Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 8th Oct 2013 21:46 UTC

Until now, Google hasn't talked about malware on Android because it did not have the data or analytic platform to back its security claims. But that changed dramatically today when Google's Android Security chief Adrian Ludwig reported data showing that less than an estimated 0.001% of app installations on Android are able to evade the system's multi-layered defenses and cause harm to users. Android, built on an open innovation model, has quietly resisted the locked down, total control model spawned by decades of Windows malware. Ludwig spoke today at the Virus Bulletin conference in Berlin because he has the data to dispute the claims of pervasive Android malware threats.

This is exactly the kind of data we need, and Google has revealed it all. So, less than 0.001% of application installations on Android - and this specifically includes applications outside of Google Play! - are able to get through Android's multiple layers of security. In other words, saying Android is insecure is a lie.

Thanks to OSNews reader tkeith for pointing out this article.

Thread beginning with comment 574135
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Numbers are arbitrary.
by stabbyjones on Tue 8th Oct 2013 22:20 UTC in reply to "Numbers are arbitrary."
Member since:

Done in one.

That was the whole point of the post. The longest running fud about android and free software is that it's inherently insecure.

Reply Parent Score: 7

jared_wilkes Member since:

Umm, if Thom can say the iPhone 5S/5C launch may or may not have been a success because numbers are arbitrary. And he can say that we do not know whether or not Android or iOS is more or less insecure... I see absolutely and utterly no basis here for that same person to claim that this internal Android number shows that Android is secure.

And here's a simple question to prove how stupid this post is (following those previous posts): Google is providing a percentage number of apps that they were able to detect trying to circumvent their security measures... What percentage of apps that are malicious were they UNABLE to detect circumventing their measures?

Here's another one: if Apple provided a similar percentage figure that was in fact lower, would that prove that iOS is in fact more secure than Android? Without such a number has Thom actually demonstrated that Android IS secure if it is LESS secure than alternatives?

Edited 2013-10-08 22:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Numbers are arbitrary.
by Vanders on Tue 8th Oct 2013 22:36 in reply to "RE[2]: Numbers are arbitrary."
Vanders Member since:

What I find brilliant is that you've jumped all over this article yet apparently are completely oblivious to the previous article, and Thom's commentary on it.

Reply Parent Score: 4

JAlexoid Member since:

Umm, if Thom can say the iPhone 5S/5C launch may or may not have been a success because numbers are arbitrary.

Calling out Thom is OK, but it was not only Thom that had issues with the sentiment behind the numbers. Again, a minority were contesting the numbers. What people pointed out is that it was a very low jump in sales. Specifically because Apple did not address the major market's price sensitivity and lowered device subsidies.

Reply Parent Score: 3