Related
This is a continuation of this thread: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=567870, which covered cracking the original "basic" copy protection of Marketplace.
---
I have now cracked the "advanced" copy protection used by Marketplace. As you may know, this is a "better" protection than the original "CAB copy protection" Marketplace offered. This "advanced" protection uses license keys that are verified when you run the application, and given out and controlled by Microsoft.
Several developers are annoyed that Microsoft does not allow us to use our own licensing schemes, and are forced to use "no protection" (the original CAB copy protection) or use Microsoft's scheme which is essentially a single point of failure for all Marketplace protected apps.
This new "advanced" protection was released today by Microsoft, and as far as I know no app available already uses it at the time of this writing.
So I got the code snippets you are supposed to put in your app and it was simply jawdroppingly WTF. While it was not exactly easy to beat, it took me less than two hours to devise a "generic" hack, without modifying any files on the device. (Well hey, at least it's better than the 5 minutes it took for the "basic" protection, right?)
A "generic" hack? Yes, by this I mean that this single hack (actually, running an EXE in the background) will completely bypass the entire code snippet provided by Microsoft that is supposed to check and validate your license code, for all Marketplace apps that use this "advanced" protection.
I will not publish the code that performs this hack, so don't ask. My goal is not to crack Marketplace apps, my goal is to get MS off their ass and allow us to use our own licensing systems, like the good little resellers they're supposed to be. I will tell you that it has to do with runtime patching the crypto API, but that's it. All in all, I don't think it will take long for the warez people to duplicate this hack.
---
Some further reasoning about anti-piracy, solutions, etc can be found in post 13 on page 2.
if there are no apps that use it yet, how do u know your hack works?
Because the Marketplace portal provides code ("code snippet") you have to compile in your EXE, and that takes care of the whole licensing thing.
So you look at that source, spot the weak points, devise a hack. Then compile a program using said "code snippet" and try the hack on it.
If developers simply copy/paste the snippet they are given by the Marketplace portal, this hack will work.
Chainfire said:
This is a continuation of this thread: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=567870, which covered cracking the original "basic" copy protection of Marketplace.
---
I have now cracked the "advanced" copy protection used by Marketplace. As you may know, this is a "better" protection than the original "CAB copy protection" Marketplace offered. This "advanced" protection uses license keys that are verified when you run the application, and given out and controlled by Microsoft.
Several developers are annoyed that Microsoft does not allow us to use our own licensing schemes, and are forced to use "no protection" (the original CAB copy protection) or use Microsoft's scheme which is essentially a single point of failure for all Marketplace protected apps.
This new "advanced" protection was released today by Microsoft, and as far as I know no app available already uses it at the time of this writing.
So I got the code snippets you are supposed to put in your app and it was simply jawdroppingly WTF. While it was not exactly easy to beat, it took me less than two hours to devise a "generic" hack, without modifying any files on the device. (Well hey, at least it's better than the 5 minutes it took for the "basic" protection, right?)
A "generic" hack? Yes, by this I mean that this single hack (actually, running an EXE in the background) will completely bypass the entire code snippet provided by Microsoft that is supposed to check and validate your license code, for all Marketplace apps that use this "advanced" protection.
I will not publish the code that performs this hack, so don't ask. My goal is not to crack Marketplace apps, my goal is to get MS off their ass and allow us to use our own licensing systems, like the good little resellers they're supposed to be. I will tell you that it has to do with runtime patching the crypto API, but that's it. All in all, I don't think it will take long for the warez people to duplicate this hack.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
amen
hallelujah
hit me now
YEAH
have given the issue some press : http://www.1800pocketpc.com/2009/11/13/marketplace-advanced-copy-protection-cracked-in-less-than-2-hours.html
anti-piracy protection is intended to stop ordinary users from transferring cabs between devices and it is successful at that. there is no protection that will stop apps from being pirated, certainly not for handheld devices. the new advanced protection is adequate and any further techniques are redundant and a waste of time, because no matter how 'strong' they are, they WILL be cracked.
Slightly if not totally off-topic: A mainstream consumer's view
mnet said:
anti-piracy protection is intended to stop ordinary users from transferring cabs between devices and it is successful at that. there is no protection that will stop apps from being pirated, certainly not for handheld devices. the new advanced protection is adequate and any further techniques are redundant and a waste of time, because no matter how 'strong' they are, they WILL be cracked.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you and your premise. Now a quick story.
I consider myself a mainstream consumer... but I have been a member of XDA for, what, i think 4 years, using 2 WM phones, first the T-Mobile MDA, then the Wing (HTC Herald), and I am about to switch to Android with the HTC Hero. I am reasonably savvy about tech, just not a coder. But I've done all the hard SPL, flashing ROMS, using beta software, and supporting developers here with pretty significant donations. I am also a User Experience / Usability designer for web as a profession. THAT'S MY BACKGROUND.
To date, my experience buying WM apps has been universally AWFUL. Whether it was, just recently, Resco Picture Viewer from PocketGear, or WM Defrag from Wizcode, or PocketPlayer from Conduits. I am more than happy to buy excellent software that works, and has a decent UI. But in each case, the process of buying the app and getting it onto my phone has been absurd, and frustrating beyond belief. Each provider makes all sorts of assumptions -- often wrong -- including "you must be downloading this from a PC, so we will download for you an executable that runs on a desktop PC then installs via active sync onto your device."
Whatever the percentage is, doesn't matter: A lot of people, like me, download all my cab files, and purchase apps, on my Mac... and either email myself the .cab file or .zip files, or place my microSD card from my phone into a USB reader. Thus, what a frikkin headache to end up getting PocketPlayer on my phone... but because i didn't download it from a Windows PC, I was screwed.
This stuff is archaic. This past week it has taken 5 days to get Resco Picture Viewer on my phone after purchasing from PocketGear.com . They have a completely retarded transactional process, a terrible UI, broken software in terms of user recognition and resetting username and password, and a completely phone-UNFRIENDLY site, with most sub-level menus not even accessible from browsers like Opera Mobile, Netfront, Iris ... They are dumbass pull downs using god knows what -- flash or javascript, whatever. But fact is: a simple navigation process to access the products on the phone itself can't even be achieved by these clowns -- yet everyone is in overdrive now trying to get their version of "THE" WindowsMobile app store online, while Microsoft stumbles.
The fact is: I would LIKE to see a uniform transaction process which is designed professionally, and supports great usability design, and once I buy the app, quit making me go through absurd backflips just to get access to the cab file. Stop requiring me to use a Windows PC. And stop all the "special OUR way" authentication processes. Because if they were so good, there wouldn't be the kind of problems I have described. I'll even grant anyone who wants to -- to say "well you're just a dumb**** user who doesn't understand their particular process"... I'll grant you that, and my answer would be:
If you plan to sell a lot of apps -- ie, make money via VOLUME transactions vs pricey apps -- a la iphone -- then it makes a hell of a lot of sense to make a uniform system of delivery if you're buying it through an app store, and for god's sake, cut the crap and figure it out. It's not so hard to send an authentication code via email or text message. But it's exactly WRONG to be having 1000 developers using 1000 special "our way" authentication processes, because the odds of 1000 app developers having a great, simple, effective UI and safe authentication system that prevents priacy of their app is pretty low, based on the experiences I have had to date with MAINSTREAM products for WM.
