Related
First of all: I'm an OSS advocate and love the idea of open source. Don't forget that while reading this.
Some 2 month ago, I got myself a Galaxy S. It's not exactly cheap, but on the other side, it's really good hardware. This thread is not about Samsung or the Galaxy S. It's about the missing parts of android security.
We all know it from our home computers: Software sometimes has bugs. Some just annoy us, others are potentially dangerous for our beloved data. Our data sometimes gets stolen or deleted due to viruses. Viruses enter our machines by exploiting bugs that allow for code execution or priviledge escalation. To stay patched, we regularly execute our "apt-get update;apt-get dist-upgrade" or use windows update. We do this to close security holes on our systems.
In the PC world, the software and OS manufacturers release security bulletins to inform users of potentially dangerous issues. They say how to work around them or provide a patch.
How do we stay informed about issues and keep our Android devices updated?
Here's what Google says:
We will publicly announce security bugs when the fixes are available via postings to the android-security-announce group on Google Groups.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source: http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/faq/security.html#informed
OK, that particular group is empty (except for a welcome post). Maybe there are no bugs in Android. Go check yourself and google a bit - they do exist.
"So why doesn't Google tell us?", you ask. I don't know. What I know is that the various components of Android (WebKit, kernel, ...) do have bugs. There's nothing wrong with that BTW, software is made by people - and people make mistakes and write buggy code all the time. Just read the changelogs or release notes.
"Wait", I head you say, "there are no changelogs or release notes for Android releases".
Oh - so let's sum up what we need to stay informed about security issues, bugs and workarounds:
* Security bulletins and
* Patches or Workaround information
What of these do we have? Right, nada, zilch, rien.
I'll leave it up to you to decide if that's good common practise.
"But why is this important anyway", you ask.
Well, remember my example above. You visit a website and suddenly find all your stored passwords floating around on the internet. Don't tell me that's not possible, there was a WebKit bug in 2.2 that did just that. Another scenario would be a drive-by download that breaks out of the sandbox and makes expensive phone calls. Or orders subscriptions for monthly new ringtones, raising your bill by orders of magnitute. Or shares your music on illegal download portals (shh, don't tell the RIAA that this is remotely possible).
The bug is probably fixed in 2.2.1 - but without changelogs we can't be sure.
But that's not all - there's a second problem. Not only are we unaware of security issues, we also don't have automated update mechanisms.
We only receive updates when our phone's manufacturers release new firmware. Sadly, not all manufacturers support their phones in the long run.
In the PC world, most Distros have a central package management - that Google forgot to implement in Android. Agreed, some phones can receive OTA updates, but that depends on the carrier. And because of the differences in Android versions it's not possible to have a central patch management either. So we do not know if our Android devices might have security issues. We also have no easy way to patch them.
Perhaps you knew this before, then I apologize for taking your time.
What do YOU - the computer literate and security aware XDA users - think about this? Do you think that's a problem? Or would you rather say that these are minor problems?
Very intresting, thanks! The update problem should be fixed with the next release, no more custom UIs and mods from phone manufacturers,at least google said that
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA App
Excellent post and quite agree with you. The other significant problem looming is the granularity (or rather, lack thereof) in app permissions which can cause problems you describe without bugs and exploits. I install an app that does something interesting with contacts and also has internet access to display ads. How do I know that my contacts are not encrypted, so making sniffing useless, and beamed back to mummy? Nothing other than blind trust!
I love Android but it's an accident waiting to happen unless the kind of changes you advocate are implemented and granularity of permissions significantly increased. I don't like much about Apple but their walled garden app store is something they did get right although IMHO, they also abuse that power to stifle competition. Bring out the feds!
simonta said:
The other significant problem looming is the granularity (or rather, lack thereof) in app permissions [...]
How do I know that my contacts are not encrypted, so making sniffing useless, and beamed back to mummy? Nothing other than blind trust!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, although I'm not sure that less experienced users might have difficulties with such options.
simonta said:
I love Android but it's an accident waiting to happen
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sad but true. I'm just curious what Google will do when the first problems arise and the first users will have groundshaking bills.
If that happens to just a few users, it'll get a kind media coverage Google surely won't like.
