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.
2.2.2 has a security fix
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/02/google-spikes-21-malicious-apps-from-the-market-with-big-downloa/
thoughts?
My thoughts are simple: Sprint needs to get its **** together and release an official 2.3 release. And Google needs to consider some sort of authentication program for apps to be distributed in the Market.
Certainly don't want to cut the independent developer community off, but it shouldn't be their responsibility to release new versions of essential operating software that contain fixes that disable malicious exploits. They are here to enhance our user experience.
The manufacturers need to be concerned about what the deleterious effects of outdated software can open their networks to. After all, these apps had full internet access, as I've heard. Who knows if, say a DDOS attack (or something worse), could be possible using phones, and what kind of effects that could have on the stability of the entire Sprint network.
As for Google, I'm not suggesting that the Market be completely walled-off, but maybe having something like "Google Approved" or "Verified Secure" or something, would give us users more confidence that apps come from verified and vetted sources. We could still install things not verified -- at our own risks -- but at least we'd have a choice and be able to proceed with better, more complete information.
TonyArmstrong said:
My thoughts are simple: Sprint needs to get its **** together and release an official 2.3 release. And Google needs to consider some sort of authentication program for apps to be distributed in the Market.
Certainly don't want to cut the independent developer community off, but it shouldn't be their responsibility to release new versions of essential operating software that contain fixes that disable malicious exploits. They are here to enhance our user experience.
The manufacturers need to be concerned about what the deleterious effects of outdated software can open their networks to. After all, these apps had full internet access, as I've heard. Who knows if, say a DDOS attack (or something worse), could be possible using phones, and what kind of effects that could have on the stability of the entire Sprint network.
As for Google, I'm not suggesting that the Market be completely walled-off, but maybe having something like "Google Approved" or "Verified Secure" or something, would give us users more confidence that apps come from verified and vetted sources. We could still install things not verified -- at our own risks -- but at least we'd have a choice and be able to proceed with better, more complete information.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 but i also think they should make an official malware scanner.
Rydah805 said:
+1 but i also think they should make an official malware scanner.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This.^^^^
I'm an Android convert (from iPhone), and my great fear is that the very openness we enjoy could expose us to very nasty ****. I don't wanna be locked down, but I do want some manner of enhanced security.
That malware scanner in combo with some sort of developer authentication and/or verification program would be excellent.
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
Quite a few of us xda lurkers are itching to get root on our devices, but the DRM-debacle of the Sony phones has made many, including myself, hold off with unlocking the bootloader. Instead, we've put our hopes to new exploits that would allow root while keeping the bootloader locked, thus making it possible to keep all DRM functions in place, and also to restore the phone to factory conditions with the bootloader intact.
However, as Chainfire explains in the post below, the chances of any such exploit surfacing are slim. He says it's more important than ever to buy phones with unlocked bootloaders if we want to keep root.
Sadly, I'm afraid he's right and that the official bootloader unlock is the only way we'll be able to get root in the foreseeable future.
What do you guys think? Worth it or not?
Check out Chainfire's post on G+:
https://plus.google.com/113517319477420052449/posts/VxjfYJnZAXP
Fruktsallad said:
Quite a few of us xda lurkers are itching to get root on our devices, but the DRM-debacle of the Sony phones has made many, including myself, hold off with unlocking the bootloader. Instead, we've put our hopes to new exploits that would allow root while keeping the bootloader locked, thus making it possible to keep all DRM functions in place, and also to restore the phone to factory conditions with the bootloader intact.
However, as Chainfire explains in the post below, the chances of any such exploit surfacing are slim. He says it's more important than ever to buy phones with unlocked bootloaders if we want to keep root.
Sadly, I'm afraid he's right and that the official bootloader unlock is the only way we'll be able to get root in the foreseeable future.
What do you guys think? Worth it or not?
Check out Chainfire's post on G+:
https://plus.google.com/113517319477420052449/posts/VxjfYJnZAXP
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well it's @Chainfire talking, who are we to doubt him? I'm only waiting for a way to backup my TA-Partition (DRM keys), I wouldn't mind losing some features. Even tho I must agree that losing some camera quality is really annoying, but Android is pretty open source so I have no doubts that people will find something to reverse the algorithm loss or create their own.
And also when the occasion occurs that I need to send my device out for repair, that they don't refuse it due to an unlocked BL
I'm sure that's true in the long run, just not sure if it's true now.
It's economics. The security bugs are going to get fewer and further between, but they will arguably never be eradicated. You should expect it to take longer and longer to find new exploits, but I wouldn't bet a wooden nickel that there are no exploits left.