That's my view. But I see a whole lot of clumsiness from the Windows Mobile side of the fence pertaining to this whole new way of monetizing apps. There's a reason apple succeeds in that department -- even with their bloated catalog and draconian approval processes. They understand how to deliver products to consumers -- vs repelling them from a dumbass process, no matter how good that process may be in theory.
quicksite said:
I agree with you and your premise. Now a quick story.
I consider myself a mainstream consumer... but I have been a member of XDA for, what, i think 4 years, using 2 WM phones, first the T-Mobile MDA, then the Wing (HTC Herald), and I am about to switch to Android with the HTC Hero. I am reasonably savvy about tech, just not a coder. But I've done all the hard SPL, flashing ROMS, using beta software, and supporting developers here with pretty significant donations. I am also a User Experience / Usability designer for web as a profession. THAT'S MY BACKGROUND.
To date, my experience buying WM apps has been universally AWFUL. Whether it was, just recently, Resco Picture Viewer from PocketGear, or WM Defrag from Wizcode, or PocketPlayer from Conduits. I am more than happy to buy excellent software that works, and has a decent UI. But in each case, the process of buying the app and getting it onto my phone has been absurd, and frustrating beyond belief. Each provider makes all sorts of assumptions -- often wrong -- including "you must be downloading this from a PC, so we will download for you an executable that runs on a desktop PC then installs via active sync onto your device."
Whatever the percentage is, doesn't matter: A lot of people, like me, download all my cab files, and purchase apps, on my Mac... and either email myself the .cab file or .zip files, or place my microSD card from my phone into a USB reader. Thus, what a frikkin headache to end up getting PocketPlayer on my phone... but because i didn't download it from a Windows PC, I was screwed.
This stuff is archaic. This past week it has taken 5 days to get Resco Picture Viewer on my phone after purchasing from PocketGear.com . They have a completely retarded transactional process, a terrible UI, broken software in terms of user recognition and resetting username and password, and a completely phone-UNFRIENDLY site, with most sub-level menus not even accessible from browsers like Opera Mobile, Netfront, Iris ... They are dumbass pull downs using god knows what -- flash or javascript, whatever. But fact is: a simple navigation process to access the products on the phone itself can't even be achieved by these clowns -- yet everyone is in overdrive now trying to get their version of "THE" WindowsMobile app store online, while Microsoft stumbles.
The fact is: I would LIKE to see a uniform transaction process which is designed professionally, and supports great usability design, and once I buy the app, quit making me go through absurd backflips just to get access to the cab file. Stop requiring me to use a Windows PC. And stop all the "special OUR way" authentication processes. Because if they were so good, there wouldn't be the kind of problems I have described. I'll even grant anyone who wants to -- to say "well you're just a dumb**** user who doesn't understand their particular process"... I'll grant you that, and my answer would be:
If you plan to sell a lot of apps -- ie, make money via VOLUME transactions vs pricey apps -- a la iphone -- then it makes a hell of a lot of sense to make a uniform system of delivery if you're buying it through an app store, and for god's sake, cut the crap and figure it out. It's not so hard to send an authentication code via email or text message. But it's exactly WRONG to be having 1000 developers using 1000 special "our way" authentication processes, because the odds of 1000 app developers having a great, simple, effective UI and safe authentication system that prevents priacy of their app is pretty low, based on the experiences I have had to date with MAINSTREAM products for WM.
That's my view. But I see a whole lot of clumsiness from the Windows Mobile side of the fence pertaining to this whole new way of monetizing apps. There's a reason apple succeeds in that department -- even with their bloated catalog and draconian approval processes. They understand how to deliver products to consumers -- vs repelling them from a dumbass process, no matter how good that process may be in theory.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Couldn't agree more!
I'll add one more reason I wrap my head in ductape every time I download/install an app.
Think it's bad with every developer having their own authentication method? How about when each developer has a DIFFERENT authentication scheme for every app they make?
I like a rant - thanks for doing it for me as I agree with you 100%.
The top of my annoyance list (which you did include) are sites selling mobile software which are NOT mobile browser friendly, WTF is that all about?
Big Up, I still don't think anyone else would have done it in two hours.
Hey you warned them didn't you.
Haha Chainfire is there anything you cant do?
More in the Dutch press:
http://tweakers.net/nieuws/63713/nederlander-kraakt-nieuwe-beveiliging-windows-marketplace.html
While I do appreciate the "rant", I think you're missing my point - or perhaps I just don't agree. (Edit: that is in response to this post http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=4936479&postcount=7)
When I say "use our own licensing schemes", I do not mean codes sent back and forth through websites, screen you have to type stuff in etc. This is exactly not needed because Marketplace is also the delivery mechanism. In other words, the license code can be installed by Marketplace directly without the user ever seeing or hearing about it.
This is partly how the new system works, actually. However, if Microsoft supported license codes you give them things would be more secure (though granted, for a large part by obscurity).
Some authors will not care and simply not use it all, for example with the cheap apps it may not be worth their while. Others may wish to track license key usage, so that if suddenly 10.000 users start using the same key instead of the 1 who bought it, that key can be disabled, etc. Some may want the app to call home, some will not. Imagine that developers that do employ such anti-piracy measures will write their own verification / communication code, this beats the single point of failure we currently have. The crackers are back to having to crack each app independently and even then have a much lower chance of success.
Marketplace is the perfect opportunity to implement such a system that does provide some piracy security for the authors while for once it does not unnecessarily annoy the user.
To make the obligatory bad car analogy that fails in many ways, take you car keys. Everyone thinks it's normal to have a car key, so people can't just take your car. Of course, in line with some of the arguments against anti-piracy measures, car keys aren't really that useful, as there's always a brick - the universal key, and a car thief that really wants your car will get it. (You also lock the doors on your house, right?)
Now, the current situation is pretty much that everyone has the same car key. How useful is a car key in that situation? They way I see it (and I'm sure I'm not alone in that), is more like the actual car key situation. Some car keys are laser etched, or have something RFID-like in them and a receive in the car, or simply use different shapes, etc. That's a lot more useful than everyone having the same car key.
Sure, no matter what you do, eventually things will get cracked and it is a cat and mouse game. One of the reasons this is easily doable is because of the open nature and the very few restrictions of Windows Mobile. This is a good thing. No developer in their right mind would want to get to a restrictive system like is the case on the iPhone or other mobile OS's. That is not the point. That doesn't mean anti-piracy measures are useless though, far from it. The longer you can keep a release from being warez'd, the less you lose.
There are two arguments I hear coming back in various places by various people:
(1) If the normal users can't just copy it, then that is enough (even MS says this)
(2) Piracy works as advertising, you get more eventual sales, etc. etc
Both of these, are from my own experience, completely untrue. The thing is if one person cracks it, it usually spreads on those warez sites pretty quickly.
The big thing here is, the average user is apparently tech-savvy enough to search the warez sites first before buying, and that is just how it is:
We have played the game with that one warez site, monitoring sales when (apparent) cracks were listed and when they weren't (they do remove releases on request). This made a 30-50% difference in sales (with the number being highest during the weekends, and lowest during weekdays). For me that is enough data to know that both (1) and (2) are complete nonsense in the case of mobile apps. No matter all the pretty reasons and perhaps seemingly logical reasons you may come up with for (1) and (2), the numbers don't lie.