I've seen quite a few android exploits posted on bugtraq over the years. It's a high-volume email list, but with some filtering of stuff you don't care about, it becomes manageable. It's been around forever and is a good resource if you want the latest security news on just about anything computer related.
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/description
People are bashing a lot about the Android security model but the truth is you can never have 100% protection with ANY solution.
Apple is not allowing any app in their store. Fine. but mostly they are only filtering out apps that crash, violate some rules or they just don't like them or whatever. but they can never tell what an app is really doing. Therefore they would neeed to reverse-engineer every app they get etc. That's just impossible considering the amount of apps....
Speaking again of Android. I think the permission model is not bad. I mean, no other OS got such detailed description about what an app can do or not. But unfortunately it can only filter out very conspicuous apps, i.e. a Reversi game asking for your location and internet access. But then you never know... if the app is using ads it requires location and internet access, right? so what can you do?
RAMMANN said:
Apple is not allowing any app in their store. Fine. but mostly they are only filtering out apps that crash, violate some rules or they just don't like them or whatever. but they can never tell what an app is really doing. Therefore they would neeed to reverse-engineer every app they get etc. That's just impossible considering the amount of apps....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really, they do blackbox testing and let the apps run on emulated devices they then check if the app "behaves" as desired...
Of course you can't get 100% security and I don't think that's what we're saying, but there is a lot you can do.
Take for example internet access which is the biggest worry I have. The only reason most apps request internet access is to support ads. I now have a choice to make, don't use the app or trust it. That simple, no other choice.
If I installed an app that serves ads but did not have internet access, then the only way that app can get information off my phone is to use exploits and I'm a lot more comfortable knowing that some miscreant needs to understand that than the current situation where some script kiddy can hoover up my contacts.
However, if internet access and ad serving were separate permissions, you could in one hit address, taking a wild guess, 90% of the risk from the wild west that is Marketplace. With a bit more design and work, it would be possible to get the risk down to manageable and acceptable levels (at least for me).
I absolutely agree with you on Apple, one of the main reasons that I chose a Desire instead of an iPhone, but the Android approach is too far the other way IMHO.
Just my tuppence, in a hopeless cause of imagining someone at Google paying attention and thinking you know what, it is an accident waiting to happen.
marty1976 said:
Not really, they do blackbox testing and let the apps run on emulated devices they then check if the app "behaves" as desired...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, so why did a tethering app once make it into the appstore?
Also I think there are many possibilities for an app to behave normal, and just start some bad activity after some time. Wait a couple months until the app is spread around and then bang. Or remotely launch some action initiated through push notifications etc.
If there is interest, then there is always a way....
simonta said:
However, if internet access and ad serving were separate permissions, you could in one hit address, taking a wild guess, 90% of the risk from the wild west that is Marketplace. With a bit more design and work, it would be possible to get the risk down to manageable and acceptable levels (at least for me).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree that a seperate permission for ads would be a good thing.
But there are still many apps which need your location, contacts, internet access.... all the social media things nowadays. And this is where the whole thing will be going to so I think in the future it will be even harder to differenciate.
Getting back on topic: I just read that Windows 7 Phone will get updates and patches like desktop windows. That means patchday once a month plus when urgency is high...
simonta said:
However, if internet access and ad serving were separate permissions, you could in one hit address, taking a wild guess, 90% of the risk from the wild west that is Marketplace. With a bit more design and work, it would be possible to get the risk down to manageable and acceptable levels (at least for me).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But, how do you distinguish them? Today, (as a developer) I can use any ad-provider I want. In order to distinguish ads from general internet access, the OS would need one of:
A Google-defined ad interface, which stifles "creativity" in ad design. Developers would simply ignore it and do what they do now as soon as their preferred ad-provider didn't want to support the "official" ad system or provided some improvement by doing so.
An OS update to support every new ad-provider (yuck^2).
Every ad-provider would have to go through a Google whitelist that was looked up on the fly (increased traffic, and all ads are now "visible" to Google whether Google is involved in the transaction or not). This would also make ad-blocking apps harder to implement since Google's whitelisting API might not behave if the whitelist was unavailable. On the upside, it would make ad-blocking in custom ROMs be trivial.