More likely, we will reach a point where the cost of finding an exploit is so great that they're no longer worth looking for to a critical mass of hackers.
On the bright side, the implementations get better all the time, and I see very little about my z3c that I would like to change if only I had root.
And I do think Sony should find a way to make the early rooters whole again. I feel terrible that so many people's $500 phones have been seriously degraded by a completely reversible software change.
Dsteppa said:
Well it's @Chainfire talking, who are we to doubt him? I'm only waiting for a way to backup my TA-Partition (DRM keys), I wouldn't mind losing some features. Even tho I must agree that losing some camera quality is really annoying, but Android is pretty open source so I have no doubts that people will find something to reverse the algorithm loss or create their own.
And also when the occasion occurs that I need to send my device out for repair, that they don't refuse it due to an unlocked BL
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, but as I'm sure you're aware, backing up the TA-partition requires said exploit to be found in order to get root. So I think it'll be a looong wait. [emoji20]
He still thinks root will be achievable in the early editions of Android L so I think it's safe to say root will arrive for this device under a locked bootloader, it will just take a bit longer than it has in the past to find an exploit.
Sent from my D5803 using XDA Free mobile app
This is really disheartening. It's kinda ironic that Sony, who in recent times has been raised in its support of the developer community of its phones, and even won XDA's OEM of the Year, has such a downer in its phones.
I know this doesn't work for everyone but I'm hopeful that the new AOSP L camera API will mean that AOSP custom roms have some native low light enhancement processing. Maybe...
Chances improve with new software so I t could happen with android L too.
pricey2009 said:
He still thinks root will be achievable in the early editions of Android L so I think it's safe to say root will arrive for this device under a locked bootloader, it will just take a bit longer than it has in the past to find an exploit.
Sent from my D5803 using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, but we're still looking at about five months wait considering Sony won't ship L until Q1 2015. Even then, there's no guarantee an exploit will be found.
Maybe I'm overly pessimistic about this. I do, however, have high hopes for the new camera API's regarding camera quality and post processing.
Personally, every day without root is a little painful, so I'll never last all those months. As soon as there are custom kernels available and a ROM like CM or PA, my locked bootloader goes bye-bye.
Chainfire is talking about the su daemon and problems running it (on Android L). He does not say anything about a root exploit. It seems you misunderstood his post.
zxz0O0 said:
Chainfire is talking about the su daemon and problems running it (on Android L). He does not say anything about a root exploit. It seems you misunderstood his post.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let's hope Sony make or have made some little security mistakes.. To quote his post:
" Of course, this is all dependent on OEMs implementing everything exactly right. If a certain OEM doesn't protect one of their services correctly, then we can leverage that to launch the daemon without kernel modifications. While I'm fairly certain this will be the case for a bunch of devices and firmwares, especially the earlier L firmwares, this is not something you should expect or base decisions on."
Here's hoping they have missed something.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using XDA Free mobile app
pricey2009 said:
Let's hope Sony make or have made some little security mistakes.. To quote his post:
" Of course, this is all dependent on OEMs implementing everything exactly right. If a certain OEM doesn't protect one of their services correctly, then we can leverage that to launch the daemon without kernel modifications. While I'm fairly certain this will be the case for a bunch of devices and firmwares, especially the earlier L firmwares, this is not something you should expect or base decisions on."
Here's hoping they have missed something.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let's wait until January for the first android L release then :crying:
I've rooted two weeks ago and still enjoying the phone
zxz0O0 said:
Chainfire is talking about the su daemon and problems running it (on Android L). He does not say anything about a root exploit. It seems you misunderstood his post.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This.
The post was mainly aimed at Android L...
Google hired one of our very own (Towelroot) and iPhone's pioneering hacker so it's going to get tougher. I hope they hired him only for NSA purposes.
That move by sony is just stupid. if they wanted to protect their code, why not store it into the camera firmware (referring to the camera algorithms)?
Why do they have to kill Miracast?
Obviously that is the other side of the medal. investments on security = far less exploits available. we are gonna wait a while, but as a developer I really really miss Xposed. Each time I look at my G2 a little tear drops.
No way I'm gonna root loosing DRM keys. The camera is already weak (to be honest I would be used a word beginning in shi but let's be polite) so I'm not in any way gonna make it worse.
zxz0O0 said:
Chainfire is talking about the su daemon and problems running it (on Android L). He does not say anything about a root exploit. It seems you misunderstood his post.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes he does:
"As stated above, it seems for now that modifications to the kernel package are required to have root, we cannot attain it with only modifications to the system partition.