So, how would you like to get a 30-50% paycut? It's not like us developers are getting rich here, you know. Can we be blamed for trying to prevent this?
Now, here we have the chance to implement a system that is completely transparent for the user and can be made reasonably safe (and updatable), an obvious win-win situation for everyone involved except the warez people. Why exactly shouldn't we be aiming for this?
What is also painfully apparent here, as Microsoft themselves claim reason (1), that they have no idea what they are talking about.
i am no programmer so excuse my ignorance but doesnt everything eventually get cracked. Is there any mobile platform which hasnt a non cracked market place or sites where you can download paid apps for free?
Well done Chainfire
Hello Chainfire,
I am the webmaster of the Tamoggemon Content network, and just covered you:
http://tamsppc.tamoggemon.com/2009/11/13/advanced-marketplace-drm-broken/
http://tamswms.tamoggemon.com/2009/11/13/advanced-marketplace-drm-broken/
Furthermore, an email went out to MSFT asking for a statement. but this is not the reason why I registered here (!!!) - I am instead here to vent a bit being a Symbian dev myself.
While I fully understand your frustration, I think that allowing every developer to run his own DRM is not gonna do the store good. The reason is that the store was made to make purchasing apps simple - and by allowing everyone to run his own DRM I dont see much of a venue to do this anymore.
Whenever some kind of backend gets involved, there is a single point of failure - the only trhing I can think off now would be a very complet system based on servers.
Or, of course, platform security like on S60. But trust me - we wont want that!
Thanks! However, if you read my other post carefully you'd see it wouldn't make any difference to the ease of using the store (it wouldn't make any difference for the user at all), just to a part of the backend. And of course, each DRM system has a single point of failure, but the difference is in my case there is a point of failure per app, while in the current case it's a single point of failure for everything. There is no perfect solution, but there are better solutions than the current one.
I've been contacted by a handful of big WM devs by now who are of somewhat the same opinion.
microsoft.... when it comes to security, they are clueless as usual.
only apple is worse.
I find they windows-7 VPN and "encryption" funny , is there anybody that would trust it ? - even if it was not for the backdoors ?
Just wondering, is anyone else having problems accessing the windows marketplace from the phone? I was able to download a couple of apps yesterday after I installed a custom ROM (TPC Pro Series V3.2), but today I get a message saying there is an update, it installs the update but then I get the following message:
"Windows Marketplace for Mobile cannot connect right now. Try again later."
Is this because of the custom ROM and the latest update to the marketplace, or is this something other people are experiencing?
Remember the days when purchased mp3s were DRM protected and some companies like Sony even put rootkits on music CDs? Did that stop piracy?
Hopefully Microsoft will not repeat these mistakes... There is no need for any further 'protection' for marketplace apps. If a developer isn't satisfied with this mechanism then he/she doesn't have to publish their apps on the marketplace. There's no point in having a centralized app store if every developer uses his/her own licensing scheme.
Introduction
I have not seen much talk about security in XDA, and not at all on Neo Section.
SO here's just one informative link talking about using and developing apps and security risks involved
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/25921/?mod=related
Any bug in software could potentially be used as a security loophole to gain access to private information, spy on you, get your credit card info(should you do such things on phone).
What is kind of unsettling is that everyone seems fine with modding, tweaking, developing and using those ROMs made in XDA without worrying if there could be that kind of bug in your made or used ROM.
You don't need a malicious app only to have risks. Most people use Windows so they should know that it is OP systems bugs and vulnerabilities that allow for unwanted access to your files, data, etc.
Android itself is having very non-foolproof security system. All apps on unrooted phone are in sandbox. That's no security measure at all. It doesn't limit app from stealing your private info at all, it only cant delete the whole ROM. That's just idiotic security system, for it is the only thing beside encrypting shut off phone on 3.0 and 4.0. So that means Android on it's own has no security measures while it's working. Even Windows has... some... but not too much... so you could pay for antivirus and antispyware software ofc.
It has always been the goal of big corporations to make money from insecurity, be they software developers, arms dealers and you name it. They all benefit from insecurities existing. Same is with Google and it's Android. But the good news is that we the users can modify Android. We could all say "Au revoir security bugs and loopholes!" if we would care about developing ROMs designed to make Android more secure... alas that's not happening yet!
Overview of Linux/Android security issues.
It's a short condensed description just to get you interested in the topic. There's lots of material on net, you only need to search, read, watch videos.
Linux becomes more vulnerable with more applications with different permissions installed. Same is true for Android.
Say your Phone Exporer has root access, that means it has root access to whole Android. To remove unnecessary risks, this app's root access should be limited to only most necessary functions it needs to operate.
Currently for Android there is no such solution. For Linux there is Apparmor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AppArmor
Total root access is obvious vulnerability, but it is at least known one. Let's look at possibility of apps having hidden permissions and what that could mean to you.
Blade Buddy from Market.
On market it does not list permission to "Unique Device ID"(IMEI for GSM and MEID; ESN for CDMA) for free nor for paid version.
That means the author of BB has left the code from free version in paid one. This permission is used by ads to track you. It's not necessary code for ads, but it helps the dev know who clicked on the add and generated him some money. To see your money generating zombie empire stretch across the whole globe.... quite a thrill, isn't it?
So it's a latent code, with no benefit to user and an exploit only calling to be abused.
Unique Device ID allows you to be tracked on net and also where you are physically. GPS is just one way to find you, police for example have scanners to locate your devices physical location by the IMEI code. You can count on the "bad guys" having this technology as well, for it's quite a tool for burglars and other criminals.
The risks of your home being marked as the next dungeon to be looted by some raiders, I mean criminals(or perhaps WoW players sleepwalking and sleepraiding?) or getting your ID and bank details stolen by trojan/hacker is random. Yet the threat would not exist without apps having so flagrant hidden permissions.
Next app with ludicrous permissions
Brightest Flashlight
It does list many permissions, among them "Hardware controls - take pictures and videos ". No, it does not need a permission to take photos through cameras to operate the flashlight. But it's fun nonetheless for the dev to see his trusty peasants, or maybe he just likes to observe people like some watch fish in aquarium or hamsters in cage( "Look at that dork!", "You're one ugly m...f...er","ummm a couple kissing in dark with ma flashlight, what are they searching?", "what's that you eat, mr Korean, brains?" "hey show me that document again.")
You don't even need to run the app yourself. It can be triggered by hacker on background and take a snapshot of you.
On top of this little needless permission it has following hidden permissions:
1. Unique IMSI, read about here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSI
2. MCC+MNC (CDMA)
3. Unique Devide ID
4. Cell Tower Name.
That's a lot of needless permissions for flashlight, these are there just to track you the app user and have nothing to do with your comfortable use of the app.
These are just 2 apps with totally needless permissions for their intended functioning. If you don't want your Windows and Linux have such security holes then why do you want your Android have them?! You don't want, that's the point and these apps would not be so popular if people would really know and care about their phone being secure.
It can be stated for sure that above exemplified permissions not listed on market are more useful for pranksters, criminals or someone plainly looking-down-on-all-the-dumb-sheep and not at all for any legitimate, user or customer friendly purposes.