Even if Google did one of these things, it still wouldn't provide any real increase in privacy or security. The "ad service" would still need to deliver a payload from the app to the service (in order to select ads) and another from the service to the app (the ad content). Such a mechanism could be trivially exploited to do anything that simple HTTP access could provide.
http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/list
issues submitted are reviewed by google employed techs... they tell you if you messed up and caused the issue or if the issue will be fixed in a future release or whatever info they find.
probably not the best way to handle it but its better then nothing.
twztdwyz said:
http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/list
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Knew that bug tracker, but the free tagging aka labels isn't the best idea IMHO.
You can't search for a specific release, for example...
twztdwyz said:
probably not the best way to handle it but its better then nothing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ack, but I think Google can do _much_ better...
Two more things to have in mind:
1. I doubt that many Android users bother much about what permissions they give to an app.
2. Using Google to sync your contacts and calendar (and who knows what else), is a bad, bad idea.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1453695
Why are you creating 2 topics about it?
Had you tested it? How it compare to theoretically best Zoner Antywirus? Tell us some more, than posting links - this is kind of flooding.
For me, this program won't beat Zoner.. for now.
Anyway, I'll test it
Rayman96 said:
Why are you creating 2 topics about it?
Had you tested it? How it compare to theoretically best Zoner Antywirus? Tell us some more, than posting links - this is kind of flooding.
For me, this program won't beat Zoner.. for now.
Anyway, I'll test it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sorry if i did hurt you. well i was a beta tester for the app. it did performed well for me, besides comodo is a reputed company after all and they are standing for free softwares.
I posted the links cause it contains all the details of the software, details about the company etc, i thought its better than i explain those details.
about double posting, the one i posted is in the general section is for all to see. The second is for my fellow lgp500 users, where i really belogs. i hope i am clear enough. no harm ment
Best free antivirus is your brain - never install app without good amount of comments about app.
AdvDretch said:
Best free antivirus is your brain - never install app without good amount of comments about app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who in this world has time to read all that? Have you ever tried to read Google’s conditions and policies while creating a Google account? Certainly the answer would be ‘NO’. Do you know that Google had 60 different policies that helped them to collect data from your personal Gmail and other Google apps? Now do you know that they had merged all these in to one policy?
Google will know more about you than your wife does. Everything across your screens will be integrated and tracked. Google noted that it collects information you provide, data from your usage, device information and location. Unique applications are also noted. Sure you can use Google’s dashboard and ad manager to cut things out, but this policy feels Big Brother-ish. Google is watching you as long as you are logged in. It’s also unclear whether this privacy policy move will be considered bundling in some way by regulators. This unified experience hook appears to be at least partially aimed at juicing Google+. Google responded with clarification: Google noted that it already has all that data, but it’s now integrating that information across products. It’s a change in how Google will use the data not what it collects. In other words, Google already knows more about you than your wife.( not my comment go read this.... http://m.zdnet.com/blog/btl/googles-new-privacy-policy-the-good-bad-scary/67893)
Now my question is whether Google is good or bad? Do you need Droidwall to defend your privacy? Or do you still believe in your Brain(better do not believe in brain but use it to think rationally)?
Conclusion: we need a new definition to “virus”...My contribution is Anything that steals your private data is a virus.( no flames needed, no harm meant...just my thought about the relevancy of protective apps like Droidwall, comodo, avg, etc. ...etc)
,do we realy need anti virus?,
algie17 said:
,do we realy need anti virus?,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You dont need one
Sent from my LG-P500 using XDA Premium App
josinpoul's mean run anti virus before creating Google account
And if too don't have anti virus then don't use Google. Josin your explanation is wrong. Brain and antivirus both useful.
No need for 2 topics about one thing but thanks for sharing!!!
http://ca.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idCATRE81N1T120120224
By Jim Finkle
BOSTON (Reuters) - Cybersecurity experts have uncovered a flaw in a component of the operating system of Google Inc's widely used Android smartphone that they say hackers can exploit to gain control of the devices.
Researchers at startup cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike said they have figured out how to use that bug to launch attacks and take control of some Android devices.
CrowdStrike, which will demonstrate its findings next week at a major computer security conference in San Francisco, said an attacker sends an email or text message that appears to be from a trusted source, like the user's phone carrier. The message urges the recipient to click on a link, which if done infects the device.
