Slashdot Mirror
New Permission System Could Make Android Much Less Secure
capedgirardeau writes: An update to the Google Play store now groups app permissions into collections of related permissions, making them much less fine grained and potentially misleading for users. For example, the SMS permissions group would allow an app access to both reading and sending SMS messages. The problem is that once an app has access to the group of permissions, it can make use of any of the allowed actions at any time without ever informing the user. As Google explains: "It's a good idea to review permissions groups before downloading an app. Once you've allowed an app to access a permissions group, the app may use any of the individual permissions that are part of that group. You won't need to manually approve individual permissions updates that belong to a permissions group you've already accepted."
I don't think it has to be explained why this is a potential problem. So then, it should be explained why this is such a great idea that the problems it creates are insignificant.
Makes me glad I run a Windows 8.1 phone.
cripple apps by denying parts of their permission request. right now its all or nothing
Funny, I was expecting this crowd to have fantasies of crippling those apps' developers.
I mean seriously, $(app vendor), your app does not need access to my location and/or phone calls in order for me to do $(menial computation X).
One feature I really want on my cell is the ability to tell the app that I've given it all the permissions it is asking for, but behind the scenes remove that ability from the app. This is especially for apps like games that ask for all permissions, but only really need a few. I should be able to accept the game onto my system and then after adjusting the app's permissions, it would receive garbage contact details, garbage friend details, garbage location data, garbage file listings, messages go to /dev/null, etc.
I'm sure if I root my device I could do something like that, but I just wish something like that was built in. {I kinda feel safer in my walled garden, easier to recover from garbage apps.}
Just finished updating a few apps on my phone.
Adobe Air has a new permission group it requests. However, on the 'here's the permissions Air is requesting' pop-up after you hit the update button, they no longer mark the new permissions with "NEW". So now you have to cancel out of the update and go check each and every app you're going to update to see what the new permissions it's requesting.
Totally stupid move by Google to not even mark the new permissions with 'NEW'
Using an alternate rom (ie cyanogenmod) will allow you to use different android versions, with different (or no add on) UI. These are things like touchwiz or HTC Sense. The permisions system for apps remains the same. Also, cyanogenmod and other ROMS may not support all your hardware or be stable (but then again some carrier builds are not that great either).
There are programs that when rooted will allow you to block access of apps to certain subsystems, giving finer grained control, but it is not automatic, you have to go in and do it yourself, and that is regardless of the ROM/android version.
Silence is a state of mime.
Install XposedFramework: ...then the Xprivacy module.
http://repo.xposed.info/module...
This isn't a great option for many, however, as you need root access. It does give you extremely fine-grained control over permissions, and includes options like randomizing (on each boot) the garbage data returned to apps to keep them happy.
Xposed is great; the GravityBox module, for example, has a ton of interesting and useful functions, like setting your cellular radio to 2G when connected to wifi, a mode to have an increasing ring, a network speed indicator, etc.
While I'm plugging Android software I use: the F-Droid open source repository is full of nice stuff (like AdAway.)
https://f-droid.org/
Please help metamoderate.
I want to have a settings page where I can go in whenever I want and selectively disable permissions.
This just sounds like more dumbed down version.
And, cynically, I believe that Google is doing this to ensure they can still collect data on you, and the people using their advertising services can continue to do to.
This is why when I download a new app, the first thing I do is try it in airplane mode. If it's not an application which should require access to the interwebs, but tries to access it, it gets deleted.
I must say, I'm disappointed in this. Because I want more control over app permissions, not less.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Yes. It absolutely IS possible. Cyanogen calls it Privacy Guard, and I have it enabled by default, such that anything I install from Play automatically gets blocked unless I go in and enable something specific.
Something like 90% of all apps require access to the IMEI of the phone which requires read_phone_state and that pretty much abandons all pretense of security compartmentalization since it can also see who you're calling, when you're talking, etc.. Most applications should only care and use it for a unique ID token. IF they want to fix permissions models:
1. Separate the 'phone unique number' from the phone's call state functions. Must have, end of line. This is just plain retarded form day 1
2. Write in permissions which are optional vs. required. Optional permissions are requested on demand like IOS and can be rejected or permantently accepted. Required permissions must be explicitly allowed when the application is installed
3. Re-introduce AppOps functionality or at the minimum an audit trail of when-last and how often the application attempts a specific permission operation/category
4. Consider second tier permissions model where if you want to include common and generally well understood permissions like read_gps there's no hoops to jump through, but if one wants to read and access the variety of accounts I have on my phone, I want to make damn sure that the company asking for this information has at least passed the stink test.
5. Lastly, I want third parties to be able to flag applications (based on APK signature or through store functionality) as a problem so that even if Google doesn't have the time or resources to police all applications in the sun, I should be allowed to trust a thrird party who can flag programs problems based on any reason they find.
This allows for uses like:
- Flag applications for parental categories
- Flag apps as 'ad-enabled'
- Flag apps that are outright malicious in terms of stealing data/information
- Flag apps that violate certain country laws
- Flag apps that are banned based on administrative oversight (for work phones)
Having this barrier mandatory or optional is up for debate as well as the ability to unistall is using a 'master' control password, etc..
Bye!
With limits, yes.
CM's privacy guard allows you to block apps from getting at your address book or SMS and such. It also allows you to control things like camera/microphone access. And you can even disable background apps and notifications (for example, I have Facebook pretty much tuned so it can't do anything more than it can in a web browser).
One notable thing CM doesn't do is allow you to prevent Internet access for apps. I read that this is to prevent someone from downloading an add-supported app and then cutting it off from its ad networks. I order to do that sort of thing, you usually need to root and install a firewall or some other ad blocker.
Quite frankly, if you've got a phone that's out of warranty or no longer getting vendor updates, installing CM is worth looking into. It's a bit of a pain in the ass the first time (at least it was for my devices), but after that it's pretty smooth sailing.
Log in or piss off.
Google wants companies to actually write apps for the Google Play store. If they give end-users too much power over the permissions, they drive companies out of the Google Play store and over to the Apple store.
On the other hand, Google also wants end-users to actually buy these products. By grouping permissions up, they seem innocuous, so users feel less threatened (even though they should feel more threatened) and will buy the stuff.
From a business perspective, this move makes perfect sense. From an educated geek end-user's perspective, it really sucks. But what are you going to do? The world you want to live in does not exist.
Being a Linux geek since '95 (and somewhat of annoyed-by-all-things-apple person), I bought an Android phone ever since they became available commercially. Did that for five years, ran custom roms and put in an Android patch to maintain a permissions firewall. It was one big PITA from a usability point of view. One day, I saw my banking app looking at my call log and that broke the camel's back, for me. I realized Google simply isn't interested in protecting my privacy. The whole you-can-see-what-perms-app-is-asking-for-before-install is a smokescreen. It doesn't scale. Pushing security problems to the user won't work for 99% of the userbase. Hell, it didn't even work reliably for a Linux nerd like me. By contrast, Apple only exposes a handful of data/attributes to ANY app. An iOS app can't look at or even ask look at my SMS, call log and practically most of the stuff - now, that is a sandbox. Also, from a business point of view, Apple makes money by selling me a phone so yes, they have some incentive above that to milk me for analytics but they aren't Google, who don't make much money when I buy an Android phone. For Google, I am the product. So, I switched to iOS (phones and tablets) and actually since then have switched from Gmail to Fastmail, Picasa to SmugMug. With these switches, my privacy is better protected and even usability is better (Picasa, for me, died when Google started shoving G+ Photos down everyone's throats).