There are very few tools to check for security and privacy problems in apps. That gives a sense that majority of devs do not want Android to be secure and private, because Android is another revenue generating platform through Google ads business of course. Were people more educated about the matter then Google ads business would shrink down as well. A private and secure Android can't be tracked or annoyed with ads. No ads, no profit. No security therefore means profit. Unfortunately this lack of security can be exploited by anyone with criminal or malignant intentions so very easily.
The most important thing is to read the permissions before installing.
If you had read the article I linked. Those permissions don't matter anything really if stuff developers use doesn't reveal what it does, or developer itself doesn't disclose what the app does.
We can safely say that those permissions asked are just to make ordinary users of Android think that all is under their control.
I use Privacy Blocker app and it keeps finding app permissions that are not listed. Even that app doesn't find those permissions which Cyanogenmod permission manager shows. And I've sanitized all my apps, still I find my phone connecting to some odd servers while using certain paid and seemingly legit apps. I even found shapshots from front camera made by some app... and I am checking all permissions I can, even for those not listed.
What seems harmless but could reveal your IP address and potentially other data about you is... advertisements used by apps.
Ads can be far more than just a little annoyance that slows your device. Any file, picture loaded from some location in internet can be used to locate you.
I had a problem of getting phone call bills for calls lasting 10 to 20 secs that I never made after using a slew of market apps, flashlights, fun stuff, etc.
I paid two months for such calls trying to find out which app did it and still don't know which one it was. Skype(phone app has fake IP of Holland but actual connection goes to Moscow... oh come one what is this? Why such hiding? Like anyone would trust their phone's Skype connection stream through Moscow... no thank you! Then wonder still if the phone gets so slow and Skype call quality is so bad even over wifi while Windows Skype does just fine?), Brighest flashlight, some photo editors, and slew of other garbage I've already forgotten about cause I don't use any of it anymore.
First post updated
How about the new 4.3 update..in includes some security and privacy control..will this thing prevent you had mentioned?
Is there any way to reactivate this post? maybe start working on a security enhanced android ROM? I'm agree, Security does matter!
I wrote this On Xperia Neo General forum but it belongs to here much more.
Original thread at: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1447095
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Introduction
I have not seen much talk about security in XDA.
First, here's just one informative link talking about using and developing apps and security risks involved.
http://www.technologyreview.com/comp...1/?mod=related
Any bug in software could potentially be used as a security loophole to gain access to private information, spy on you, get your credit card info(should you do such things on phone).
What is kind of unsettling is that everyone seems fine with modding, tweaking, developing and using those ROMs made in XDA without worrying if there could be that kind of bug in your made or used ROM.
You don't need a malicious app only to have risks. Most people use Windows so they should know that it is OP systems bugs and vulnerabilities that allow for unwanted access to your files, data, etc.
Android itself is having very non-foolproof security system. All apps on unrooted phone are in sandbox. That's no security measure at all. It doesn't limit app from stealing your private info at all, it only cant delete the whole ROM. That's just idiotic security system, for it is the only thing beside encrypting shut off phone on 3.0 and 4.0. So that means Android on it's own has no security measures while it's working. Even Windows has... some... but not too much... so you could pay for antivirus and antispyware software ofc.
It has always been the goal of big corporations to make money from insecurity, be they software developers, arms dealers and you name it. They all benefit from insecurities existing. Same is with Google and it's Android. But the good news is that we the users can modify Android. We could all say "Au revoir security bugs and loopholes!" if we would care about developing ROMs designed to make Android more secure... alas that's not happening yet!
Overview of Linux/Android security issues.
It's a short condensed description just to get you interested in the topic. There's lots of material on net, you only need to search, read, watch videos.
Linux becomes more vulnerable with more applications with different permissions installed. Same is true for Android.
Say your Phone Exporer has root access, that means it has root access to whole Android. To remove unnecessary risks, this app's root access should be limited to only most necessary functions it needs to operate.
Currently for Android there is no such solution. For Linux there is Apparmor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AppArmor
Total root access is obvious vulnerability, but it is at least known one. Let's look at possibility of apps having hidden permissions and what that could mean to you.
Blade Buddy from Market.
On market it does not list permission to "Unique Device ID"(IMEI for GSM and MEID; ESN for CDMA) for free nor for paid version.
That means the author of BB has left the code from free version in paid one. This permission is used by ads to track you. It's not necessary code for ads, but it helps the dev know who clicked on the add and generated him some money. To see your money generating zombie empire stretch across the whole globe.... quite a thrill, isn't it?
So it's a latent code, with no benefit to user and an exploit only calling to be abused.
Unique Device ID allows you to be tracked on net and also where you are physically. GPS is just one way to find you, police for example have scanners to locate your devices physical location by the IMEI code. You can count on the "bad guys" having this technology as well, for it's quite a tool for burglars and other criminals.
The risks of your home being marked as the next dungeon to be looted by some raiders, I mean criminals(or perhaps WoW players sleepwalking and sleepraiding?) or getting your ID and bank details stolen by trojan/hacker is random. Yet the threat would not exist without apps having so flagrant hidden permissions.
Next app with ludicrous permissions
Brightest Flashlight
It does list many permissions, among them "Hardware controls - take pictures and videos ". No, it does not need a permission to take photos through cameras to operate the flashlight. But it's fun nonetheless for the dev to see his trusty peasants, or maybe he just likes to observe people like some watch fish in aquarium or hamsters in cage( "Look at that dork!", "You're one ugly m...f...er","ummm a couple kissing in dark with ma flashlight, what are they searching?", "what's that you eat, mr Korean, brains?" "hey show me that document again.")
You don't even need to run the app yourself. It can be triggered by hacker on background and take a snapshot of you.
On top of this little needless permission it has following hidden permissions:
1. Unique IMSI, read about here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSI
2. MCC+MNC (CDMA)
3. Unique Devide ID
4. Cell Tower Name.
That's a lot of needless permissions for flashlight, these are there just to track you the app user and have nothing to do with your comfortable use of the app.
These are just 2 apps with totally needless permissions for their intended functioning. If you don't want your Windows and Linux have such security holes then why do you want your Android have them?! You don't want, that's the point and these apps would not be so popular if people would really know and care about their phone being secure.
It can be stated for sure that above exemplified permissions not listed on market are more useful for pranksters, criminals or someone plainly looking-down-on-all-the-dumb-sheep and not at all for any legitimate, user or customer friendly purposes.
There are very few tools to check for security and privacy problems in apps. That gives a sense that majority of devs do not want Android to be secure and private, because Android is another revenue generating platform through Google ads business of course. Were people more educated about the matter then Google ads business would shrink down as well. A private and secure Android can't be tracked or annoyed with ads. No ads, no profit. No security therefore means profit. Unfortunately this lack of security can be exploited by anyone with criminal or malignant intentions so very easily.
In my honest opinion. If someone keeps files like ccinfo they have to worry about being jacked then they deserve it. Should it happen. U shouldn't keep things on your phoney don't want the rest if the world to have
Sent from my Cyanocrack using Xparent Blue Tapatalk
You don't need to keep credit card info on phone, your using the credit card via Market or logging in to bank on phones browser is enough to intercept your credit card info. Your browser may show you xxxxxxxxxxxx+"last four digits only" but that doesn't mean the data to and from your device doesn't contain exact credit card number. It's encrypted, but that is merely a minor inconvenience for a hacker.
