Related
http://digitizor.com/2011/07/21/android-malware/
Android has had its fair share of malware problems. Whenever malware are detected, Google reacts swiftly and remove them. However, according to security researcher Neil Daswani, around 8% of the apps on the Android market are leaking private user data.
Neil Daswani, who is also the CTO of security firm Dasient, says that they have studied around 10,000 Android apps and have found that 800 of them are leaking private information of the user to an unauthorized server. Neil Daswani is scheduled to present the full findings at the Black Hat Conference in Las Vegas which starts on July 30th.
The Dasient researchers also found out that 11 of the apps they have examined are sending unwanted SMS messages.
Google needs to take charge
This malware problem on Android has become too much. One of the main reason that we see malicious apps in the market is because of the lack of regulation in the apps that get into the Android Market.
Sure, the lack of regulation can be good. It means that developers can make their apps without worrying if Google will accept their apps or not. It fits into the pre-existing application distribution model where anyone can develop and publish their own apps.
However, this comes at a price - the malware problem. Yes, most of the problems with these malicious apps can be avoided if only users read the permission requirements of the apps. But, what percentage of the users actually read the permission requirements of all the apps they download?
I think that it is time that Google make approval of the apps a requirement before it gets into the Market. They do not need to do it like Apple, but a basic security check before an app gets on the market will be nice.
If nothing is done about and this problem is allowed to grow, it will end up killing the platform.
Ur a good man
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
Get an iPhone then.
Don't know if apple should approve or disaproove since that can slow down the release of new apps, but they need to check, that's for sure.
Yeah, just read permissions when installing applications. A lot of them will state access to personal data (such as contacts, browser history, etc.)
Such apps like MP3 downloaders contain ALOT of this malware.
if you're that paranoid.....LBE Privacy Guard + Droidwall = #winning
This article is very true in sense of lacking of control on big G part. My friend developed an app and he was able to get it into market almost instantly. I was very shocked to find that no scanning or checking was done.
Therefore, it's a risk that we take everyday to use these apps, specially, custom ROMs because who knows what it installed really. Users just need to be aware of their action, and don't use bank apps on rooted devices, or corporate email on rooted devices, or email yourself passwords to your online banking from your rooted devices. My thought is that, if it's out there then somebody can get it these days with all the technologies.
A little bit of common sense when installing apps can go a long way. You stifle the market too much when you cater to the lowest common denominator but then if you don't you get stuff like this.
+1 on Droidwall too, great app. Just don't turn it on and then forget about it before getting it set up properly, it's a pain figuring out why you can't use the internet on anything lol
xHausx said:
A little bit of common sense when installing apps can go a long way. You stifle the market too much when you cater to the lowest common denominator but then if you don't you get stuff like this.
+1 on Droidwall too, great app. Just don't turn it on and then forget about it before getting it set up properly, it's a pain figuring out why you can't use the internet on anything lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hahaha, was tryna to download a new app and wondering why it just stalled kept on saying, downloading..... downloading paused....blah blah!!! lol
turns out it was droidwall (even with market enabled) lol
Yea when a simple clock widget wants to read your contact, data and location but has no ads or settings, I avoided that one.
I prefer the risk of an open system to the purgatory that is a closed system ruled by a draconian company any day.
Oh look iOS does this too.
/troll
DoctorComrade said:
Oh look iOS does this too.
/troll
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hah, they're at almost 50%
Before beginning, I'm outlining two application permissions for future reference.
These were pulled from this article. It also outlines other permissions.
Raju PP said:
fine (GPS) location
While not a danger for stealing any of your personal information, this will allow an application to track where you are. Typical applications that might need this include (but are not limited to) restaurant directories, movie theater finders, and mapping applications.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Raju PP said:
coarse (network-based) location
This setting is almost identical to the above GPS location permission, except that it is less precise when tracking your location.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Recently, I've taken an interest in privacy concerns with application permissions. I'm sure several of you are guilty of being unaware of unnecessary app permissions. I have apps on my device that I've had since migrating to Android, long before I concerned myself with privacy. In my recent hunt of cleaning up my application list, I've discovered that many applications have permissions that aren't necessary for it to function. The most common, unnecessary permission I've come across is coarse (network-based) location. As its name describes, this permission allows an app to determine your approximate location (e.g., the large location area shown by Google Maps when GPS is not on).
