Slashdot Mirror


1.2% of Apps On Google Play Are Repackaged To Deliver Ads, Collect Info

An anonymous reader writes "Not a month goes by without security researchers finding new malicious apps on Google Play. According to BitDefender, more than one percent of 420,000+ analyzed apps offered on Google's official Android store are repackaged versions of legitimate apps. In the long run, their existence hurts the users, the legitimate developers, and Google's reputation in general. Google Play has recently surpassed the one million mark when it comes to the apps it offers, and the researchers have analyzed a good chunk of the total in order to discover just how many are hiding their true nature."

131 comments

  1. F-Droid, FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    F-Droid is the open source store. Pleanty of good apps there that do just about anything you'd need an app to do, for free as in beer and free as in speach.

    https://f-droid.org/

    1. Re:F-Droid, FTW by sirber · · Score: 0

      No facebook, netflix, etc.

      --
      Be or ben't
    2. Re:F-Droid, FTW by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Many of us don't need FaceBook or NetFlix. F-Droid is great, and there's actually a lot of stuff that's actually on both. Wonder if some of the Play versions are included in some of the adware-added nstuff they're talking about ...

      Anyway, it's damn nice to have options. I realize Google bashing is the funded topic these days, but I wonder if anyone's done an analysys of the Amazon app store for the same sort of thing.

    3. Re:F-Droid, FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook is not an app. Nor is Netflix. Those are services. They have apps that let you access their services, but there isn't a well defined api for doing so, making any open source service access app very build and maintain. If you need an app that doesn't connect to a service, its usually a good idea to check F-Droid first.

    4. Re:F-Droid, FTW by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      That's a feature, not a bug.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:F-Droid, FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook and friends aren't open-source. If it bothers you that F-Droid doesn't have those apps, then you should 'lobby' the app makers to release their source.

      Regardless, F-Droid has plenty of useful stuff, from navigation (OSMand) to media players (including VLC), to games and browsers (including Firefox).

      I've more or less dropped Google Play in favour of F-Droid, since it has pretty much everything I need.

    6. Re:F-Droid, FTW by shentino · · Score: 1

      netflix is allergic to open source, not the other way around.

    7. Re:F-Droid, FTW by N0Man74 · · Score: 2

      I wonder if anyone's done an analysys of the Amazon app store for the same sort of thing.

      I haven't heard of a specific study on apps, but I have read about how the eBook side is highly saturated with people selling low quality bundles and repackaging of free and public domain works in order to make a quick buck. Given how little quality control there appears to be on the eBook side of things (and books are much part of the core of Amazon than apps) I doubt they fare any better on apps.

      Openness does have it's disadvantages.

      It isn't just the re-bundles. When there is a popular iOS only app, I have seen people in Play selling apps with the title and/or artwork of the iOS app, but then in fine print says "this is a fan app". There's no doubt in my mind that a lot of people (especially kids) don't read the details and download anyway.

      I think Google should be more proactive about blocking and banning those that abuse the store and their customers.

    8. Re:F-Droid, FTW by mlts · · Score: 1

      That's a bad thing?

    9. Re:F-Droid, FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course they are. They rely on contracts with content providers. No sane content provider will contract with NetFlix if NetFlix can't say that they do their best to make sure the content cannot be extracted and copied. If it was open source it would be easy to extract and copy - simply compile a modified version that saves every stream. That would not fly very well. They have no choice in the matter.

    10. Re:F-Droid, FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why the fuck would you want those? The whole point was to get rid of spying apps, right? Want movies, use TPB. Want to communicate, use e-mail. Now go out and play, kid.

    11. Re:F-Droid, FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is what Google wants from Android is for it to deliver ad's and collect info.

    12. Re:F-Droid, FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ad's what?

    13. Re:F-Droid, FTW by miroku000 · · Score: 1

      The "F" in F-Droid stands for Free. That's not what I was thinking it stood for at first...

    14. Re:F-Droid, FTW by NightWhistler · · Score: 1

      F-Droid is pretty awesome... they audit every app in there to make sure it doesn't contain any malware, etc... it's the best example I know of the "have someone you trust check the software for you" principle of Open Source.

      The downside is that they tend to lag behind... I've had angry users asking why the version of my app on F-droid didn't have the same features as the one on Google Play, thinking I'd crippled it for commercial purposes when in fact they were simply lagging a couple of versions behind.

      --
      PageTurner Reader: open-source e-reader for Android with cloudsync. http://pageturner-reader.org
    15. Re:F-Droid, FTW by xorsyst · · Score: 1

      If F-Droid want to actually make an impact on the Android userbase, the home page needs to have instructions on how to install the damn thing! I know what I'm doing, but most people just install stuff from google play. If they follow this link and click the "install" link, they get an apk download and no help. This is not very useful.

      --
      Get free bitcoins: http://freebitco.in
    16. Re:F-Droid, FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use F-droid when I can, but it doesn't have apps for everything I need. Notably it doesn't have an SSH server in there (in particular I need one that will work with sshfs).

  2. Irrelevant by Russ1642 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The total number of apps doesn't matter. The only stats worth anything involve the number of apps that are actually downloaded and run. There are thousands of useless or malware infested apps out there but are people really using them?

    1. Re:Irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As someone who gets stuck helping people with cheap, crappy android phones.
      Yes. Quite a bit. There is a lot of garbage on the play store that's pretty much designed to siphon up your info and spam you with ads in app and out of app. The purveyors of such garbage are good at SEOing and shilling up their crapware to the top of the lists too.

      I don't see this sort of shit with iphone users.

    2. Re:Irrelevant by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 2

      Because the only way to find an app on the iShit interface is by name, a name your friend told you, then you can't find it because the search doesn't actually give any relevancy points for exactly matching what you typed.