That is why being rooted is not advised to everyone. Mainly if they don't know what they are doing. Also customs roms are not for everyone. People flash them cause they think its cool and don't understand what they are doing. That is their problem. People should pay attention to the permissions that am app asks for. Common sense is the best protection. Main reason I don't do anything that deals with a bank on my phone.
Raoa said:
I have not seen much talk about security in XDA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's talk. It's just not on important yet, because the android device is not being marketed like an OS is with a personal computer.
However, the more we do on our phones, the more we'll realize it needs protection like firewalls. We catch a few like CIQ or the Wimax exploit, but it's going to get worse as we advance in our integration. We do need to start now before exploits get worse and stay ahead of the curve.
Until that time, 4G exploits and root kit programs will run freely on our devices that houses a lot of our personal information.
Plus, for some stupid reason, there are a lot of people who think Linux is immuned to viruses and security holes due to it's code transparency. Android is being mainstreamed. It will soon be a continuous target like other existing popular software programs and operating systems.
And that's why iOS is far superior even without widgets or live wallpapers.
Something to think about.thanks for posting.
Sent from my HTC Glacier using XDA App
alex2792 said:
And that's why iOS is far superior even without widgets or live wallpapers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
IOS and Mac are just as vulnerable, maybe even more so because of there popularity and the misconception that IOS is secure and does not need AntiVirus protection. Just last week i removed a nasty virus on a brand new Macbook Pro so that is not the way to think. You need to act as if there are security issues and just be really careful at what link you click and what email you open.
mattfox27 said:
IOS and Mac are just as vulnerable, maybe even more so because of there popularity and the misconception that IOS is secure and does not need AntiVirus protection. Just last week i removed a nasty virus on a brand new Macbook Pro so that is not the way to think. You need to act as if there are security issues and just be really careful at what link you click and what email you open.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll give you OS X,but I've never heard of an iPhone virus while there are loads of malware on Android market.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
I am not an expert on iOS nor do I have any wish to even know or use it, because Apple buys from suppliers that emply child labor and sweatshops.
When Linux started spreading around people also thought it has no viruses.
Same story repeats with every software.
For each different OS it takes merely time before people start to notice that their OS has viruses/trojans/spyware too. That doesn't mean their OS is not targeted. You should expect all sorts of thieves to use any and all opportunities.
Secondly OS does not matter so much as the matter that your device is connected to wifi, data, bluetooth, et or not. IP addresses, MAC, IMEI, etc they all stay the same on every platform. No matter which OS, they all connect to wireless networks, cell network, data, bluetooth, etc which all have set standards.
So someone wanting to track, spy, get your private info simply has to intercept the data your device sends to any network. If you don't use strong encryption to send info via network then it is easy to "wiretap" you.
Why is there so much spam, viruses, spyware in internet today? It's because the software managing internet is not made to be so secure. If it were secure then it would also be more private and safer for people to chat over net.
So not only OS's need to be more secure, but the very internet itself needs to be reformed.
This relates to SOPA and PIPA. Had those two bills been passed the next step would have been logically to make changes to all networks so you'd be more easily trackable, hackable, "wiretappable". It's simply logical, cause SOPA, PIPA were so defunctly worded as if asking/preparing for a third bill to regulate the networks.
So we must make sure that internet will be reformed for the private users and not for greedy corporations. We would not need to buy anti-spyware, anti-virus software if the internet were truly engineered for the welfare of humanity.
You could use any OS, bugged or not and not be afraid of loosing your property or privacy if the internet would stop such acts before they could harm you, the individual who is supposed to truly and freely benefit from the services; either for free or for honest price, but now you are robbed and think it is good to pay the thieves.
Raoa said:
Android itself is having very non-foolproof security system. All apps on unrooted phone are in sandbox. That's no security measure at all. It doesn't limit app from stealing your private info at all, it only cant delete the whole ROM.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please elaborate. The sandbox does prevent one app from reading the data of another, such as the CC info from the Market.
Also, are you sure Market sends the entire CC number? There's no reason for it to send it, the transaction is performed on Google's servers.
alex2792 said:
I'll give you OS X,but I've never heard of an iPhone virus while there are loads of malware on Android market.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you talking about viruses or malware? Please don't conflate the two.
Malware is easy to take care of - check the apps you're downloading for what permissions they want. It's as simple as that.
alex2792 said:
I'll give you OS X,but I've never heard of an iPhone virus while there are loads of malware on Android market.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just before xmas an iphone developer admitted to deliberately uploading malware in his ios app to show malware can easily affect iphone.
http://m.intomobile.com/2011/11/08/security-expert-sneaks-malware-into-iphone-app-store/
That was for normal iphones. For jailbroken ones there are more malware apps.
Dave
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk
Raoa, your absolutely right.
I've had the exact same thought recently
Its like the overall view of the Android landscape is ridden from real security apps, for the simple purpose of have the platform as open as possible. And while this is good for developers and users of this and other serious forums, its also open for the "dark" communities as well.
I often ask myself, if the ROM devs onboard have these thoughts themselves, as in, what is my source of this modded apk, is is straight from the Market or from another dubious, (do I dare say chinese forum, just an example)
And how clean is my code really?
And is all mods just legit just cuz they are from here?
I love that we have so many ppl having a desire to mess around with the OS, but I miss, as you say, the talk about having a go on security as well.
I dont know, but I do think that awareness, as you initial post direct us to, should be raised, as a natural step for any serious dev and users in general on XDA, to be more aware, of the code.
Im on my first year as an Android user, and ofcourse did have to gain root on my splendid Sensation. Why?, cuz I needed the security tools requiring root.
Ask again, why? Cuz I came from Winblows 7, and know what a jungle software is, and that is is indeed exploitable, like hell, you might say.
And Im gladd I did gain s-off and root, cuz its really really needed fo youre just a little concerned about your privacy in, mails, sms, location, usage pattern, netbanking, dropobox deposits of your ****, some might even be work related and therefore hold more than just your own privacy.
And then there is what you mentioned, our devices unique ID's, the intent "app install referrer" to "plug" you into admob/google analyzer and so on.
I love one guy here, Treve, who made the HTC tool for scanning for ****, Logging Test Tool, and in version 10, he made it aware of admob/mobclix/analytics, and my god it find a lot...
So Treve, please, if you read this, just go on, as every version you make is getting finer and finer.
We could learn from this guy, and others here that got more code-insight.
What we CAN do as a community at the very least, is to share our knowledge and tips for securing our phones.
HOST filtering, code scanning of apks and so on. using AV's and firewalls and so on.
Right from the start I noticed that Android is not a clean OS, nor is its app market, and I noticed this cuz I have another splendid little Linux system at hand, Smoothwall Express with url filtering and proxy enabled
and My god is Android and its aps LEAKING!
Have a look in your urlfilters on a standalone firewall the step after your wireless android phone, and watch how much **** is going on.
Well, I can tell you for a start that I have added atleast 100 new domains to my custom urlfilter, besides the casual downloadable HOST filters around the net, like the ones found in AdblockPlus and so on. But after android, heh, you need more than just advertising filtering, that much I can say.