An example. I use a Wifi Login application to automatically enter login information for campus internet access (it was cumbersome to enter it manually each time). It works wonderfully, but it has this permission (coarse location). I asked myself, "what function of the app needs to access location??" I only need the app to access the internet, nothing else. I also noticed that each day, there was a location service wakelock despite having all location refreshing services turned off (in other apps, latitude, etc.). Upon removing its ability to obtain approximate location, the location service wakelock disappeared and functionality was not affected.
So, there are two concerns: privacy and unnecessary battery usage. While the link between the two is not often made, I'm making it here. Not only was the app (presumably) sharing my location, but in doing so, my battery took a hit. Before someone panics, I don't believe most apps use this maliciously. My guess is that app developers use it for demographic purposes to determine where in the U.S. their application is being used. Obviously not necessary, but an interesting tidbit for the creator of an app. So my question is, are you ok with apps accessing your approximate location? I've seen several games that have location permissions and in no way can that be justified.
Going beyond location permissions, there are obviously other privacy concerns. A number of app developers I've seen list why an application needs certain permissions. In the example provided above, the developer doesn't mention permission uses. In post 2, I will provide methods for identifying and removing app permissions (by using other apps lol - ironic, I know). Below is a good read about applications' additional "costs."
Free apps not truly 'free'
I use two applications to identify permissions: Appbrain Ad Detector and Avast Mobile Security. Appbrain Ad Detector has the ability to notify you when an app you install has "concerns." Avast Mobile Security has a lot of very useful features, one of them being "privacy advisor." Using one or both of these will allow you to determine what permissions are necessary and which ones are not. For what it's worth, I've only had a few apps that I felt had unnecessary permissions. You obviously don't want to revoke Tango access to the camera lol.
EDIT: I was going to suggest getting an application called "App Shield," (has the ability to remove app permissions) but it appears that it is no longer available on the market. It was a paid app that was just under 2 bucks, if I remember correctly. Due to this development, you'll have to find either App Shield or another method to accomplish this.
You can always just email the app creator and ask why they have the permission included. It (usually) takes more than one questionable permission to be truly dangerous.
From what I've read the majority of apps that use coarse location is for determining the ads you see in the app. Better chance of them being relevant to you.
Just like that article you linked, I think it was brought up on an xda portal article (either that or lifehacker love that site) that because of ad supported apps using coarse location, the battery use was higher, and paid apps that remove the ads will lower your battery drain. Not a huge difference, but it can add up.
gr8hairy1 said:
. . .
From what I've read the majority of apps that use coarse location is for determining the ads you see in the app. Better chance of them being relevant to you.
. . .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Makes sense. Coincidentally, the example I used is a paid app. The app itself had the permission, as well as the "pro" activation apk. Though it's no longer an issue, I may consider contacting the app developer out of curiosity.
Definitely do that. I have a large amount of apps on my phone, and it's not too uncommon to get an update for an app that removes a permission. Many times it's done because people contact the developer and the developer realizes it's not needed. Most times I see that happen is in paid apps, only sometimes with the free apps.
As for your original topic "are you ok with apps accessing your location", I have no issue with it. Obviously if it is getting used maliciously, no, I wouldn't be ok with it.
But as it is, 'guaranteed' the Phone Carriers know where you are and where you've been. And 'guaranteed' the government knows where you are and where you've been. I will always be more worried about the government knowing everything they want about me, without my permission, than some app creator. And as it is, I'm ok with the government knowing.
I feel the same way about the government as I do Google. Until they turn evil and start enslaving mankind (search "is google skynet", hilarious and royally creepy) I'm going to keep using them and stay in the country I live in.
Conspiracy theorists feel free to chime in. Although let's be honest, the over-the-top conspiracy theorists (that make for the best/most hilarious conversations) won't likely be carrying around a device that has cameras, microphones, gps chip, and internet access that can be used to activate one or all of those remotely
I don't really care if they know my location, but now that you mentioned a possible battery drain, I am bothered by that. Someone should make a list of popular apps that may have unnecessary permissions that can be safely disabled through some sort of means.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.stericson.permissions
Yer welcome.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
I don't care either. I have my GPS constantly disabled so the only location any of my apps could get is a general network location....