    3. Re:Irrelevant by JLennox · · Score: 2

      Complete control over a platform isn't justified by non-techies not knowing any better.

      Apple owes everything to that not being a pre-existing model to computers.

    4. Re:Irrelevant by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It does matter because Google Play is supposed to be the walled garden. It doesn't matter that 99% of the people in the school yard are supposed to be there, all it takes is few to turn the school yard into chaos.

      It also matters to the developers who wants to make a profit. If someone else can repackage your app and place it on the preeminent platform for Android Apps in exchange for ad revenue, that is bad. It also hurts the reputation of the original developer if that app is violating real of perceived privacy expectations.

      This is different from script kiddie or organized crime putting a pirated App on some open repository to be nice or steal identities. This is Google Play. People use it instead of more open repositories because they expect a level of security.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    5. Re:Irrelevant by mlts · · Score: 2

      I have mentioned this before, but Google needs to section off its store. One tier being the existing, "well, if not banned, it is allowed" free-for-all (which is a good thing for savvy users), but Google needs to have a tier similar to Amazon's store. Approval is a must, brutal approval guidelines, and no mercy with the banhammer.

      This strategy has worked amazingly well for Apple. iOS can be argued to be less secure than Android because the entire OS depends on the jail mechanism. However, because the only [1] way for an app to install on an iDevice is through Apple's store, Apple's strong gatekeeper strategy has proven itself.

      Google should see about having a tier or subset with heavy moderation. Then, have an option fairly hidden on the phone to allow access to the free-for-all tier. That way, users who just want to grab Angry Birds, and not Angry Birds + SMS Spammer will get the app they want.

      [1]: Of course, there is the enterprise and beta mechanisms for adding apps, but this is not doable for most of Apple's base.

    6. Re:Irrelevant by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      Because the only way to find an app on the iShit interface is by name, a name your friend told you, then you can't find it because the search doesn't actually give any relevancy points for exactly matching what you typed.

      Just plain wrong. You are either a liar or inept.

    7. Re:Irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is extremely damaging to everybody involved, Google should do something about it ASAP.

    8. Re:Irrelevant by ADRA · · Score: 1

      I don't see this type of shit ever. Examples please.

      --
      Bye!
    9. Re:Irrelevant by immaterial · · Score: 3, Informative

      iOS can be argued to be less secure than Android because the entire OS depends on the jail mechanism.

      What does this sentence mean? From context it looks like you're saying the only form of security on iOS is Apple's App Store approval system, but that's obviously false. Every app is sandboxed (no access to the system or other apps) and must request specific permission for privileged data (location/contacts/photos/calendars/etc.).

    10. Re:Irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Define justified.

      As far as Apple is concerned, their bank account balance justifies their decisions.

      I'm not an apple fanboy by any means (my phone is a Samsung), but there are certain benefits to Apple's approach (not that I agree with it).

    11. Re:Irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iOS can be argued to be less secure than Android because the entire OS depends on the jail mechanism

      wut

    12. Re:Irrelevant by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Google play is supposed to be the walled garden? Since when? I thought people who wanted to exchange freedom for security were all on itunes.

    13. Re:Irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Except it is not. No sex, no violence, have to use Google for in game content, cannot interface with other ad platforms for the ads. Sounds like iTunes to me.

      Or maybe you were being sarcastic.

    14. Re:Irrelevant by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 0

      A butt hurt fandroid in this submission? That's unexpected.

    15. Re:Irrelevant by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Because the only way to find an app on the iShit interface is by name, a name your friend told you, then you can't find it because the search doesn't actually give any relevancy points for exactly matching what you typed.

      Just plain wrong. You are either a liar or inept.

      Not mutually exclusive.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    16. Re:Irrelevant by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Because the only way to find an app on the iShit interface is by name, a name your friend told you, then you can't find it because the search doesn't actually give any relevancy points for exactly matching what you typed.

      Just plain wrong. You are either a liar or inept.

      Not mutually exclusive.

      OR != XOR

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    17. Re:Irrelevant by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      There are thousands of useless or malware infested apps out there but are people really using them?

      Even if no one downloaded a single one of them, they would decrease the signal to noise ratio of the store.

      So there's really no excusing them.

    18. Re:Irrelevant by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Or more to the point, the number of apps downed and used that do what they say they will and not something other, as distinct from any other apps downed and used. Given the history of the PC since IBM-clone days, I'd be unsurprised at a significant percentage of bogus apps being used. (Didja ever see the real-life pic of an instance of IE with toolbars takiing up the top half of the screen? Feature that, and the millions of people who did similar - not to that extent, of course, but the utilities, rafts of cute games, etc. and now extend that behavior to the Android space.)

  3. How many downloads? by Fwipp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How many people install the adware apps, though? I'd wager that the proportion of _downloads_ of adware is significantly less than 1.2%.

    1. Re:How many downloads? by TWX · · Score: 1

      When any application that has no need for Internet access but wants it anyway, it's very hard to avoid it.

      Last time I went looking for something as simple as a flash manual switch to use as a flashlight, it took digging through multiple apps to finally find one that didn't want Internet access.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:How many downloads? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      But... what if your flashlight needs an important update to help keep it secure on the internet?

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    3. Re:How many downloads? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Last time I went looking for something as simple as a flash manual switch to use as a flashlight, it took digging through multiple apps to finally find one that didn't want Internet access.

      Indeed. My first steps after downloading a new app is to put the device into airplane mode and run it.

      If it needs internet connection for something, it gets binned immediately. Especially for something which has no legitimate need for any network access (like a flashlight and most games).