Just as an example, like those you mentioned, I have one too, that I was made aware of by Avast on my phone tonight, that ChompSMS was being flagged as malware/trojan.
I thought, **** man, why this crap, Im quite fund of Chomp, really.
So I thought, no, imma let more that Avast on my phone have a go.
So I File Expert dump the full apk, and uploaded it for a scan on virustotal, just for the sake of it. And whatta'ya know, ClamAV, GData, Kaspersky, NOD32, and Sophos flagged it as that same Plankton.G variant as my on-phone Avast.
Great, I thought (sarkasm intended)
I thought a bit further and picked up APK Multi-Tool, had a decompile and a content-scan for just "http" in is readable code.
12 different domains is mentioned so far, and I didnt even poke in all of its xml's, just the smali's
I know android is by a far stretch advertising born, and ofcuz the app devs have a right to earn their money, no doubt about that, and I gladly pay for the good ****, like most ppl here believeably do, but.. 12 different .com's mentioned in its code is a no go for me.
I have earlier used Privacy Blocker, and Privacy Inspector from XEUDOXUS in the market, to make permission scanning, beside using LBE/HOST/Avast, and I like those two aps, the Inspector one is free but only can scan.
The paid Blocker can "repair" as a feature, but its not maintained enuff, so it often fails to make installable apks, so not really worth it for me anymore, but as a free too, it can tell you more about those permissions you mentioned.
But enuff said from me for now, lets just collect and share our tips and tricks, ALSO for security, not just developing ROM and mod's and hacks, as thou they are fine, if not to say, so cool and great, but, we need to be secure too.
Please do not polute the discussion with IOS vs Android and what not, cuz thats not the purpose of it, even thou it definitly concerns (g)A(r)pple products too.
Sincerely, Omnius
alex2792 said:
I'll give you OS X,but I've never heard of an iPhone virus while there are loads of malware on Android market.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Iphones can get viruses they come through SMS's and other sources not as bad as android apple keeps there market much more under control, but everything is vulnerable i work in a security team for a big corp and believe me nothing is safe.
Check these articles out i just found them on google.
I remember a while ago maybe a year or so there was a huge security hole in IOS5 and Mac waited a long time to tell the public and release a patch. The one major problem with Apple is when there are security threats they really try to keep it hush...Iphone's OS is tight but not totally secure. Its not viruses either its moslty just malware that charges you tons of money in texting i saw once an iphone that turned into a bot and at midnight it would dial a 900 number and just sit there all night at like $20 bucks a minunte then disconnect when it felt the phone move.
http://www.mactrast.com/2010/07/iphone-virus-discovered-be-vigilant-and-seek-advice/
http://techfragments.com/news/982/Software/Apple_iPhone_Virus_Spreads_By_SMS_Messages.html
I'm going to fanboy MIUI for a second.
When you install an app you are presented with a screen (separate from the market) that allows you to toggle all the permissions an app ask for between Allowed/Ask/Disabled.
More roms should adopt this.
NB: I haven't checked CM9 so it might be a CM9 feature that MIUI has polished or it might be native to MIUI.
weedy2887 said:
I'm going to fanboy MIUI for a second.
When you install an app you are presented with a screen (separate from the market) that allows you to toggle all the permissions an app ask for between Allowed/Ask/Disabled.
More roms should adopt this.
NB: I haven't checked CM9 so it might be a CM9 feature that MIUI has polished or it might be native to MIUI.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldn't be so fast to praise MIUI.
weedy2887 said:
I'm going to fanboy MIUI for a second.
When you install an app you are presented with a screen (separate from the market) that allows you to toggle all the permissions an app ask for between Allowed/Ask/Disabled.
More roms should adopt this.
NB: I haven't checked CM9 so it might be a CM9 feature that MIUI has polished or it might be native to MIUI.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem is the "Average Joe" doesn't even look at those or doesn't know what they mean. I see so many viruses/malware/open security holes just because of user error its insane. Almost 90% of security breaches or problems originate from the end users not paying attention or just not knowing or caring. Also another thing i see so much when new clients call me with there servers melting down and all there banking info being stolen is they haven't installed any updates on there servers since they were set up 2-5 years ago. I worked for a large industrial supply company and all there servers running MS Server 2008 no updates had been installed and they were using AVG free on there main SQL server...INSANE LOL
Then theirs the users, "my computer was fine until my friend on facebook wanted my SS# and mothers maiden name and insisted i open his email attachment, now its acting weird what do you think is wrong?"
Brutal
what is the 4g exploit that you are talking about? And is it only with wimax or is lte part of it as well?
Oneiricl said:
Malware is easy to take care of - check the apps you're downloading for what permissions they want. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's absolutely amazing that people are willing to put up with something so ridiculous.
Sent from my SGH-I897
I don't own a smartphone yet, but I'm thinking about getting an Android phone soon. It will be my first smartphone. I’m also new to XDA-Developers. Please help me, as I have questions about Android security and though I’ve posted this message to several other web sites--android.stackexchange.com, Quora.com, and Reddit--no one has answered all of my questions completely and thoroughly. I’ve only gotten short responses that are a few sentences long and only talk about one or two things. I really need more help than that, and I’m hoping that I can get it here!
I know that this message is long, but please, if anyone can read through it and then try to answer all of my questions, I would REALLY appreciate it!
Here are my questions.
1. Is Android’s stock browser updated directly by Google, or do updates to it have to go through phone manufacturers (Samsung, HTC, etc)?
2. If I buy a phone that runs a manufacturer-customized version of Android, such as the TouchWiz version of the S4 or the Note II, will keeping Android’s stock web browser--as well as any other browser I choose to use--up to date keep me safe from web-based exploits, even if that phone’s manufacturer is slow to deliver updates? (Edit: I want to add that I'm interested in technical details.) By “updates” I mean updates to everything provided by or customized by the phone’s OEM: the customized version of Android, the manufacturer’s pre-installed apps, etc. (Edit: what I'm asking here is whether the OS needs to be kept up to date to protect against web-based exploits, or is that accomplished solely by keeping the web browser up-to-date, whatever web browser it is).
3. I have read that OEMs are often slow to update their devices, and because of that I have limited myself to only looking at Nexus devices and Google Play Edition devices. But I really need to know if I SHOULD limit myself to Nexus and GPE devices for the sake of web security. (Again, I'm interested in technical details.) I don't want to buy a phone from a manufacturer that takes months to release security updates, leaving me vulnerable to web browser exploits and malware in the interim. But if I am wrong about ANY of this, please tell me so, because I would like to be able to consider devices that run manufacturer-customized versions of Android, such as the Touchwiz version of the S4 or the Note II (or maybe the future Note III).
(Edit: the answer to question #3 would depend on the answer to question #2; if the answer to #2 is ‘no, the underlying OS does not need to be kept up-to-date to protect you from web browser exploits’, then I guess the answer to #3 would be that I can consider buying a device that runs a manufacturer-customized version of Android that won’t receive OS updates as quickly as a Nexus does. If, on the other hand, the answer to #2 is ‘yes, to protect yourself from web browser exploits you need to keep both your browser AND your OS up-to-date’, then I guess for maximum web security I’d need to buy either a Nexus or a Google Play Edition device.)