Honestly, I think privacy concerns are often blown out of proportion... mostly by the media. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing bad with being concerned, but I highly doubt we are going to have another Craig's list killer situation from developers releasing apps on Google Play. Knock on wood.
As mentioned before, contact the app's dev and ask for more info. If they never reply then I would be worried. As well you can always use a different one. If needed you can use "Tasker" which can allow you to build almost any function any other app has to offer all under your control. Just be warned Tasker is highly addictive for us nerds....
Anyway, and in summary, I have less trust is most banks selling my purchase history then the random app developer.... but that's just me.
Nice article to read.. Just thought I would share.. MODS PLEASE DELETE IN CASE THIS IS A DUPLICATE.
http://news.yahoo.com/theres-zombie-...013019842.html
There's a Zombie-like Security Flaw in Almost Every Android Phone
LikeDislike
Abby Ohlheiser 56 minutes ago
Technology & Electronics
.
View gallery
There's a Zombie-like Security Flaw in Almost Every Android Phone
Almost every Android phone has a big, gaping security weakness, according to the security startup who discovered the vulnerability. Essentially, according to BlueBox, almost every Android phone made in the past four years (or, since Android "Donut," version 1.6) is just a few steps away from becoming a virtual George Romero film, thanks to a weakness that can "turn any legitimate application into a malicious Trojan."
While news of a security vulnerability in Android might not exactly be surprising to users, the scope of the vulnerability does give one pause: "99 percent" of Android mobiles, or just under 900 million phones, are potentially vulnerable, according to the company. All hackers have to do to get in is modify an existing, legitimate app, which they're apparently able to do without breaking the application's security signature. Then, distribute the app and convince users to install it.
Google, who hasn't commented on the vulnerability yet, has known about the weakness since February, and they've already patched the Samsung Galaxy S4, according to CIO. And they've also made it impossible for the malicious apps to to install through Google Play. But the evil apps could still get onto a device via email, a third-party store, or basically any website. Here's the worst-case scenario for exploitation of the vulnerability, or what could potentially happen to an infected phone accessed via an application developed by a device manufacturer, which generally come with elevated access, according to BlueBox:
Installation of a Trojan application from the device manufacturer can grant the application full access to Android system and all applications (and their data) currently installed. The application then not only has the ability to read arbitrary application data on the device (email, SMS messages, documents, etc.), retrieve all stored account & service passwords, it can essentially take over the normal functioning of the phone and control any function thereof (make arbitrary phone calls, send arbitrary SMS messages, turn on the camera, and record calls). Finally, and most unsettling, is the potential for a hacker to take advantage of the always-on, always-connected, and always-moving (therefore hard-to-detect) nature of these “zombie” mobile devices to create a botnet.
The company recommends users of basically every Android phone double check the source of any apps they install, keep their devices updated, and take their own precautions to protect their data. But as TechCrunch notes, Android users really should be doing this anyway, as the devices tend to come with a " general low-level risk" from malware. That risk, however, is elevated for users who venture outside of the Google Play store for their apps.
So while the actual impact of the vulnerability is not known, neither is the timeline for fixing it. Manufacturers will have to release their own patches for the problem in order to fix it, something that happens notoriously slowly among Android devices.
Mr_Jay_jay said:
/snip
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As always, this really boils down to the same thing: don't be a fool in the most non-pejorative way possible. With the exception of the Syrian Electronic Army fiasco awhile back, secured and verified app vendors like Google Play (or Apple's App Store) continue to provide all the services most users will need without exposing the end-user to this kind of vulnerability. If you don't expose yourself, you're not at risk.
That said, this all relies on the notion of the end-user being at least somewhat vigilant, which can be quite dangerous.
Rirere said:
As always, this really boils down to the same thing: don't be a fool in the most non-pejorative way possible. With the exception of the Syrian Electronic Army fiasco awhile back, secured and verified app vendors like Google Play (or Apple's App Store) continue to provide all the services most users will need without exposing the end-user to this kind of vulnerability. If you don't expose yourself, you're not at risk.