      So many of them start up and immediately want to go to an ad server.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:How many downloads? by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The must be a good 50 flashlight apps but I cant find a single one that doesnt run ads or need dubious privileges. I even started with highest price ones first and they still want too much info. (If you know of one please let me know). But very common to want my phone book, ability to place calls, access the GPS location, modify SD card contents, and so on.

      Sometimes its explainable - I install GPS Status paid version, and when it asked for full network access I emailed the dev, and he answered quickly saying he got lazy and loads all the help screens from the web. So OK, yeah maybe.

      The average user I hear from all complain about poor performance, unstable operation, and high data charges, and dont understand that its because they installed 100 free crapware apps.

    5. Re:How many downloads? by FictionPimp · · Score: 2

      I use Nexus Flashlight. It requires access to the camera, and the ability to keep your phone from going to sleep. Nothing else.

    6. Re:How many downloads? by mlts · · Score: 2

      To help mitigate things with dodgy apps, I use Droidwall configured to block by default. Droidwall needs a facelift, but it is a decent front end for iptables.

      Android needs to keep its permission model, but add additional permissions similar to iOS 6+ where when the first time an app asks for access to contacts/camera/phone/SMS/photos/music/etc., it pops up a dialog where the user can confirm or deny permissions. Blackberry has had this model for over a decade, and it has been quite good.

    7. Re:How many downloads? by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

      EXCELLENT! You made my day.

    8. Re:How many downloads? by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Smart Tools components are available individually and only require the permissions necessary to work.

      https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=kr.sira.flash

      The suite requires bit more...

    9. Re:How many downloads? by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Informative

      Droidwall needs a facelift, but it is a decent front end for iptables.

      According to FDroid, Droidwall got abandoned, forked and renamed to AFWall+.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    10. Re:How many downloads? by TWX · · Score: 2

      If that one gives you issues, I use "LED Light". It doesn't list the Samsung Galaxy SII (T-Mobile version) as on the supported devices list, but it seems to work fine. Only annoyance is that it doesn't completely close on exit and I have to go exit its process, but how little I use it, I can accept that.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    11. Re:How many downloads? by GTRacer · · Score: 1

      ... Now that I'm done picking my jaw up off the floor I think I'm going to try this with the apps I already have.

      That said, I've taken great pains to only install apps with a decent critical mass of reviews or trustable endorsements. And I pay rather than get the "free" versions so I don't risk ad-network attacks.

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    12. Re:How many downloads? by kbrannen · · Score: 1

      Yes, I went thru that last week. My Nexus 5 didn't have a flashlight app, so I had to go find one. It took like 6 tries to find a flashlight app that didn't require network access, my email, or something else it didn't need. I mean really, if I'm fumbling to find a door lock in the dark, am I really going to be looking at an ad on my phone at the same time?

    13. Re:How many downloads? by kbrannen · · Score: 1

      I finally found "Flashlight", by Devesh Parekh. It requires no perms and just turns your whole screen bright white; hit the back button to turn it off. Really simple and it fits the needs, even if you don't have a camera flash.

    14. Re:How many downloads? by turning+in+circles · · Score: 1

      I am still unhappy about the internet accessibility of the apps that T-Mobile preloaded onto my phone, that I can't get rid of without jailbreaking the phone. The apps I download, I can control, but the ones preinstalled - (e.g. Yelp? Why do I want Yelp to know everything about me all the time?) - I'm stuck with.

      --
      Might as well face it I'm addicted to data.
    15. Re:How many downloads? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Why install it at all and not just bin it as soon it wants internet access?

      Either you have that problem on iThings too or you're ignoring the pre-install permission list on Android for some unknwon reason.

      --
      bickerdyke
    16. Re:How many downloads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much were you willing to pay? If it's nothing, then why are you surprised?

      The current flashlight application (Flashlight LED Genius) requires Internet permission because I didn't want to pay for it and I don't care that it shows me ads in the main interface.

    17. Re:How many downloads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If history repeats itself, then people will randomly click yes to any prompts anyway.

      Most people will not read permissions and a lot don't care. I, for one, would hate "Would you like to share contacts?" "Would you like to share your location?" every time a new application asked for it. It's just annoying and unnecessary.

    18. Re:How many downloads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are free LED apps on the play store. No need to get one with ads.

    19. Re:How many downloads? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's just my phone (Huawei P6), but it informs me when an app tries to (for example) read my contacts the first time. Then I get to decide whether to allow the app to do that or not.

      My S3 never did that, though, so I'm not sure if it's just this one phone or if it is all the newer androids.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    20. Re:How many downloads? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      How many people install the adware apps, though? I'd wager that the proportion of _downloads_ of adware is significantly less than 1.2%.

      The double think is fascinating. On the odd occasion, perhaps once a year, when some malware app manages to circumvent both the Apple app sandbox and the app approval process, to be listed on the Apple App Store, the Slashdot typical reaction is: "See, the walled garden approach is totally broken".

      But when we have reports of a 1.2% of Android apps being malware, the typical response is: "Well that doesn't matter if not so many people download them".

      I'm saying malware rather than your "adware", because there is a hell of a lot more than 1.2% adware on Android. This is about apps maliciously pretending to be something other than what they are. That's malware. And your rephrasing it as simply "adware" is another example of doublethink.

    21. Re:How many downloads? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The paradox of choice. Having a choice of apps in a particular category is actually detrimental to the user, when a significant number of them are bad choices.

      Choice is no substitute for quality control.

    22. Re:How many downloads? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Either you have that problem on iThings too or you're ignoring the pre-install permission list on Android for some unknwon reason.

      The situation is not the same on iOS, as there is an app approval process. And there's also a process to remove apps from the store if they are subsequently discovered to be malware.