At that point, the hacker gains complete control of the phone, enabling him or her to eavesdrop on phone calls and monitor the location of the device, said Dmitri Alperovitch, chief technology officer and co-founder of CrowdStrike.
Google spokesman Jay Nancarrow declined comment on Crowdstrike's claim.
Alperovitch said the firm conducted the research to highlight how mobile devices are increasingly vulnerable to a type of attack widely carried out against PCs. In such instances, hackers find previously unknown vulnerabilities in software, then exploit those flaws with malicious software that is delivered via tainted links or attached documents.
He said smartphone users need to prepare for this type of attack, which typically cannot be identified or thwarted by mobile device security software.
"With modifications and perhaps use of different exploits, this attack will work on every smartphone device and represents the biggest security threat on those devices," said Alperovitch, who was vice president of threat research at McAfee Inc before he co-founded CrowdStrike. Researchers at CrowdStrike were not the first to identify such a threat, though such warnings are less common than reports of malicious applications that make their way to online websites, such as Apple's App Store or the Android Market.
In July 2009, researchers Charlie Miller and Collin Mulliner figured out a way to attack Apple's iPhone by sending malicious code embedded in text messages that was invisible to the phone's user. Apple repaired the bug in the software a few weeks after the pair warned it of the problem.
The method devised by CrowdStrike currently works on devices running Android 2.2, also known as Froyo. That version is installed on about 28 percent of all Android devices, according to a Google survey conducted over two weeks ending February 1.
Alperovitch said he expects to have a second version of the software finished by next week that can attack phones running Android 2.3. That version, widely known as Gingerbread, is installed on another 59 percent of all Android devices, according to Google.
CrowdStrike's method of attack makes use of a previously unpublicized security flaw in a piece of software known as webkit, which is built into the Android operating system's Web browser.
Webkit is also incorporated into other software programs, including Google's Chrome browser and the Apple iOS operating system for the iPhone and iPad.
CrowdStrike said it had not attempted to create software to attack iOS devices or the Chrome browser.
Ok, now a group of hackers control 500000000 devices... an antivirus will slow the phone down more than a hacker trying to run a phone from another continent over your 2G network... just think about it... how can your screen be monitored over 3G in real-time? It can't be done on my 5Mbps PC...
And if you turn data off, then 1GB of data will be sent to google when you turn it on??? Think logic...(where the f**k do you store that??? I think the effect will be noticed right away, and the attacker has no time to take control, unless you are stupid enough to see a 1GB file and not suspect anything...) PCs have real-time protection, but that is because there are terrible threats out there, and they are optimized, they don't slow down... on your phone, you will regret having a phone for 2 years running like **** and then dropping in water, while you could have best performance in those 2 years...
We are not windows, but we are android, and it is the most unsafe mobile OS, if you want a safe one, get from apple... just 2x price at ½ quality...
Sent from my LG-P500
well i use avast antivirus
but not for scanning viruses
but rather for anti-theft feature and firewall(blocking apps)
and isnt android a java based OS ??
im sure there are not many virus's
that can cause heavy damage
Researchers at Bluebox Security have revealed a disturbing flaw in Android's security model, which the group claims may affect up to 99 percent of Android devices in existence. According to Bluebox, this vulnerability has existed since Android 1.6 (Donut), which gives malicious app developers the ability to modify the code of a legitimate APK, all without breaking its cryptographic signature -- thereby allowing the installation to go unnoticed. To pull off the exploit, a rotten app developer would first need to trick an unknowing user into installing the malicious update, but hackers could theoretically gain full control of a user's phone if the "update" posed as a system file from the manufacturer.
Bluebox claims that it notified Google of the exploit in February. According to CIO, Bluebox CTO Jeff Forristal has named the Galaxy S 4 as the only device that's currently immune to the exploit -- which suggests that a security patch may already exist. Forristal further claims that Google is working on an update for its Nexus devices. In response to our inquiry, Google told us that it currently has no comment. We certainly hope that device manufacturers do the responsible thing and distribute timely security patches to resolve this issue. Absent that, you can protect yourself by installing updates through the Play Store and Android's built-in system update utility.
Source:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/04/bluebox-reveals-android-security-vulnerability/
They ust read this here and on an Australian news website, news.com.au, they recommend;
So what can I do about this?