That said, this all relies on the notion of the end-user being at least somewhat vigilant, which can be quite dangerous.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not every Android device has access to Play Store though, by-default. I have a tablet now that doesn't have access. If a normal user had such a device, they wouldn't likely go through the process needed to get Play Store, and would just deal with whatever marketplace app existed.
This exploit will likely only ever affect users that by default use devices that do not have Google support. Many of these are distributed among 3rd world nations and are typically a hot bed of illicit activities anyways. Of the first worlders that would be affected, it would be those using black market apps without knowing the risks involved in doing so. Most black market users are knowledgeable enough to know to check their sources and compare file sizes before installing apk's.
Also the notion that 99% of devices being affected has nothing with the OS being flawed (Google reportedly fixed the flaw in March), but rather the OEMs being slow in pushing out (or not pushing out at all) the patched hole.
Also I would be weary of a security outfit that has been around since 'mid-2012' and continues to pride themselves as a start-up mobile security firm.
espionage724 said:
Not every Android device has access to Play Store though, by-default. I have a tablet now that doesn't have access. If a normal user had such a device, they wouldn't likely go through the process needed to get Play Store, and would just deal with whatever marketplace app existed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Granted, but the Play Store reduces the attack surface by a considerable margin. Right now, I consider non-Google blessed Android to be something akin to stock Windows 7 with Defender and Firewall turned off-- you can do just about anything with it, but you're running at a risk by not deploying some vendor-based add-ons (in this case, choosing to use the unit available).
I do understand that many devices sell outside of the Google world, before anyone jumps on me, but it doesn't change how the vulnerabilities play out.
This boils down to:
If users install a virus then they get a virus!!! This affects all Android phones!!!!!!!! Oh Nos!
Sucks that this is being patched. Guess there will be no more modding games for me.
hello frnds..i have published my first app on Google play today..here it is..
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.waliaaps.thortorch&hl=en
i want to ask when should i start monetization ..?..and how should i do it?..
thanks in advance
Never. Just keep it for history. And start developing new cool app
hey..thanks for reply..!
i was thinking about educational apps..are they successful?..
KaitlinM said:
I think it's a hard type of app to monetize. Probably ads are the only way since I don't know how in-app purchases would work for such an app (at least guessing based on the description). As for when to monetize, I don't think you need to wait. Obviously more traffic = more money, but if you can do it relatively non-intrusively (maybe on exit), why not?
What kind of educational app?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
app like "interview questions on java," .NET etc
Freshly released apps have to gain attraction of users, so I think the best idea is to wait with ads for later. Also, it needs thousands of installs to make any revenue, so IMO better to focus on gaining installs first
mkrstudio said:
Freshly released apps have to gain attraction of users, so I think the best idea is to wait with ads for later. Also, it needs thousands of installs to make any revenue, so IMO better to focus on gaining installs first
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For ads, it's better to integrate them from the beginning to avoid massive negative reviews after adding them. If your app is valuable and ads are not intrusive (banners and controled iterstitials) your users will accept ads, you have to think about a premium version to avoid complaints from some users who don't accept ads and are ready to pay to remove them. In-App purchases are a more successful than offering a pro version in most cases (remove ads, new features,...etc)
Hi all,
I'd like to share great news. Sicher, our free secure messenger finally comes to Windows Phone.
Sicher features true end-to-end encryption of both text messages and file attachments. With anonymous push notifications and the ability to set a timer for when messages will self-destruct, Sicher also includes password protection for the app itself.
Please try Sicher and share your feedback in this post.
FairyMary
Sicher Team
App is free, store link is here: EDIT: Removed because this thing looks like a scam and its description is a lie
I haven't been able to find a lot of info about how the app works (I'm talking about at a very technical level). My general advice regarding crypto code is to open it up for review, either publicly or by a professional security assessment firm (disclaimer: I work at one of those). If the code is already open for review somewhere, that would be awesome; if not, I recommend getting in touch with some external security experts (same disclaimer, but I can provide contact info if you want). The Internet is full of things that the developer claimed (and often even sincerely believed) were secure.
Aaaand just for fun, I decided to take a look at the app and see if there was anything obviously wrong. Let's start with the presence of no fewer than *three* advertisement networks, shall we? Begun Advertising is Russian and Google-owned, Google AdMob is self-explanatory, as is Microsoft Advertising Mobile. Your store description claims you
don’t use any advertising engines
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
. Did you really think nobody would check this?