      On Android, there is no central authority to approve or remove apps.

    23. Re:How many downloads? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Sad isn't it, that it's such a chore on Android to even find something as basic as a decent flashlight app.

    24. Re:How many downloads? by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

      In this case its probably somewhat a victim of its simplicity. Its trivial to bang out a flashlight app so its probably a good choice for malware/crapware, and it doesnt set the bar high for getting plenty of +5 ratings

      But in general, yeah its sad. I'd like to see Google come up with some form of reputation credentials. I like the openness of Google Play as opposed to Apples Walled Garden, but this is a huge downside. I think Play should list the permissions in the play store summary, rather than have to download the app before finding out it wants my SSN and a DNA sample. Even a perfunctory automated test before putting it in the store would be a big improvement. Google could certainly come up with something better than I could think up. But right now the signal to noise ratio in the Play store is getting pretty low lately.

  4. Damn Repackaging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Fortunately the other 98.8% of apps are still able to deliver ads and collect your info in the manner intended by their original developers.

  5. All or nothing approach is silly by Mr_Silver · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I personally dislike Google's all-or-nothing approach to permissions. It gives the user a complete list of things (some of which may be valid and some not) with absolutely no context as to why they need this and then basically tell you that if you want the app then you have to accept the lot.

    Coupled with a barely managed market place, you're just asking for someone to slip something malicious into the store and for anyone downloading it to blindly hit "accept".

    A better method would be to rationalise some of the permissions (for example, do you really need to spook everyone with "read call state" given that it's used to suspend an app when a call comes in?) and then pop up a request to access the other permissions at the time when they are needed - a la iPhone.

    That way I know why my app wants to access my contacts (because I've just pushed the button that says "invite a friend to a game") and also means that if I'm not comfortable with it having access to my call history then I can decline and still have the opportunity to continue using it.

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    1. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      As a solution to the 'barely managed marketplace', you could use another marketplace, like Amazon, or F-Droid mentrioned above. I wonder if anyone is working on a more tightly curated market for Android. I would think that there's money to be made from the more security-conscious.

    2. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by vidnet · · Score: 4, Funny

      pop up a request to access the other permissions at the time when they are needed

      Because that worked so well for Vista?

    3. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A "better way" would be for the mouth breathing masses to self-educate about this type of this - or go back to playing snake on a candy bar phone.

    4. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally dislike Google's all-or-nothing approach to permissions. It gives the user a complete list of things (some of which may be valid and some not) with absolutely no context as to why they need this and then basically tell you that if you want the app then you have to accept the lot.

      Coupled with a barely managed market place, you're just asking for someone to slip something malicious into the store and for anyone downloading it to blindly hit "accept".

      A better method would be to rationalise some of the permissions (for example, do you really need to spook everyone with "read call state" given that it's used to suspend an app when a call comes in?) and then pop up a request to access the other permissions at the time when they are needed - a la iPhone.

      That way I know why my app wants to access my contacts (because I've just pushed the button that says "invite a friend to a game") and also means that if I'm not comfortable with it having access to my call history then I can decline and still have the opportunity to continue using it.

      How about this: the fart app you just asked Google Play Store to install asked for contacts and SMS privileges? DELETED. It's as easy as that, and if you can't make that distinction up front god help you trying to make it at the spur of the moment. I like the permissions model since it makes it clear what the app can do at any point in the future, no matter what state my phone is in or what I happen to be trying to do. If I dont want an app vendor to have the permission, I don't want that app. Quite simple, really. If you happen to like doing it the opposite way, good for you, but fuck you if you think it's the only way it will work.

    5. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks that's the best summation of the issues with the play store that I've read. Those permissions mean shit-all if they're shown to you once and have the all-or-nothing appeal of a click-through EULA. Users just ignore them.

      It would be much better to set as security policy (With sane, safe defaults) and white list privileges one by one. App doesn't work without certain access privs? That's the app's problem. The developer will have to make sure to tell users to turn required features on. (This is sort of how iOS does it. Programs have to ask for access to location, photos, contacts when they need them. Even default built-in apple apps do)

      There's no reason a flashlight app should have access to your contacts and emails.

    6. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by mlts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that Google's model works for people who know what they are doing.

      However, one reason iOS is so successful is the perception that you don't have to watch anything. If it is on Apple's store, it is safe for human consumption.

      The majority of the people out there will not look at the permissions an app wants, and just tap "accept". Android's model works with savvy users, but for the teen texter who barely can type while holding the steering wheel, it has its issues.

      Two ways to fix this: Go with additional permission requests upon first use like Apple or Blackberry's offerings, go with a tier of Play Store which is heavily curated, or both.

    7. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Android's permission model is far from all or nothing, it is entirely declarative and applications do not have all permissions (as opposed to the iphone model in which the user is never told what the application can do).

      It would be nice if the Android model presented a little more granular information at times, e.g. its perfectly reasonable for a media application to know a phone call is on going in order to pause, but last I checked this was lumped in with knowing who called and a few other pieces. From a privacy perspective it would also be nice to be able to install applications and deny them certain permissions (e.g. provide an empty contact list, or location data) in Android 4.3 this was available through a hidden menu, hopefully it will become more easily available future versions.

    8. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by Jartan · · Score: 1

      Apart from F-Droid none of the stores are actually curated. They all want tons of free apps so they won't ever discriminate against user tracking/adds.

      That's fine if you only use open source. For the rest of us it's a huge pain in the ass.

    9. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by zequav · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is App Ops in android >=4.3. Install App Ops Starter and disable the permissions you don't want to grant to an app.