- Do not allow apps from unkown sources. To do this go to Settings, Security and untick "allow unknown sources".
- Well, the news isn't good. Until further notice, news.com.au recommends that you don't download any non-Google apps.
- Bluebox has recommended that users update their operating system to the latest version.
- Also, if you have any apps which store your personal information such as credit card or PayPal information (like eBay, Amazon or Etsy), you should remove this information immediately.
- Remove any personal information from your phone (do you have your credit card pin stored in your notes? Get rid of it)
Crap advice for majority of users I feel.
Most users will have 'unknown sources' off by default but they advise not download any non Google app even from the play market as mentioned elsewhere in article.
They say to update your phone, how easy is that to do when carriers and manufacturers don't release up to date firmware for phones..
That is fine for people like us that flash new Roms all the time but for normal folk it's not a viable solution.
I don't really think the threat is so great, going by those that report such though we all had better stop using android..
I am more concerned with apps using other apps permissions/data flaw
and google play update/install protocall being not encrypted/catchable and falsifyable.
Regarding what is stated in article, this was known almost day 1 which is why from beginning android said dont install non market stuff. And it has also been known crapware has entered market.
So all in all, its an obvious article.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
I totally agree baz77, this has been know for a very long time now. There are also quite a few apps in Play that are "crapware".
The issue has been fixed on Google's side and CyanogenMod (08/07 nightly and yesterday's security release CM10.1.1.)
Now, it is up to the OEMs to follow
I guess I got it wrong, it is a separate issue, glad the pros getting it fixed, they need to be applauded! Salute!
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
Vulnerability Allows Attackers to Modify Android Apps Without Breaking Their Signatures
This might be the reason why the new MF2 and ME6 are not downgradable and why the 4.2.2 update was delayed.
Source->http://www.cio.com/article/735878/V...ndroid_Apps_Without_Breaking_Their_Signatures
IDG News Service — A vulnerability that has existed in Android for the past four years can allow hackers to modify any legitimate and digitally signed application in order to transform it into a Trojan program that can be used to steal data or take control of the OS.
Researchers from San Francisco mobile security startup firm Bluebox Security found the flaw and plan to present it in greater detail at the Black Hat USA security conference in Las Vegas later this month.
The vulnerability stems from discrepancies in how Android apps are cryptographically verified, allowing an attacker to modify application packages (APKs) without breaking their cryptographic signatures.
When an application is installed and a sandbox is created for it, Android records the application's digital signature, said Bluebox Chief Technology Officer Jeff Forristal. All subsequent updates for that application need to match its signature in order to verify that they came from the same author, he said.
This is important for the Android security model because it ensures that sensitive data stored by one application in its sandbox can only be accessed by new versions of that application that are signed with the original author's key.
The vulnerability identified by the Bluebox researchers effectively allows attackers to add malicious code to already signed APKs without breaking their signatures.
The vulnerability has existed since at least Android 1.6, code named Donut, which means that it potentially affects any Android device released during the last four years, the Bluebox researchers said Wednesday in a blog post.
"Depending on the type of application, a hacker can exploit the vulnerability for anything from data theft to creation of a mobile botnet," they said.
The vulnerability can also be exploited to gain full system access if the attacker modifies and distributes an app originally developed by the device manufacturer that's signed with the platform key -- the key that manufacturers use to sign the device firmware.
"You can update system components if the update has the same signature as the platform," Forristal said. The malicious code would then gain access to everything -- all applications, data, accounts, passwords and networks. It would basically control the whole device, he said.
Attackers can use a variety of methods to distribute such Trojan apps, including sending them via email, uploading them to a third-party app store, hosting them on any website, copying them to the targeted devices via USB and more.
Some of these methods, especially the one involving third-party app stores, are already being used to distribute Android malware.
Using Google Play to distribute apps that have been modified to exploit this flaw is not possible because Google updated the app store's application entry process in order to block apps that contain this problem, Forristal said. The information received by Bluebox from Google also suggests that no existing apps from the app store have this problem, he said.
However, if an attacker tricks a user to manually install a malicious update for an app originally installed through Google Play, the app will be replaced and the new version will no longer interact with the app store. That's the case for all applications or new versions of applications, malicious or non-malicious, that are not installed through Google Play, Forristal said.