WTF are you trying to pull here?!? I can't think of any way to faster burn trust in a "secure" app than to make a claim that is trivially disprovable in a way that benefits nobody except you.
I'll come right out and say it: Sicher looks like a scam!
Oh look, a Facebook library as well. Totally expected to see that, given that you
don’t integrate social network SDKs
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh, and before anybody asks about responsible disclosure, that's for when there's an unintentional bug in somebody's code. This just looks like pure exploitation of your users! (I say "looks like" because I haven't actually decompiled the code to see if those libraries are being used, but it's hard to imagine why you'd have them otherwise...). The only responsible way to disclose malware is to do it publicly, and this looks malicious.
EDIT: I'll give you 24 hours to give me a good argument why I shouldn't report my findings to the stores themselves.
Time's up. You actually got over 48 hours because I was busy yesterday. Hope not too many people got scammed and tracked by your "secure" and "private" app...
Hey @GoodDayToDie, unfortunately I don't know where else to ask this, since you seem to be really interested (and skilled) in this topic, what messengers do you consider secure? WhatsApp is obvious, the only ones on Windows Phone I know of that come to my mind are Telegram and (soon) Threema.
What do you think about the two? I have basically no knowledge, but what seems odd to me about Threema is their faqs answer to "what about MITM?" they just say they use certs, hardcoded in the app. Aren't they with their servers in control then? How I understand this, the Threema servers could perfectly perform a MITM attack.
And Telegram has a completely confusing protocol.. So please share your thoughts!
I have no personal knowledge of one, sadly. Take anything I say here with a huge grain of salt (including the fact that Sicher looks like a scam; I haven't actually verified that it *uses* all those ad networks + Facebook that it integrates, just that it has them) as I'm not spending the time & effort for a full security review of these apps at this time.
Threema actually looks quite good.
Pros:
They don't try to implement the crypto themselves (they use NaCl, which is both written by people who know what they're doing, and well-reviewed).
The design of their end-to-end solution makes sense (it connects through the server since phone networks won't allow incoming/direct connections, but the messages are encrypted to only the recipient and doesn't require that the recipient be online to receive the message).
They are relatively open about how things work (although those *could* be lies; I haven't pulled the app apart).
It is possible for the user to verify the key of another user.
Cons:
They don't have Perfect Forward Secrecy on messages. PFS would require that the intended recipient be online at the start of any given conversation (to negotiate the ephemeral keys) so this isn't terribly surprising, but it is disappointing. An attacker (including a government agency) who gets access to your private key could decrypt historical traffic to you if they'd recorded it.
The app is proprietary; there's nothing stopping them from pushing a malicious update.
The server supplies the public keys of users; until such time as the user validates the other party's key (which is difficult to do except in person) the server could have sent a public key that the server has the private key for (instead of the user's own public key) and then MitM the user's traffic. This would break down when verified though, unless the app lied about the result of the verification process (you don't actually see the key itself).
To address your concern about MitM, the app says they use certificate pinning (a standard and very smart security measure, assuming they did it right) for app-to-server communication, so nobody (including third-party security engineers) can MitM the app traffic. They also claim to use PFS. However, if the server itself is untrusted (i.e. some government thugs show up to demand access, although bear in mind that apparently the servers are all in Switzerland) then the server could give you the wrong public key for a user you try and add, allowing the server to MitM you. Also, the company could push an update that is malicious.
The only protection against the server-sends-wrong-key threat is to either require that the user manually import all keys (think PGP minus keyservers and assuming trustworthy key exchanges) or exactly verify the key (i.e. personally ensure that it matches the other user's key by actually checking the bytes or at least the hash). The only protection against the malicious update is to make the source code available and have a method by which users can either compile it themselves (though see "Reflections on Trusting Trust") and/or have a way to verify the application binaries.
I'll look at Telegram later. For the moment, though, I would loosely recommend Threema once it's available. There's also Skype, of course, but while it was decompiled once long ago (and found to use secure encryption, although some non-crypto vulns were found) that was many versions ago (and, in particular, was before Microsoft bought them).