    10. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by MetalOne · · Score: 1

      I wish it would go a step further and not give any apps access to the contacts. It seems to me that an app that needs a contact should make a request to the operating system. The operating system could present the contacts to the user to select one, and then the operating system could return an opaque handle representing the contact to the app. The opaque handle could then be used to send email or what not.

    11. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've answered your own question. Google wants people to blindly accept permissions and they would prefer if you didn't have the ability to use an app while denying it the rights necessary to violate your privacy.

    12. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by cyberfunkr · · Score: 1

      The main problem of this is the developer now has the onus of describing to the user exactly WHY they really need that functionality within the app, and put in warnings and error screens if the user decides to turn off/disallow access. This adds a huge amount of bulk/overhead to even the simplest of apps.

      What happens if a photo editing software is denied access to your camera and/or saved photos? It appears broken so the developer gets negative reviews. This is an obvious example, but there could be more hidden rationals in other apps.

      - Your ToDo app wants to use the GPS so it can remind you when you are at a location to fulfill a task.
      - Your calendar needs your contact list to send out invitations.
      - Your game needs to access your camera to use VR or adjust the lighting.

      You end up with every app giving a series of popups asking for permissions that may or may not make sense. And if there is one thing we've learned, it's that when constantly bogged down with warning popups, people start ignoring them and just click "Yes" for everything making the whole security aspect moot.

      I'd rather see on the app store product page a listing of, "Here are the permissions this app requires, and here is the explanation for why it needs it." Then I can choose BEFORE I EVEN DOWNLOAD the app if I feel safe. Now, they could still be lying through their virtual teeth, but at least I have the foreknowledge to ponder why this app that is supposed to teach me about the stars needs my contact list and access to Facebook.

    13. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Android's permission model is far from all or nothing, it is entirely declarative and applications do not have all permissions (as opposed to the iphone model in which the user is never told what the application can do).

      Except to 99.99% of Android users, that permission information is completely useless to them. They don't know what it means, other than it's a screen that pops up whenever they install anything. They don't read it, they just tap Install and be done with it.

      The technical term is Dancing Pigs (or dancing rabbits), and it describes basically that the user is most likely not pick the right choice security wise. They see an app in the Play store, tap install, then up comes the list of gobbledygook with a button that says "Install". They bypass the list and tap install, because they just wanted to install the app.

      Relying on the user to make security decisions is poor security - all it affords you is the ability to blame the user for this mischoices, except said user is part of the very large majority who don't understand the screen, don't understand the need for it, and certainly don't understand why they need to spend the time reading it.

      And that doesn't even get into the weird permissions you need in order to do stuff (like Read Phone State and Identity to get notifications when someone is calling).

      The iPhone model isn't any better, but popping up extra dialogs doesn't work. Though, iOS at least does notify you and give you the ability to decline individual permissions (e.g., to stuff like location information, contacts and other stuff). But it too suffers from popup-it is.

      Hell, the user can monkey around with some pretty complex steps if you tell them how to do it in small easy steps and they see benefit at the end. It's how they can do stuff like install OpenSSH, run PuTTY and enter in complex command lines - as long as they want to do it, they'll blindly follow. It's how the early jailbreak viruses spread - because people would do them to pirate apps and such and leave OpenSSH running with default passwords (because the HOWTO they used didn't tell them they needed to).

      And I'm almost certain if you've helped someone tat they'll say something like "every time I print, nothing comes out of the printer" despite every time they print, a big screen shows saying "NO PAPER IN TRAY". No, they don't read dialogs either (happens with developers as well - the solution may be right there staring them in the face...).

    14. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is that Google's model works for people who know what they are doing.

      However, one reason iOS is so successful is the perception that you don't have to watch anything. If it is on Apple's store, it is safe for human consumption.

      The majority of the people out there will not look at the permissions an app wants, and just tap "accept". Android's model works with savvy users, but for the teen texter who barely can type while holding the steering wheel, it has its issues.

      Two ways to fix this: Go with additional permission requests upon first use like Apple or Blackberry's offerings, go with a tier of Play Store which is heavily curated, or both.

      Fix 3: Parental Controls > Require password for new apps. Poof the device is now safe in the hands of your teenager or grandmother.

    15. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as opposed to the iphone model in which the user is never told what the application can do

      You don't have a very good understanding of how the iPhone security model works. If the user doesn't want to share contacts, music, photos, location info, etc. they can still use the app, possibly in a limited fashion, because it prompts you once to allow each kind of access.

      I personally prefer this method because there are apps that I use that I don't want having certain types of data, like Skype. I don't want MS getting all of my contact information, so I deny it access and add the 3-4 contacts that I Skype with manually. You don't have that option with Android, which is why people consider it "all-or-nothing". The iPhone actually gives the user finer-grained security control than Android.

    16. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Coupled with a barely managed market place

      I seem to recall there being a lot of outcry when google banned a developer or two from the store. Now you're saying it's barely managed? You realize you can't have it both ways. You can't have it accessible to all (which I think is a major advantage of these virtual stores) AND have it completely free of slime.

    17. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot is composed of more than one person and many of those people have different opinions. I can't believe that people actually have trouble with this concept.

    18. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Google needs the all or nothing approach or you might stop their programs from sucking your data out of your phone.

    19. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You actually think that most people will read the additional permission requests? That's actually really funny. In reality, to most users, their privacy is in danger among all platforms because they don't know what's going on.

      The perception of the vast majority of Android Play Store users is also "if it's on the Play Store, it's safe for human consumption." ... because it's true. 1.2% of 400,000 is only 4,000. Chances of randomly landing on one? Near zero -- regular users will install all the applications everyone else is: Angry Birds, Candy Crush, etc and nothing else.

