Android App Security Risk
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.
E-mail Print r 0   · Read More · 52 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/i46
Thread beginning with comment 431488
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

I think this is a little more complex. A user with limited computer experience already places a lot of trust to his computer. If he can't understand what is going behind the scenes, and of course it's not reasonable to expect everyone to do so, he simply must trust his computer. This ranges from the simplest of things (the app will launch when I double click the icon) to the most complex (click here to restore the pc after it has broken). Since the user is trained to trust what the computer says, he will most likely do so when what the computer says is from an untrusted source. This is why the most successful attacks are the fake antiviruses.

When a legit alert from a user's antivirus pops up, he doesn't really understand what is happening behind the scenes, so he just clicks the "Keep me safe" button. When a malicious pop up says the exact same thing he will do the exact same thing.

In your analogy, the user would most likely lend his TV set if the person that asked was his brother. If the user doesn't have at least some rudimentary training about computer security, there is no difference between the OS and an untrusted third party. It's the same entity, "the computer".

That's something I've been thinking about for some times. My answer is that system warnings have to look and behave in a way that no other app looks like, with imitation being forbidden in some way (or privileged in a way that the OS issues a "only install if you know what you're doing" window during installation).

As an example, let's suppose applications can't draw borderless windows and arbitrary-sized UI widgets, nor register double right clicks from the mouse. If the system uses some, this result can be achieved. This is akin to Windows 2000's use of Ctl+Alt+Del to prevent login window spoofing.

The user then only have to know that he can trust borderless windows, but must be careful about strange behaviors from the rest of the applications. That doesn't sound very complicated.

Edited 2010-06-25 14:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

My answer is that system warnings have to look and behave in a way that no other app looks like, with imitation being forbidden in some way (or privileged in a way that the OS issues a "only install if you know what you're doing" window during installation).


But that violates principle #5 of your rant--limiting what the apps are allowed to do. In particular limiting the way the UI presents itself in regards to border, widgets, etc. strikes me as a very Apple-esque way of handling things that would certainly lead to developer discontent on any kind of open platform.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

But that violates principle #5 of your rant--limiting what the apps are allowed to do. In particular limiting the way the UI presents itself in regards to border, widgets, etc. strikes me as a very Apple-esque way of handling things that would certainly lead to developer discontent on any kind of open platform.

It's true that you have to accept some limitations, but here I think there is no choice. I can't find a way of visually separating system and app controls without possible spoofing that doesn't involve giving system messages a specific UI toolkit and forcing other applications to use the standard one.

However, you have to consider that none application, except games maybe, should use non-standard widgets without a very good reason ? Non-fullscreen borderless windows, bitmap buttons, bitmap background images of a specific color, are all things which cause bugs when changing visual theme and screen resolution, and which reduce usability due to inconsistent behavior. Moreover, blind people cannot use such applications easily because screen readers won't read text when it's written in an image.

If enforcing use of the standard toolkit for all non-system applications is apple-ish, then so be it, but I think it's the best choice for millions of good reasons. And as an example of why non-standard toolkits are bad, I'll invoke the multiple qualities of HTML websites facing Flash websites.

Flash is good for tiny apps, like games and video players, but it shouldn't ever be used as a website creation platform. The reason why it's here is that it fixes the lacks of HTML+Javascript, which were never designed to build full applications.
Modern operating systems have the chance to include complete UI toolkits which can be used together with real application programming languages to create full-fledged apps. This removes the need of non-standard toolkits like Flash, which should hence be wiped out of the surface of the user application world.

Edited 2010-06-26 14:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

I have to say that all this talk about how to make installing un-vetted apps on Android as safe as installing vetted apps from the Apple App Store seems a bit pointless.

Why would Apple make their devices that complex and that potentially dangerous in order to add a feature (ie the ability to install Apps from an "open" source) that the vast majority of consumers don't care about? Apple's aim, it model, is to make complex devices as easy and safe to use as possible. Hence the App Store.

If the App store model proves unpopular Apple will not prosper and will probably change direction to be more Android like. If that approach proves popular and Apple prospers it will keep the model. Its pretty simple really. It will all work itself out in the long run.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I have to say that all this talk about how to make installing un-vetted apps on Android as safe as installing vetted apps from the Apple App Store seems a bit pointless.

Why would Apple make their devices that complex and that potentially dangerous in order to add a feature (ie the ability to install Apps from an "open" source) that the vast majority of consumers don't care about? Apple's aim, it model, is to make complex devices as easy and safe to use as possible. Hence the App Store.

Indeed, the discussion becomes pointless at the moment where we start to invoke Apple's opinion.

You are saying that Apple have safety as their goal. I personally think that allowing people to install whatever they want instead of having them lick Stevie's boots before is not reducing security, as long as it's done properly, for reasons which are stated before. Taking this reasoning further, I think that this is not the reason why Apple did that, and propose a reasonable alternative explanation (companies all want to maximize their profit, no matter how jerkish the chosen option is).

But again, in the end, none of us know Apple's motivations. It's even possible that they had several reasons for doing that, including false beliefs of increased security.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Read more of this thread... >