Slashdot Mirror
F-Secure: Android Accounted For 97% of All Mobile Malware In 2013
An anonymous reader writes "Back in 2012, Android accounted for 79 percent of all mobile malware. Last year, that number ballooned even further to 97 percent. Both those data points come from security firm F-Secure, which today released its 40-page Threat Report for the second half of 2013. More specifically, Android malware rose from 238 threats in 2012 to 804 new families and variants in 2013. Apart from Symbian, F-Secure found no new threats for other mobile platforms last year."
Linux is secure, right? Isn't Android Linux?
This is what you get running unsigned code from anywhere people! The last 30+ years of malware on Amiga, DOS, Windows, Unix, Linux, etc. should be a lesson. Trust code to execute by default and this is what you get. Rely entirely on the end user to determine whether or not code is legitimate, and this is what you get.
The average Joe is not capable of making that decision. Sure, it sucks, but them's the breaks.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
I can't wait for a true '3rd option' (not apple and not android) to come on the market. I don't enjoy or trust either of the two existing choices.
What, WindowsPhone isn't good enough to qualify as that "3rd option"? Seriously, you can still get a blackberry, WinPhone or just a plain ol dumb phone that tethers really well (my TMO plan has free tethering) and run an iPod touch or equivalent.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
No. Android security is currently just that bad. For several reasons, not least of which is likely due to the massive number of handsets that are abandoned software-update wise upon release.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
It sounds nice in the hacker world, but in the hands of the 'average Joe', an "Open Handset" is an invitation to have your bank account stolen.
Well sort of. If you restrict yourself to Google's Play store for software the rate was .1%. The rest, almost all of it in this case, came from other stores for Android software. Mostly Saudi Arabia and India.
So it would be nice if Android were more interested in security, but on the other hand it isn't the huge dramatic result that would warrant the headline.
Stay with Google Play and things are pretty safe.
Then explain the lack of similar quantities of malware for iOS between 2007 and 2012?
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
True, leaving the device powered off permanently in its shrinkwrap on a store shelf does make it rather secure.
Someone had to do it.
Obviously, the malware is so well written that nobody has found it yet.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
At the very bottom of the list was Google Play itself, with the lowest percentage of malware in the gathered samples: 0.1 percent. F-Secure also noted that “the Play Store is most likely to promptly remove nefarious applications, so malware encountered there tends to have a short shelf life.” While that’s great news for most Android users, it
Why would anybody shop for apps on their android phone/tablet like a crack addict looking for their next hit is beyond me. Are people really that naive?
"...but only 0.1% of those were on Google Play"
So that vast majority is practically all third-party installations (something which isn't even an option on iOS).
Isn't the entire selling point of android that you can install software from wherever you like though?
Well, one of several selling points.
This study simply validates apples decision to more strictly control what software is allowed on their devices.
97% of all murders happen in societies that don't put all their citizens in cages. Does that validate the idea that everyone should live in a cage?
For those users who do need to install anything they like, they can still do it without compromising the security of their device by getting a developer certificate.
What about 3rd party software that Apple doesn't allow on its app store from trusted parties? Like... most anything GPL? Should I really need a developer certificate to use a fully vetted repo maintained by the FSF or whatever?
What about, something like the humblebundle, where I can buy a license to a game for any platform its available on... except ios, even its available for ios because: Apple.
Or if steam wanted to include mobile games? Again: Not allowed on apple.
There's a lot of good things out there that Apple's lock in prevents. And no, a developer certificate, and an annual fee for the privilege of not using the apple store all the time is not a solution.
If you don't want to compromise the security of your device, don't do your app shopping in the equivalent of back alleys and asian night markets. And guess what, most android users don't. Nearly all north american android users stick to the default app store(s). And of those that don't, the vast majority of them are still fine -- they are using the humblebundle app in addition to google play for example to load their humble purchases.
Android malware really just affects that group of people who are trying to get pirate copies of paid apps and such on asian app stores... i mean how many warning bells should that set off?!!
And even on android its a small problem... if you have a million iphones and a million androids, and of them 3 iphones have malware, and 97 androids have malware, that's still 97% of malware is on android -- but its still a very minor problem, that only affects people who do REALLY stupid things.
Since everyone says that only stupid people use iPhones
No. Everyone does not say that. In fact, a lot of Android users don't really care much one way or the other about iPhones.
Personally, I am disappointed in iOS but I certainly don't care about it enough to consider iOS/Android to be a glorious battle of the righteous. They're just two phone operating systems and I prefer Android. Can't we keep it that simple?
So they can serve you ads.
explain the lack of similar quantities of malware for iOS between 2007 and 2012?
Because of Apple's "walled garden". The only way to get apps for iOS is from Apple's store, and Apple tries to keep the malware out.
Apple always charges $100 to put an app in the store, so malware has to make at least $100 before it is discovered or the person who put the malware on the store loses money.
The "walled garden" does have advantages.
Personally, I like having a device where I can install anything I want... but I pretty much just get stuff from the Google Play store. If I need an SSH app, and I see one with over 30,000 votes rating it 4 or 5 stars, I'm pretty sure it won't be malware when I download it.
And according to TFA, almost all of the malware was side-loaded. Almost none of the malware came from the Google Play store. Thus, Android gives me the advantage of the walled garden, while still being more free than iOS.
P.S. The reason I went with Android rather than iOS was Apple's policy of no interpreters and no emulators. I wanted Python and games emulators. Apple has since then unbent a bit, but Android has always allowed you to install whatever sorts of apps you prefer.
Thus I am able to install interpreters and emulators, without rooting my phone, and getting them from the Google Play store. Why wouldn't I want this?
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
To the "anonymous reader" who posted the main article : If you link to TFA, at least post the less misleading title it used:
Makes a world of difference. And yes, shame on you.