    20. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      A paid app means giving your dox for the crooks to steal, man! No security-conscious guy would do an online purchase, because it's one of the safest ways to identify an individual online. Just the receipts going into your inbox with your full name, ripe for google and the NSA to correlate to your person.
      There's no money to be made from those guy, unless there's a truly anonymous currency system.

    21. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by coolmadsi · · Score: 1

      There is App Ops in android >=4.3. Install App Ops Starter and disable the permissions you don't want to grant to an app.

      I have that installed (first Nexus 7, Android 4.3) - it looks like there are some permissions that can't be disabled (internet access for example). Otherwise it is quite nice (it also says the last time the app used the permission, and if it has used it)

    22. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      It works well for iOS.

      That Microsoft got it wrong on Vista is irrelevant when there is a mobile phone example that got it right.

    23. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Android's permission model is far from all or nothing, it is entirely declarative and applications do not have all permissions

      You seem to have misunderstood what the previous poster was saying. With Android, if an app requires permissions A, B and C, then you have to give permission for all of A, B and C, or you can't run the app at all. That's all or nothing permissions.

      With iOS, the app might require permissions A, B and C (which will be requested at the time the app first needs each one. And you might only give permission for A and C. And the app will still run. It will be missing the functionality that requires permission B. But everything else will work. That's selective permissions.

      It would be nice if the Android model presented a little more granular information at times

      If you want to make Android even less user friendly than it already is.

    24. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Fix 3: Parental Controls > Require password for new apps. Poof the device is now safe in the hands of your teenager or grandmother.

      Only works for those teens or grandparents that have a phone bought for them by a geek parent or grandson. Which is a small minority. So not really any kind of worthwhile fix for the platform.

    25. Re:All or nothing approach is silly by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I realize it sounded like I was making an accusation of hypocrisy, and your objection is fair. I should have phrased it more like "Google can't please everyone between too managed and not managed enough." Or maybe said that it's already more managed than some people would like.

  6. Mozilla does that too. by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Mozilla allows that, too. There's a slimeball company that takes over abandoned Firefox add-ons, adds spyware, and puts them up on Mozilla's "store". They did this to BlockSite. Users were very angry.

    Mozilla's reaction? Mozilla's add-on policies prohibit this: "Whenever an add-on includes any unexpected* feature that ... compromises user privacy or security (like sending data to third parties)" ... "These features cannot be introduced into an update of a fully-reviewed add-on; the opt-in change process must be part of the initial review." The spyware was just fine with Jorge Villalobos, Mozilla's add-on project manager, who wrote "That's outdated, since we don't enforce that policy."

    You can't trust the Mozilla Foundation any more. That's sad.

  7. Re:90% of Win/Mac app upgrades are repacked crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fanboy much lately?

  8. Amazon App Store? by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the Amazon android marketplace has this issue. I wonder if anyone even cares.

  9. Quantity over quality by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

    Google Play has recently surpassed the one million mark when it comes to the apps it offers

    There's the problem right there. It isn't possible to have 1 million apps that are actually useful. Not even close. Just that number alone tells you that there is a problem -- that you have an enormous number of apps that are simply duplicates of others or malicious or just plain useless.

    1. Re:Quantity over quality by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Useless to whom?

      There's a ton of duplication, but not without some feature or preference issue. While I can imagine that the most obvious flashlight features are duplicated across all flashlight apps, I'm sure that there's a number of features (like support for specific phones and odd hardware lights, and widgets) preferences (tray icon, UI), or innovations (auto-off, strobe) that haven't been incorporated into the One True Flashlight App just yet. ...now when you want the one with the "help me" strobe that supports S4 gestures to change modes, you need some duplication.

      There's also a dozen niche apps. How many Magic The Gathering life counters do you need? [I'm nerd enough to know there's plenty of room for different apps here.] How many keyboards do you need? How many pop the bubbles games do you need?

      Just because you can't run a million apps doesn't mean that the thousand you could possibly use are the same as the thousand I could possibly use. Combine your thousand and my thousand and now we've probably got only 100 that overlap. You couldn't care less about having multiple Nissan Leaf apps because Torque Pro doesn't support reading advanced battery values from it -- but I do. Someone else cares about all sorts of stuff neither of us do.

    2. Re:Quantity over quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google Play has recently surpassed the one million mark when it comes to the apps it offers

      There's the problem right there. It isn't possible to have 1 million apps that are actually useful. Not even close. Just that number alone tells you that there is a problem -- that you have an enormous number of apps that are simply duplicates of others or malicious or just plain useless.

      1 million apps can most certainly be useful, if they are built to fit a specific niche (for example my health insurance company published an app for managing health improvement incentives) since there are plenty if niches out there. They "could" be 1 million fart app duplicates, or they could be useful, organization specific apps. 15 years ago you would have said that same thing about .com sites; "surely 1 million is too many, they are all just duplicates for ads or viruses" but today it is clear that the world needs more than that, and there are good ways (search engines) of navigating them all.

    3. Re:Quantity over quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe there is 1000 that I think I might want - I think there are probably about 10 I actually would use on a regular basis.

      And they deliberately try to stop me finding what I do want. (No Adware or Tracking.) Only the top 3 in each class of application.

      They should move all the privacy invading stuff to its own catagory. (Be most of it leaving the good stuff actually easy to find).

      I cannot even do a search for apps that don't use full internet access. (Wasting my battery is not acceptable to me in any way shape or form).

    4. Re:Quantity over quality by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Maybe there is 1000 that I think I might want - I think there are probably about 10 I actually would use on a regular basis.

      To be clear, I've got 95 icons on my phone, meaning I've got 60 things that aren't "Phone," "Settings," or the full suite of Google apps.