4. I’ve read that in-app advertising can be a security risk. I’m really hoping that someone here will explain this to me. (Edit: again, I'm interested in the technical details, but keep in mind that I'm new when it comes to smartphones.)
I’d like to add a few comments:
1. I will only get my apps from the official app store--Google Play--or maybe Amazon.com’s Appstore for Android.
2. I'm concerned about web security and in-app advertising.
3. I don't plan on rooting my phone. I'm not saying I won't, I'm just saying that I don't plan on it.
1. Only nexus devices are updated directly by google. Even htc one Google edition will be updated by htc, so as the browser since it's a part of the software.
2. Manufacture updates are slower than Google. Most of the good apps available should receive updates and solve security issues.
3. If you want to disable advertising then use adaway, notice that you will need root.
1. The stock browser I believe does get updated when the OS is updated. I've read about people getting OS updates to find the stock browser is then faultering and assume this then gets updated. The update of the OS is usually done by the device manufacturer unless you are using a custom rom. Whomever creates the rom used on the device, is responsible for the internal updates for it, to whatever level they wish to support it. I have read that google don't mainstream care about the stock browser as they are pushing Chrome for the win and a separate team deals with the stock browser.
2. The world and his hedgehog are not safe from hack exploits. The quality of protection out there in any sense is mirrored by the quality of hacker. If you have a crap security level, any old hacker can exploit it. If you have the worlds most renowned secure, then the best hackers will break in at some stage while the wannabe hackers struggle to threaten their way out of a paper bag. However with some people, they need gold bullion and jail style security while others wonder why they need it. People can recommend you do this or do that, and some recs are excellent while others are not quite but almost hilarious but at the end of the day, if a child can hack into high security places, our devices are not so hard to get into. That said... we can run paranoid while there may be no threat at all. If you are concerned, just be careful of what you do with your device. Myself, I use it for every day communication and have not yet used a credit card on it with no real need to.
3. Even the greatest have not updated their OS. The Motorola Xoom promised one from purchase yet people were moaning long after the stock sold out that it never came. Granted it surely must be true that certain companies are quicker to advocate update releases than others. But the higher paying vs the cheap low end thing isn't something to run with either. I have a very cheap quad core tablet and that has just had a firmware update from last week and as far as I can see, it's an almost brand new device, market wise so it seems the update from them was fluid. Again, that said, the updates seem to be more about the OS running well, with the hardware and app capabilities than security although I dare say there are some inevitable security fixes in there too. My quad tablet was sluggish to some extent and a bit crashy but so far, it is fine after the update although I have only done it a few hours ago... everything me and the kids have tried, has either worked better of been flawless. No sign of lag yet anyway.
4. In-app advertising can be dangerous for a few reasons i guess. but the reality again, is I think any file can have dangerous code attached and configured in a way that the OS or security cannot smell it. Of course there is the ability of spam links to scam sites. There is also false flag things that are or maybe are possible too. For example, using x file with y file and requesting a cup of tea from z file can make a security team think your couch is about to disappear and your granny is about land bump on the floor, when indeed an app just wanted to execute a command using an ancient method of pressing Q. This is something I learned in windows based operating systems where using certain dll files with certain other files can trigger an alarm, as innocent as the intentions were. I built a website not so long ago and called some iFrames in that had no < head > or < body > tags. the pages worked perfectly but some chinese company employed to protect a british isp flagged the site as a security risk and blocked any visitors from viewing it. Thankfully, long gone are the days that visiting a website would fry your motherboard.
On your remaining comments.. seems like wise advice as of course there are scammers out there who will give your granny that bumpy ride off the disappearing couch onto the floor or steal your account and all those types of greed based madness which is a shame because it ruins the experience of say if a friend is trying to build an app and they ask you to give it a go, you are somewhat rightfully not willing to play ball.
FYI I have been around computers for a long time but am by no stretch of the imagination an android expert at all. I hope what I have wrote above is helpful and not by any means, wrong. I have not long posed the question about rooting and security as I do not qualify understanding the realm at all. I dare say it is a huge question, to some extent.
Also, security risk aside as no smartphone tablet or computer escapes that realm, Android for me is the best device, then IPhone, then Windows Phones, then Crapberry. I would never purchase the latter three.
Hi codQuore,
Thank you for your responses to my questions. I need to clarify two of my questions in my original post. (I have edited my original post to include these clarifications.) In question #2, I was attempting to ask whether the OS needs to be kept up to date to protect against web-based exploits, or is that accomplished solely by keeping the web browser up-to-date (whatever web browser it is). In question #3 I asked whether I should only look at Nexus and Google Play Edition devices for the sake of web security, and the answer to that would depend on the answer to question #2; if the answer to #2 is ‘no, the underlying OS does not need to be kept up-to-date to protect you from web browser exploits’, then I guess the answer to #3 would be that I can consider buying a device that runs a manufacturer-customized version of Android that won’t receive OS updates as quickly as a Nexus does. If, on the other hand, the answer to #2 is ‘yes, to protect yourself from web browser exploits you need to keep both your browser AND your OS up-to-date’, then I guess for maximum web security I’d need to buy either a Nexus or a Google Play Edition device.
What are your answers to those two questions?
Truth_Seeker1 said:
What are your answers to those two questions?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At a guess I would say, for browsers that are built in to the OS, there will be two ways this can update, via the OS update and independently. The OS update would be a total OS replacement that is not automated and you would need to use a built in checking feature (if available) or manually check yourself periodically. Browsers that you add yourself will be offered updates from notification unless the ability to auto update is allowed then it should happen seamlessly of course letting you know. Google "android chrome update" to see something along the lines of what the update history shows.
Yes, you would want to update but I would recommend having a read first as on any computer device, an update can be flawed or give more problems than it's worth. Although more often than not, an update should be an improvement on performance and stability and of course for security.
If you are working blind, then do an update and assume security improvements are happening and go for it. If not, then you will know what is happening. I have never gone to the lengths of checking an update list before updating for android, but with pcs I do depending on what is updating, check what the update is worth and how people are getting on with the update. I did beta testing for years (hence the knowledge of flawed updates and reluctance to do the updates) so for me it's one of those do you risk it scenarios.
Sadly as I said above, we are never safe from hacks but with some hindsight and genuine attempt to protect, we are safe from the majority. For me it's 90% "what are you worried about?" and 10% "I don't blame you for being paranoid!"
As for the preference of buying google branded devices, the foundation of an android release is surely never set for these devices "out of the box" so to speak. I would assume that the team who look after these devices have the same process of having to streamline the OS thereafter before they can release it for their device update. This is somewhat proven by people wanting to put a custom rom on their Nexus and such. For some reason, people aren't happy with the normal rom and want or need to replace it. naturally, it is easy to think a nexus device for example, is closer to home and should by rights get updated a bit quicker than my Ampe tablet but in some respects I think this could be a bit of swings and roundabouts, again depending on the company and their apportioned team force to output the update. Yes you should be better off with a more directly linked device, to google but in my opinion, the concern is not a great one. You would be better off thinking about your budget, what you can save and ultimately do with the extra cash alongside the knowledge of which devices and companies actually do spend an effort on looking after them.
