Linked by David Adams on Thu 24th Jun 2010 16:22 UTC, submitted by Governa
Privacy, Security, Encryption About 20 percent of third-party apps available through the Android marketplace allow third-party access to sensitive data, and can do things like make calls and send texts without the owners' knowledge, according to a recent security report from security firm SMobile Systems. There's no indication that any of the highlighted apps is malicious, but the report does underscore the inherent risks of a more open ecosystem as opposed to Apple's oppressive yet more controlled environment, with every app being vetted before availability.
Thread beginning with comment 431360
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by anevilyak
by Neolander on Thu 24th Jun 2010 19:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by anevilyak"
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

If it's the way installing apps is planned to work on my OS, then the app will be killed by the OS, since it asks for something it didn't got the right to do at install time.

(Security based on fine-grained permissions like that is the way any OS should work. The user/admin model is so outdated that it's laughable. As someone said here, what do you fear at most ? Losing /bin or losing /home ?)

Just out of curiosity, are other people that the article's author seriously thinking that malware can't get on Apple's App Store as easily as on the Android Market ?

Edited 2010-06-24 19:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by anevilyak
by jtfolden on Thu 24th Jun 2010 20:22 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by anevilyak"
jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

Can it? I have no idea other than Apple's approval process seems Draconian at times, right down to the search for usage of unapproved API's.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by anevilyak
by Zifre on Thu 24th Jun 2010 20:28 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by anevilyak"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

I don't believe that Apple gets the source when they are reviewing applications. They can detect usage of undocumented APIs through the symbols in the binary.

It's quite easy to do malicious things even when the source can be reviewed (see the underhanded C code contest), so I doubt that Apple has any way of detecting malware that isn't blindingly obvious.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by anevilyak
by nt_jerkface on Thu 24th Jun 2010 21:55 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by anevilyak"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Just out of curiosity, are other people that the article's author seriously thinking that malware can't get on Apple's App Store as easily as on the Android Market ?


No it can't get on as easily, especially when Android apps can update themselves without having to go through the market.

http://blogs.forbes.com/firewall/2010/06/21/researcher-builds-mock-...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by anevilyak
by Tony Swash on Thu 24th Jun 2010 22:17 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by anevilyak"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Just out of curiosity, are other people that the article's author seriously thinking that malware can't get on Apple's App Store as easily as on the Android Market ?


Of course malware is less likely on the Apple App Store than Android market. That's one the benefits of Apple's curated app distribution model with its built in quality control system. Its actually the main reason Apple do it that way.

Its best not to try to hide this - better to say the truth which is that the Android way is freer but less secure.

Its up to the end user what model they prefer more. The Android way where you get less security (and fewer apps) but those apps are distributed in a more decentralised and and less controlled way. Or the Apple way where there are more apps and their distribution and quality control is more restrictive.

Then leave the consumer to select the model they prefer.

I think the consumer will prefer safety (given the general experience of consumers during the Windows dominated desktop era) but I could be wrong - the end users will decide through their purchasing decisions.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by anevilyak
by lemur2 on Fri 25th Jun 2010 01:07 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by anevilyak"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Its best not to try to hide this - better to say the truth which is that the Android way is freer but less secure. Its up to the end user what model they prefer more. The Android way where you get less security (and fewer apps) but those apps are distributed in a more decentralised and and less controlled way. Or the Apple way where there are more apps and their distribution and quality control is more restrictive. Then leave the consumer to select the model they prefer. I think the consumer will prefer safety (given the general experience of consumers during the Windows dominated desktop era) but I could be wrong - the end users will decide through their purchasing decisions.


http://www.businessinsider.com/google-activates-160000-android-phon...

Whoa! Google Android Activations Leap 60% In A Month

Three reasons for all the ubiquity:

Google's Android software is a strong second to Apple's iPhone software.
Android is free for manufacturers to install, so it's on a lot of phones.
Android is being distributed by a ton of carriers, including all four major U.S. carriers, while Apple is still exclusive to AT&T in the U.S.


I'm not so sure about that "strong second" notion, particularly in markets other than the US. Like this:

http://ausdroid.net/

Edited 2010-06-25 01:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2