      I use about 5 of those on the average day.
      I use about 15 of those in an average week.
      I've probably got 10 of them I can delete right now - but space is cheap.

  10. Not a month goes by ... by guanxi · · Score: 1

    Not a month goes by ...

      * Without someone finding salmonella in a piece of chicken
      * Without someone finding a defect in a new GM car
      * Without someone's computer crashing
      * Without someone finding a spelling error in a Slashdot post ...

    Out of 420,000 apps, does finding malware every month really signify something? Or is 1% a high rate?

    1. Re:Not a month goes by ... by koan · · Score: 1

      "Out of 420,000 apps, does finding malware every month really signify something? Or is 1% a high rate?"

      You need a comparison, what's Apple's rate?

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    2. Re:Not a month goes by ... by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      "Out of 420,000 apps, does finding malware every month really signify something? Or is 1% a high rate?"

      You need a comparison, what's Apple's rate?

      As TFA states: "By design, Android applications can be disassembled, modified and reassembled to provide new functionalities."

      Fortunately, that's not the case in the "walled garden" of derision.

    3. Re:Not a month goes by ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure you can do that with an IOS app. If you wanted to resubmit it to apple to show up, it would have to get through their more stringent review, however.

    4. Re:Not a month goes by ... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Assuming the same rat on all apps on the app store, 1.2% is 12,000 apps.

      Apple's rate is as close to 0% as makes no difference. There are few enough that every one that is found makes it's own media storm.

  11. What is being added by Fnord666 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is a decent graphic showing just what is being added to these repackaged applications.

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  12. Link to the original article by Fnord666 · · Score: 3, Informative

    here is the original article in case anyone is interested. It goes into greater detail about the issues involved.

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    1. Re:Link to the original article by adisakp · · Score: 1

      Did the Net-Security.org site repackage this article before it was repackaged by Slashdot?

  13. Opt-in though? by grimJester · · Score: 1

    That's outdated, since we don't enforce that policy. As long as the feature is opt in, it is acceptable to introduce it in an update.

    1. Re:Opt-in though? by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As long as the feature is opt in...

      The "opt in" was more like "we're making you an offer you can't refuse." It was pushed as an update to an existing add-on. The page with the terms was deliberately confusing. The privacy policy was originally missing. Some users reported that if you refused the tracking, the add-on then blocked major sites such as Flickr.

      I was amazed that got past Mozilla's approval process. They've sold out.

  14. Laugh by koan · · Score: 1

    Google should be proactive about this (more so if they already are) because in a sense they are starting to become the Microsoft of mobile, with crap embedded and 3rd party apps.

    I guess I have a winner for my "Who can fuck up Linux the worst" contest.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  15. Avoidance by xigxag · · Score: 2

    A couple of simple things can be done to avoid phone malware.

    1) Investigate the app before you install it. Click on the developer's web page and see if it looks legit. Read the reviews. Check to see that the permissions it's asking for have a legitimate purpose.

    2) As TFA notes, most of these malware apps are free. Stay away from "free" apps from unknown developers. You're better off paying 99c, $1.99, $2.99 to give the developer a legitimate revenue stream than incentivizing them to pimp you out to shady third party advertisers.

    3) In other words, remember that your phone is a computer. Don't take careless risks with your phone or tablet that you would never take with your desktop or laptop.

    --
    There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    1. Re:Avoidance by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      Stay away from "free" apps from unknown developers. You're better off paying 99c, $1.99, $2.99 to give the developer a legitimate revenue stream than incentivizing them to pimp you out to shady third party advertisers.

      Good advice. I need to start charging for my shady, repackaged malware on Google Play.

    2. Re:Avoidance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Google started accepting Paypal or an equivalent instead of wanting to know my card details, maybe I would consider paying for apps!

    3. Re:Avoidance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your advice is idiotic. Remember kids, before you buy something at a store google it for reviews, and google the company name and history to make sure they are on the up and up. Ya, cause people are totally going to do that.

  16. I am shocked! by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1

    How soon people forget there are still all sorts of places to get modified Windows toolbars and shit ass apps like bear share and the likes for free and most of them hose you and phone home to momma. Most likely it is the same crowd of assholes that are modding Android apps and including phone home features that did shit like bear share and all the other Windows crapware back in the 90's. I just wonder how many of the gambling and porn sites are distributing free shit apps for Android, most likely about the same number that include iPhone, iPad and Windows apps on their sites.

    As long as there are ponzi scams like Linkbucks and largely Mafia run gaming and porn sites happening on the net you will have shitty apps that phone home or redirect. It is no surprise that they are targeting Android. Again it comes down to if the original source is not available DON'T TRUST IT and this includes any app that is free to use regardless of the OS. ESPECIALLY good apps that have been modified and redistributed by someone else and do not match the checksum of the original binary.

    It is not that these assholes that write phone home apps don't still write crap for Windows, it is just that they are going after a much larger audience when they target Android devices. Google does need to get proactive and dump the bullshit apps from their store though.

    Microsoft seems to be learning the lesson but because they are starting to really fall behind in the consumer device market we will not see many shit apps for Windows phone or RT. Naturally this does not mean that all the shit apps for x86 will disappear it is just that fewer and fewer older Windows devices are using the net and and the scamware writers are trying desperately to catch up with the usage curve which has swung decidedly toward Android. Last but not least most users have over the years been scared away from installing free apps off net on Windows and there is damn good reason for it! Crapware is a plague and the only answer is to expose the apps and remove them from the net if possible.

