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 574143
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by gan17
by gan17 on Tue 8th Oct 2013 22:57 UTC
Member since:
RE: Comment by gan17
by FunkyELF on Wed 9th Oct 2013 00:01 in reply to "Comment by gan17"
FunkyELF Member since:

No kidding.
We don't care about the percentage of insecure apps... that number can be deflated by inflating the amount of harmless garbage apps that nobody uses.

The percentage I'd care about is the percentage of active Android devices out there with malware on them.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by gan17
by JAlexoid on Wed 9th Oct 2013 11:43 in reply to "RE: Comment by gan17"
JAlexoid Member since:

Consider this - the percentage of devices with active malware is irrelevant.
Why? Because there has not been a single piece of evidence that installed and active malware will infect any other device. Bluetooth viruses are not common, even by antivirus company whitepapers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by gan17
by Radio on Wed 9th Oct 2013 08:47 in reply to "Comment by gan17"
Radio Member since:

As y seem to like a scientific comic, maybe you should try to, you know, actually calculate how many infections worldwide we can expect from a reported 1 ppm infection rate (false positives included)...

Edited 2013-10-09 08:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2