Combine that with a locked bootloader (and optionally dm-verity) and a device becomes nigh unrootable - exactly as intended by the security guys.
Exploit-based roots are already harder to do thanks to SELinux, and now because of the kernel requirements for persistent root, these exploits will need to be run at every boot. Exploits that make the system unstable (as many do) are thus out as well."
Then he goes on to say:
"Of course, this is all dependent on OEMs implementing everything exactly right. If a certain OEM doesn't protect one of their services correctly, then we can leverage that to launch the daemon without kernel modifications. While I'm fairly certain this will be the case for a bunch of devices and firmwares, especially the earlier L firmwares, this is not something you should expect or base decisions on. It is now thus more important than ever to buy unlocked devices if you want root.
It might also mean that every firmware update will require re-rooting, and OTA survival mode will be broken. For many (but far from all) devices we can probably automate patching the kernel package right in the SuperSU installer ZIP. We can try to keep it relatively easy, but updating stock firmwares while maintaining root is probably not going to work as easy and fast as it did until now."
zxz0O0 said:
Chainfire is talking about the su daemon and problems running it (on Android L). He does not say anything about a root exploit. It seems you misunderstood his post.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How can anything be a root exploit if it doesn't result in a functional su? I read Chainfire's post as Google making it impossible to elevate privileges from within Android, necessitating kernel level exploits which in turn will require unlocked bootloaders to install.
Once we get to where the bootloader has to be unlocked it's really not a root exploit anymore, is it?
michyprima said:
Why do they have to kill Miracast?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because they don't want to support Miracast without HDCP. Remember that Sony is also a content provider. While that may be as annoying for a normal user as the degradation in camera quality, their approach actually still is developer friendly. Request a code - get full control over the device, at the cost of losing some functionality (software functionality). It's as simple as that. CM and other roms work perfectly fine on Xperia devices, and if you want to implement an equivalent camera algorithm, you're free to do so.
Iruwen said:
Because they don't want to support Miracast without HDCP. Remember that Sony is also a content provider. While that may be as annoying for a normal user as the degradation in camera quality, their approach actually still is developer friendly. Request a code - get full control over the device, at the cost of losing some functionality (software functionality). It's as simple as that. CM and other roms work perfectly fine on Xperia devices, and if you want to implement an equivalent camera algorithm, you're free to do so.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can only agree to that. If you buy a Sony phone to act like a Sony phone (most people do!) then one should leave it as it has been delivered by Sony. If you can't agree to how it is, Sony gives you the option to unlock the BL and do whatever you want to do with the HW, but don't expect it to work/act as before. Personally, I have no issues with that at all.
On a different note, Linux/Android is comprised of x million lines of code. There're bugs in this code, there're bugs in the compiler, bugs in Java, bugs even in the Hardware etc. etc. There's no reason to believe (or fear) that Linux/Android would ever be perfect or non-vulnerable. Root will come, it's only a matter of effort and time...
QuadRooter allows attackers to take complete control of Android devices, potentially exposing your sensitive data to cybercrime.​
However, there is no evidence of the vulnerabilities currently being used in attacks by cyberthieves.
"I'm pretty sure you will see these vulnerabilities being used in the next three to four months," said Michael Shaulov, head of mobility product management at Checkpoint. [BBC News]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Play Store link:
Check Point QuadRooter Scanner​
Alternative: QuadRooter Scanner (less intrusive permissions)
CM (and other AOSPs) will get patched, but Stock 5.1? I suspect the only hope is that Motorola will release something for Moto G (2nd Gen) Stock 6.0, meaning Identity Crisis 6 can be made secure.
Why does a vulnerability check app require permissions for accounts and contacts?
Also, has anyone already created a universal rooting tool based on this vulnerability?
_that said:
Why does a vulnerability check app require permissions for accounts and contacts?
Also, has anyone already created a universal rooting tool based on this vulnerability?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know, but an alternative is available: QuadRooter Scanner.
It's early days, nothing so far - but maybe there is now hope for those CDMA users who want root.
So I'm vulnurable to 5 "things" according to that app. This is a general situation and not device specific, right?
Penemue said:
So I'm vulnurable to 5 "things" according to that app. This is a general situation and not device specific, right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google have said it's not really a big deal - more a case of a company (Checkpoint) scare-mongering to sell their software.
The Android feature 'Verify apps' essentially protects against malicious software if not ignored.
To answer your question, it depends on the device - the degree of vulnerability - but generally speaking most handsets are 'affected.'