    I have a friend that frequents gaming sites and regularly complains about how shitty his high end i5 laptop with Win7 runs, but the guy just does not understand how malicious the spyware from gaming sites can be. He even has tool bars with activeX which are installed for his gaming sites. I warn him but he just does not get it, but then again I would say he is addicted to gambling so perhaps he is having trouble seeing through his WINDOWS with the rose coloured glasses he wears.

    --
    This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    1. Re:I am shocked! by toonces33 · · Score: 1

      I had to clean up my sister-in-laws computer at one point. People had been downloading "free" games from god knows where, and it was horribly infected with all sorts of malware. When I got a hold of the thing, it wouldn't boot because of the crap that was installed.

  17. I have considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    repackaging apps to remove the (*&(*& advertising. But it would have been only for my own benefit.

  18. A little offtopic, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are there any good estimates on numbers of actual mobile infections out there?

    Security firms press-releases all talk about numbers of malware app kinds detected, and most aren't even clear on where do they look and what constitutes malware in their definition.

  19. Application policy by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

    The only prompt which should ever appear when installing an App is for owner to select a profile of permissions the owner of the device feels comfortable giving to the application. Once this decision is made operating system is expected to do whatever is necessary to sell the lie that Rumpelstiltskin at 7185551212 is my only contact, my current location is the South Pole and my phone number is 1-900-909-4300.

    The problem is none of the current cast of characters - not Microsoft, Google, Apple give a shit about the user they only care about profits which is why the user is always allowed to be treated like shit. Their days of owning the mobile OS space are numbered.

  20. FUD by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    From the tone of the article this sounds scary!

    But really, 1.2% Come on! That's tiny! 1.2% tells me Google is doing a pretty good job!

    Repackaged versions of real apps? Oooooh... scary! If you see a second copy of an app, especially one with worse ratings, or a free app with a different author than the same paid app.. DON'T INSTALL IT. Duh!!

    1. Re:FUD by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      But really, 1.2% Come on! That's tiny! 1.2% tells me Google is doing a pretty good job!

      Compared to?

      Apple is so close to 0% as makes no difference. It's not possible to package someone else's app as your own. And malware is so rare, each single one becomes a significant media story.

  21. Any stats for.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  22. Hey, downmodder: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "best you got" = unjustifiable downmods? You've got zero... & you know it, I know it (as does anybody else reading with 1/2 a brain).

    * To top that off, others will see it anyhow (bet THAT just "breaks your heart", doesn't it?)... It's been up for nearly 3 hrs. anyhow - you're TOO LATE anyhow!

    Yes, folks: It truly makes me laugh - just SEEING you "struck speechless" thus!

    (You, with NO VALID on topic critique to disprove the points I made on the value of hosts in added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity (to an extent on the latter) - only technically unjustified downmods, nothing more, lol!).

    I love it...

    APK

    P.S.=> Well, that's fine by me, since You're only making me STRONGER each time you fools bogusly downmod my posts on hosts (you know that, don't you?) & yet you can't offer ANY valid technical critique vs. my points

    ... apk

    1. Re:Hey, downmodder: by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1

      You're only making me STRONGER each time you fools bogusly downmod my posts on hosts (you know that, don't you?) & yet you can't offer ANY valid technical critique vs. my points

      ... apk

      It wasn't me that down-modded you, but holy crap how long did it take you to enter all the bees,

      pees

      and a hrefs? surprised you didn't use

      quote

      or

      li

      I commend you sir for being the most imaginative anon coward I have ever had the privilege of responding to on Slashdot!

      If you have a blog please post a link as I find deciphering html from hell to be an absolute blast.

      Best wishes, look on the bright side of things. There might be a job for you at healthcare.gov designing secure phone apps that modify etc/hosts!

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    2. Re:Hey, downmodder: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you proved his point. Others do see his post thru the unjustified downmods that were applied to it with no justificaiton as to why they applied a downmod or disproving his points on hosts files' efficacy.

  23. Meh by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

    This means that I blindly need to install about 100 apps in order to get one or two that are "malicious". If some effort is invested in judging the legitimacy of the apps, then all 100 installs will probably turn out to be ok. This sounds pretty fine to me.

  24. Gardener wanted by saha · · Score: 2

    Perhaps the Android garden doesn't need a wall, but it could really use a full time gardener

  25. Fake permissions by corvax · · Score: 1

    Was it paranoiod android or cyanogenmod that had a system in which it gave these apps fake info and sandboxed them ....The apps installed but privlidges revoked?

  26. Apps are a cesspit by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

    Apps are a cesspit of cheap wares, flashy icons, and dubious peddling of every description. The app stores most resemble the cheap ads section of tabloid newspapers, and may as well have LET THE BUYER BEWARE and similar slogans etched in 50 foot high letters over the entrance.

    There is no quality control for apps, no guarantees, no trust, no reliability, and in the vast majority of cases, no useful purpose. If this is the future of the software industry, then the software industry has no future.

    If I wanted to go back to the dark days of late 1990's freeware, I would have asked.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  27. Powered by Donations by krischik · · Score: 1

    You really think that works? I sell Android Open Source by the GPL rules: legitimate customers can request the source code — but nobody ever does. I do mention it. It is not a hidden secrete. Still no one is interested.

    And on the other side I don't expect donation to flow in if I used that site. Once the average user has his App he is not interested either in source or donations.

    I for one continue to use the GPL allowance to sell the binary and only give away bare source for fee.

  28. Common Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to remember the internet safety rules though. We all know them. If an app has a piss poor rating don't use it, that's the same system we use everywhere. If the app is acting shady don't use it. If shady stuff happens after you install the app don't use it. And always clean your machine afterwards.

    That said, I wonder what percent of the apps on the playstore are *legitimately* using adware and collecting information, like facebook kik and the play store itself. I suppose it's only illegit if the app is distributed by pirates.