Google was notified of the vulnerability in February and the company shared the information with their partners, including the members of the Open Handset Alliance, at the beginning of March, Forristal said. It is now up to those partners to decide what their update release plans will be, he said.
Forristal confirmed that one third party device, the Samsung Galaxy S4, already has the fix, which indicates that some device manufacturers have already started releasing patches. Google has not released patches for its Nexus devices yet, but the company is working on them, he said.
Google declined to comment on the matter and the Open Handset Alliance did not respond to a request for comment.
The availability of firmware updates for this issue will differ across device models, manufacturers and mobile carriers.
Whether a combination of device manufacturers and carriers, which play an important role in the distribution of updates, coincide to believe that there is justification for a firmware update is extremely variable and depends on their business needs, Forristal said. "Ideally it would be great if everyone, everywhere, would release an update for a security problem, but the practical reality is that it doesn't quite work that way, he said."
The slow distribution of patches in the Android ecosystem has long been criticized by both security researchers and Android users. Mobile security firm Duo Security estimated last September, based on statistics gathered through its X-Ray Android vulnerability assessment app, that more than half of Android devices are vulnerable to at least one of the known Android security flaws.
Judging by Android's patch distribution history so far, the vulnerability found by the Bluebox researchers will probably linger on many devices for a long time, especially since it likely affects a lot of models that have reached end-of-life and are no longer supported.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really thought more people would be interested in knowing this. I would really like to know what you guys think about this.
Key phrase here is "for apps not installed through the google store". Hence not an issue for a large fraction of users. Total case of FUD. Someone must be wanting to sell some av software.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Kremata said:
I really thought more people would be interested in knowing this. I would really like to know what you guys think about this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, X-Ray scanner either does not detect this latest security flaw or N7100 (as of DM6) is allready patched.
Kremata said:
I really thought more people would be interested in knowing this. I would really like to know what you guys think about this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the first link I found for XDA on this.
I think it's not that interesting because it's old, old news and exactly why it's being touted as a "new" discovery is beyond me, it's far from new.
We here at XDA have been using this method for years to modify stock Android and OEM system apps with great success. Here's an example by me from 2011: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=994544 there's a literally hundreds of examples all over XDA.
The real question here is how Bluebox security got everybody to act as a PR machine for them. If they turn up at Black Hat with this "amazing discovery" they're going to get laughed off the stage.
djmcnz said:
This is the first link I found for XDA on this.
I think it's not that interesting because it's old, old news and exactly why it's being touted as a "new" discovery is beyond me, it's far from new.
We here at XDA have been using this method for years to modify stock Android and OEM system apps with great success. Here's an example by me from 2011: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=994544 there's a literry hundreds of examples all over XDA.
The real question here is how Bluebox security got everybody to act as a PR machine for them. If they turn up at Black Hat with this "amazing discovery" they're going to get laughed off the stage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ahh! Thats the answer I was waiting for (and from a Recognized Developer). I knew XDA Devs were using this method. My new question is.. If they fix it will it be harder to create Mods? Will it slow down development?
Shouldn't this be posted in the generals forum?
Kremata said:
If they fix it will it be harder to create Mods? Will it slow down development?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I suspect so. If they fix it properly it would become impossible to change any aspect of the app without signing it again. If you wanted to maintain compatibility with the original then you'd need the developer's keys.
At the moment really only the manifest and some metadata within the apk is signed, if they extended that to the entire contents of the apk many mods (think themes for stock Google apps etc) are screwed unless users are happy to relinquish Play Store links and updates (i.e. backward compatibility).
Google may not go this far and may only choose to authenticate the code (smali) rather than all of the apk contents (graphics, strings etc), this approach would leave room for some mods to survive. Remains to be seen.
Backstory: I've always used iPhones, was tired of the bull****, and wished for Android especially the S8. Was shocked, and I'm rarely shocked, but the agressive violation of privacy, the crazy amount of bloatware, and the unoptimised UX and system services overall.
Now, I'm in charge of a wide ecosystem of people using smartphones in our company as well as other companies I consult for. While people always blab about personal privacy (which is a concern of course), what I don't understand is how people dealing with either sensitive, contractual or strategic informations could use Android devices given that it *excuse but there's no better terms* rapes your privacy in every, but also I'm pretty sure, illegal, ways.
