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.'"

Comments

Easy fix

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Or...

[TWX]

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.

Presumably

[deains]

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.

Re:Presumably

[mlts]

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

Re:Or...

[Mitsoid]

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 :-(

Re:Step 1

[darkfeline]

iOS?