by Hyperhaplo · · Score: 1

    and be wary of apps that want permission to make phone calls, connect to the Internet or reveal your identity and location."

    but.. but.. they ALL require internet access.. apparently...

    (grrr, damn you google for preventing me from being able to control my own phone. no, a jailbreak is not acceptable. I paid for this device. give me root access on it, and soon.. ice cream sandwich *should* have had sudo made available. grrr)

    --
    You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
  71. The method I noted? Easy: REALLY easy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could probably do it via a wget even (assuming that command's ported to ANDROID's version of Linux that is)...

    The only thing to look out for really/possibly, is the file format: You might have to run a dos2unix type app over a custom HOSTS file that's intended for Windows (rather than *NIX variants) - assuming you can't download one that's immediately "*NIX ready" etc./et al that is...

    * However, many of the sites I noted for hosts file data offer both Windows &/or *NIX file formats for their custom HOSTS file data so, there you go!

    APK

    P.S.=>

    "Only on Slashdot could you say that with some vague sense of truth to it." - by SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) on Sunday January 29, @08:30PM (#38860879)

    One thing I'll NEVER understand, is this: Why is it that many /.'ers think they're the only people that can read & follow directions, or that have ANY "technical understanding"?

    I mean, hey - This concept & technique is VERY simple to understand, as far as how to install a custom HOSTS file, how to get data to populate it (& if need be? An Access import & "SELECT * DISTINCT FROM (tablename) ORDER BY ASC" type query & export can do the deduplication/normalization end even).

    E.G.-> I've taught it to people who have NO CLUE in computing in fact, & they took to it like ducks to water - especially custom editing their custom HOSTS file with text editors once they understand what speeds them up (hardcodes) & secures them + how, by blocking out bogus sites/servers!

    (And? Heck - They ought to like it & take to them fast! Especially considering a custom HOSTS file acts as a security layer AND more-or-less, an "online turbocharger" for speed too, for free! You already own one anyhow, with any OS that uses a BSD based IP stack (which IS most))...

    ... apk

  72. Re:Or... by vawwyakr · · Score: 1

    Knockoffs != malware

  73. Have you TRIED to program a Blackberry? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I was doing an iPhone app that was supposed to have a Blackberry version also.

    I told them it might be possible but I'd have to review the difficulty level. So, I spent the weekend examining the Blackberry API.

    Now I know Java and C++ and lots of other languages quite well. I have seen a ton of different API's on various platforms, I've even done some J2ME work in the distant past.

    NOTHING I have seen was as horrible to think about programming against than the Blackberry API. I flatly stated that it would take far too much time for me to port, but I would help someone else if they could find a Blackberry developer - they could not. The Blackberry version was eventually dropped.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  74. Yes, excellent idea, just like iPhone by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    make the os ask for permission when the permission is needed, not when the app is installed.

    This is what iOS does. When an application needs access to location data, it asks you right then - so you have the full context of what it is trying to to and if it makes sense to have that permission at that time.

    I think it makes a world of difference in terms of really protecting users who can't otherwise understand a big list of permissions. If you were just running along in a game and the system asked "hey, I'd like to make a phone call now to xxx-xxx-xxxx" then you'd damn well say no.

    It doesn't even have to be intrusive, iOS's location system asks you only once and then you can adjust the setting in the system menu. It does ask you every time a call is placed but given the degree of potential danger around that I don't see an issue with that.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  75. Re:Or... by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

    Knockoffs with extremely broad requirements certainly hint towards malware.

    Not that I'd install them myself.

  76. answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081035 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power." http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081010142651AAPvMox