For exemple the Sound Detector app, even when disabled, is constantly listening to your environment without your priori knowledge or permissions. In fact it's mainly the permissions scheme that baffles me: on iOS or any PC or Mac, you can install any app without being constrained to accept giving out information or accessing functions that have nothing to do with the app, THEN you can choose what precise permissions, when and why. And of course there's the whole wider problem of usage and data tracking (which I apparently have to install...a firewall??) or even malware (I have to install a separate antivirus for...on a smartphone). Worst exemple being that of course: www.theverge.com/2018/1/2/16842294/android-apps-microphone-access-listening-tv-habits
Now I like Android for all their efforts, development and implementation, as well as Samsung efforts...but I'm on the verge of having to present a report to ban all Android phones (for a "leave at door" Policy or either iPhone, BBMs and any other "more" secure smartphones) like I just realise they did in the US government and other official institutions as well as some corporations...or...understand very well how it works, and devise a clearly guide on how to completely optimise and secure Android smartphones like I would for PCs/Macs.
So here's my mission if you accept to help me:
1. I want to deconstruct how Android works in a very simple scheme for noob.
2. From that I want to list all the system packages and services, to determine those that are critical, optional or bloatware, and actually describe exactly what they're for so people have a clear idea.
3. I want to list all the base applications, stores or packages apps, to determine those that are critical, optional or bloatware, then what they're for and most importantly the best alternative apps to these.
4. I want to list and make a simple schemes of how the device components (sensors, cam, mic...), the different data canals, and the the different permissions are circulating or violating privacy while screwing cpu time, battery and data.
5. Finally I want to learn, understand and create a simple noob introduction to the different tools like Xposed (and XprivacyLua which seems to be the best options), package disablers (I personally went for BK), Firewall, Adblockers and Antivirus (honestly didn't even think I would need those on Android).
So I guess first, I'll list all the apps, packages (and sub-services) that my Galaxy S8 came shipped with that overwhelmed me, so as to know for a basic Galaxy S8/+/Note what is a consensus of what to disable, why, how and by what to replace if there's alternative, while listing basic how-to's of the tools to that. Note that I only know about BK Disabler as of now.
Reserved
Upd: I haven't had time, but I'm starting to do a table with all the packages, what they're for and wether to disable them.
You do know that Silverpush do affect both iPhone and Android, right? And "leave at the door" policy or either iPhone or BBM? There's two errors in this sentence. Are you really what you claim to be? Or just someone with an agenda who just created an XDA account?
why would you need an antivirus for a phone if you stick to play store apps?
rashat999 said:
why would you need an antivirus for a phone if you stick to play store apps?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are plenty of play store garbage apps with spy ware and crap in them
vladimir_carlan said:
You do know that Silverpush do affect both iPhone and Android, right? And "leave at the door" policy or either iPhone or BBM? There's two errors in this sentence. Are you really what you claim to be? Or just someone with an agenda who just created an XDA account?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
iPhone (pretends to) be safe and secure and doesn't straight-up violate your privacy by forcing unneeded permission even before installing the app and running tons of spyware as per unbox while giving all your infos out to apps that demand it and more. It's also a question of procedure: iPhone are really easy to fix/secure with a jailbreak, I didn't even root this Android I got and realised how terribly aggressive their violation of privacy is.
But again, I just want to give people the choice as long as their device is secure, that's why I'm learning all the quirks of Android and how to secure them. All our IT guys confirmed that unless you know exactly how to secure Android devices like we did for our computer park, employees better go for an iPhone.
There's a difference between Apple that might have backdoors to the NSA, and Android that is a crazy open buffet for -permitted- informations stealing without even talking about spyware or silverpush. My Galaxy S8 came with apps and packages that were constantly listening through the mic without my prior knowledge, installation or authorisation, this is intolerable. But I switched for a reason, I'll see if using Android is easily manageable or if it's better to ban them from inside use.
OgreTactic said:
iPhone (pretends to) be safe and secure and doesn't straight-up violate your privacy by forcing unneeded permission even before installing the app and running tons of spyware as per unbox while giving all your infos out to apps that demand it and more. It's also a question of procedure: iPhone are really easy to fix/secure with a jailbreak, I didn't even root this Android I got and realised how terribly aggressive their violation of privacy is.