I'm in no position to afford these devices and if I were, I would rather throw my money in the bin (or spend it on my loved ones) than give it to the highest bidder.
So in the end, yes updates are 99/100 important and should be done. Be careful of what you browse and do all secure data passing before you go out on the internet highway and risk getting robbed. It is probably safer to "remember my password" to avoid future keysniffers than worry about indepth data mining. Of course, anyone can give you a sniffer but data mining is more clinical, I would say.
Finally, i wouldn't worry about these things too much but as concerned as you are, do some research. But do remember that in one hand, the UK government said "the internet isn't safe so we don't use it" yet on the other, the majority of secure usage is 'watched' by paid professionals for banking and such and is alot safer than you may think aswell as protection for credit card fraud and such.
Thanks again codQuore. I understand your point that there is no such thing as 100% bullet-proof security, but I still need to know whether both the OS and the browser need to be kept up-to-date to protect against web-based exploits, or is that accomplished solely by keeping the web browser up-to-date (whatever web browser it is).
You are most welcome, TS. I would say generally yes, to both, to be on the safe side. I'd like to guarantee the OS update will update the browser if it has been updated in the update and that the browser can be updated on it's own. However, I think I am right in saying you have to check for OS updates yourself and the same for certain apps whilst some apps will auto offer the update. You may be able to force this auto update for all apps, but how this is done per different version of android, escapes me. I do remember seeing the option come up after a factory reset or buying a new device and running the first time setup of playstore and such. There's an option for it somewhere. but I don't think the OS itself offers an auto update, it has to be checked for, in my experience. I have just done my tablet and it required installing some software on my pc from the tablet manufacturer and getting that to update the firmware/os. It was a 525MB download and everything was in chinese lol. I managed it with the help of google translate but it also helped that I had previously done the same thing on a t-mobile vivacity for my daughter after her OS died and got stuck at the rotating t-mobile logo on first boot.
It is essential to update but across the board it's not majorly important to check every minute, so to speak. You'll be fine. For the record though, my quad core tablet cost £70 from singapore and I knew I was taking a bit of a gamble but was protected by returns if all went wrong and get my money back. A similar tablet is something like £120. I plan on doing the same thing for my next phone upgrade too... but I don't have a contract phone running, I am on pay as you go and all I use is internet, no calls. Incidentally, I pay £20 for 6months net from t-mobile and the only limit is 1gb per month on video. when that expires, youtube and such stops working, some video sites carry on and everything else, FB mail, tethering, ftp via pc and stuff, all still works. I have even streamed radio from my android phone, flawlessly.
codQuore said:
I'd like to guarantee the OS update will update the browser if it has been updated in the update and that the browser can be updated on it's own.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL, I had to read that sentence several times in order to process it because you used the word "update" so many times :laugh:
If I remember what you said earlier, I think you said that the stock browser doesn't get updated on its own, but only as part of big OS updates? So it won't receive security patches as vulnerabilities are discovered, and won't be updated until the next version of Android arrives?
If this is true, then I'll use a different browser. But even if I use a different browser, is code from the stock browser used in other things, meaning that it is STILL a security risk if it isn't kept up-to-date?
It also occurred to me that if an OEM is slow to release OS updates for its phones, will it be just as bad at keeping its pre-installed apps up-to-date, and if so, does that pose a security risk.
Haha, looking back I can't believe I wrote that and am wondering if its a valid statement. I'll leave it for someone else to contradict lmao.
The core of the os and apps that run built are updated I guess separately and together. EG, say the browser gets an update to 1.1 the next update of the OS will most likely carry that updated version but if it doesn't it should still offer an update after you hit the playstore setup. naturally, these apps use core parts of the OS and i think some updates for apps will carry their own additional bypass of outdated os core, where applicable. That said, the bypass could be more secure in one sense and less secure in another. I'm guessing this is even possible. One thing I am yet to see, knowing how windows and linux works a little, is android have to update x- because something app wise has been installed that requires it. Alot of software on windows, requires things like framework to be added, linux is or can be the same.
The chances are you will be 99% secure in any event. The core defence for mobile phones is the phone companies themselves as that is in the realms of trillions of dollars at risk. They've been cracked before and they know it, so there is some possible reassurance for the devices, from that angle.
Before I begin, I'm not here to flame tbe devs as I would love this app if these issues weren't present and do hope this problem is resolved as a result of bringing it to the attention of the community and hopefully this app's devs.
This application has serious vulnerabilities, some of which should be quite easily patched yet have not been for months to a year or so of them having been made public by a reputable security researcher working for Zimperium.
Login information via the browser is not utilizing a secure form of encryption for both web.airdroid.com or when accessing via local IP despite their SSL cert being valid for *.airdroid.com. The key for the DES encryption being used to hash the password and e-mail being hardcoded into the application despite having a POC for an attack on their users is inexcusable and shows a blatant disregard for their application's level of access as well as their user's safety and security.
My finding (as a security noob) has also deeply disturbed me following no response to bug reports or email contact. While attempting to check out their Windows desktop client, my antivirus discovered the installer attempting to download a variant of adware which monitored the user's activities and provides monetary incentives to developers which include it within their programs and applications. I do understand that if something is free, the product is you. However, I am a paying customer of this service as I'm sure many who use xda would be in an effort to support development of software and applications we enjoy. This adware was ran through and confirmed with VirusTotal and certainly is not a false positive. This desktop client also does not use SSL for communication.
Due to discovering these problems, I immediately discontinued use (the same day I renewed my yearly subscription). However, I was unable to remove the application from my phone without a full factory reset even after both application updates and upgrading android versions. With it set as a device administrator, it's access must first be revoked before uninstalling. However, across multiple devices and versions of android, attempting to remove it from device administrators causes a crash of the android settings app.
I had planned to do a POC for what I feel is an extremely likely scenario based off both public vulnerabilities as well as what I had discovered myself, but I have been far too busy with a few other projects as well as work to complete it yet. I had just stumbled across this section of the xda forums while looking for something else and hoped to get a response from the devs of this app.
I would love to be able to utilize an app with this functionality. However, there needs to be far more focus on security in its design before I would ever feel comfortable utilizing it again.
In theory, it would be entirely possible for an unstable, technically inclined person at a local coffee shop (or other public location with unsecured an wireless network) to hijack a user's login information with minimal skill level required then giving them full, unadulterated access to the application's functions such as forcing gps or camera on to track or watch someone without their consent as all connections aren't even requiring the user to accept the incoming connection on their phone to perform these actions. That is not a farfetched scenario and presents a possible threat to someone's physical safety.
Link to said researcher's findings can be found on his blog by searching Zimperium airdroid multiple vulnerabilities as I just created this account for this post and can not yet post outside links.
Thanks a lot for all this information. I really appreciate it.
Why hasn't this been addressed yet?
I remember reading this a while ago, realizing that it is a serious issue, and just how little the devs care about security on their app.
This is mainly because most end-users don't dive this deep into an app, and don't fully comprehend the severity of such vulnerabilities until it is too late.
We should make a bigger fuss about these things!
I've always been very careful with RAT-type apps and so I was when checking out AirDroid. I've uninstalled it after 30 minutes of using, just because I didn't like the fact, there's a chance some undesirable person could start spying on me. As I read this thread, I'm realising how right I was that time.