But again, I just want to give people the choice as long as their device is secure, that's why I'm learning all the quirks of Android and how to secure them. All our IT guys confirmed that unless you know exactly how to secure Android devices like we did for our computer park, employees better go for an iPhone.
There's a difference between Apple that might have backdoors to the NSA, and Android that is a crazy open buffet for -permitted- informations stealing without even talking about spyware or silverpush. My Galaxy S8 came with apps and packages that were constantly listening through the mic without my prior knowledge, installation or authorisation, this is intolerable. But I switched for a reason, I'll see if using Android is easily manageable or if it's better to ban them from inside use.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mate my question still stand: are you really what are you claiming to be or you just have an agenda? Some badass company appointed you to decide what is secure and what not. Really? You? In Op you are talking about thinking to allow only iOS and BBM (it's Bbos BTW) only. BBOSS? Really? BBOS was discontinued one year ago...no more updates no more security patches, no more nothing.
vladimir_carlan said:
Mate my question still stand: are you really what are you claiming to be or you just have an agenda? Some badass company appointed you to decide what is secure and what not. Really? You? In Op you are talking about thinking to allow only iOS and BBM (it's Bbos BTW) only. BBOSS? Really? BBOS was discontinued one year ago...no more updates no more security patches, no more nothing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not my job, but that's part of mine to decide or push in front of committees what tool we should use, purely from a utilitarian, managerial and system POV. None of us beside IT guys ever realised how Android were intolerably insecure, I've had my head in Apple buttock for years thinking "yeah, that's too limited and I heard Android is now as stable and well made".
But I don't want to go back to iPhone either, so here I am sitting with a Galaxy S8 I'm still not using because I don't where to start to secure it, whether I should try to fix everything on the factory rom or just root it.
OgreTactic said:
That's not my job, but that's part of mine to decide or push in front of committees what tool we should use, purely from a utilitarian, managerial and system POV. None of us beside IT guys ever realised how Android were intolerably insecure, I've had my head in Apple buttock for years thinking "yeah, that's too limited and I heard Android is now as stable and well made".
But I don't want to go back to iPhone either, so here I am sitting with a Galaxy S8 I'm still not using because I don't where to start to secure it, whether I should try to fix everything on the factory rom or just root it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay...what exactly makes you to feel insecure? I understand you're bothered that some apps are accessing your microphone. That's easy... Settings-Apps. Tap on those three dots and chose app permission. You'll see what apps have access to microphone and deny permission for them. Job done. What else makes you to feel insecure?
vladimir_carlan said:
Okay...what exactly makes you to feel insecure? I understand you're bothered that some apps are accessing your microphone. That's easy... Settings-Apps. Tap on those three dots and chose app permission. You'll see what apps have access to microphone and deny permission for them. Job done. What else makes you to feel insecure?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I put my S8 away for now I went back to an iPhone. I'm using it off-grid to still try and figure out how it works.
Basically my problems are clear:
1. There's no transparency in background processes/services, the component they use and the data they send.
2. The way permissions are managed is intolerable: forcing you to accept non-necessary and arbitrary access to connected components or private information BEFORE installing the app is a form of extortion. The same goes when running the app: forcing permissions that are not critical to the app code actually running is a form of extortion. Baffles me how Google even allows that today.
3. The fact that there's even a need for a firewall and antivirus, and that the official stores is filled with illegal (copyright infringing app so blatant) and therefor myriads of potential malicious apps like Silverpush-enabled one, without any store control or curation on Google's part.
All this means there is no way I will use an Android rather than an iPhone and allow anyone dealing with private or "sensitive" commercial informations using one inside the company. I'm still trying to figure out if going straight to root is the solution, if I'll have to use cryptography for documents and coms, or if I'll have to spend days figuring out Xposed+Xprivacy, Packages Disablers, MicroG alternative libraries, Firewall and Antivirus and god knows what to make it decently secure like an iPhone (which doesn't aggressively violates your privacy and is really easy to secure with a jailbreak...unless there are hidden backdoors which is still far from the probably illegal open-buffet of private and sensitive informations Google provides to any potential malicious websites, scripts or apps).