Android Holes Allow Secret Installation of Apps 132
CheerfulMacFanboy writes with a link to Heise Online which says "'Security researchers have demonstrated two vulnerabilities that allow attackers to install apps on Android and its vendor-specific implementations without a user's permission. During normal installation, users are at least asked to confirm whether an application is to have certain access rights. Bypassing this confirmation request reportedly allows spyware or even diallers to be installed on a smartphone.' One vulnerability was identified when a security specialist analysed HTC devices and found that the integrated web browser has the right to install further packages (used to automatically update its Flash Lite plug-in). Attackers can exploit this if they have found another browser hole. 'Android specialist Jon Oberheide demonstrated another hole which involved misusing the Account Manager to generate an authentication token for the Android Market and obtaining permission to install further apps from there. However, this initially requires a specially crafted app to be installed on the smartphone. Nothing could be easier: Oberheide released the allegedly harmless "Angry Birds Bonus Levels" app into the Android Market and, upon installation, this app downloaded and installed three further apps ("Fake Toll Fraud," "Fake Contact Stealer," and "Fake Location Tracker") without requesting the user's permission.'"
Makes popcorn (Score:5, Funny)
And sits down to watch the fanboy battle begin. Go go go
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I dare the posters on this site to go this entire thread without mentioning Apple.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Oh damn! Already foiled.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this type of thing news? Only in the sense that it serves as a reminder to those who will listen that you have to be caref
Re: (Score:2)
Why shouldn't this be news, when new Windows and iPhone exploits are news? The question is whether these holes will be fixed for all Android phones, and not only in the upcoming Android 2.3.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, you are wrong. There's only one phone that more or less automatically gets the latest version of the Android OS -- the Google Nexus One. It's got nothing to do with the carriers, just that different phones have different hardware, and the various hardware makers also like to customise the UI to differentiate themselves from other Android phone makers, and provide so-called "value" for their customers (the advertisers, not the end users). You can't just push stock Android on to any Android pho
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Makes popcorn (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't this very similar to a problem my iPhone had just a few months ago?
Nope, it's entirely different. This is a security hole, while the iPhone had a jailbreak opportunity.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not
And so, as a result, you are the proud winner and get to take home today's 'Whooooooooosh'. Congratulations!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what the summary said - it said there's one "security hole" (the user explicitly giving a browser rights to install apps) which can only be exploited "if they have found another browser hole." (my emphasis)
The Linux "login" command has the same sort of hole, because if you can only find that other hole which allows you to get root, you can do anything. One can fix that by making i
Re: (Score:2)
It is hard to "be careful" when what that means is "use sparingly".
How on earth is one supposed to know "Angry Birds Bonus Levels" is more than what it says.
If it was me I'd write my malware as a stalking horse and then slip the pwnage in as an update in a few months.
Re: (Score:1)
Just think of how Hitler would make use of this security hole!
Re: (Score:2)
Well the summary did fail to mention The browser hole has been closed in Android 2.2.
Hey, pass some of the popcorn over here, I't trade you for this here cold brewsky.
Re: (Score:2)
'Well the summary did fail to mention The browser hole has been closed in Android 2.2.'
Which is great news for everyone stuck on earlier versions without an upgrade path...
Time to open a six pack!
Re: (Score:2)
?
OS X supported powerPC macs until 10.6
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, except that series of holes that could be exploited by opening a webpage with a PDF that gave ANYONE ROOT ACCESS.
Tard. Or troll. Hard to tell the difference, maybe there is none.
The pdf root problem was an issue with adobe's viewer, not pdf's in general. A PDF is just a file format, it doesn't have special root powers. The iPhone doesn't run acrobat, it has it's own in-house pdf reader.
Re: (Score:2)
Not an issue with iOS. It is 100% secure from this type of hacks. People who value their security go with the mature platforms and apps that have been checked over by professionals to make sure they are not Trojans.
A little tongue in cheek eh? Yes Apple has certainly had a few questionable and/or vulnerable apps make their way into the store.
Android is open... (Score:3, Funny)
So that means anyone can compile and install his or her own fixes? So this sounds like a non-issue to me.
Yes, and people really should read the source (Score:2, Funny)
before they install their apps.
Re: (Score:1)
That's not enough. They also have to self-compile them (because how else would you be sure that the app really is compiled from the source they've seen?) with a trusted compiler (or else the compiler may insert a vulnerability). Of course after having read the source of the compiler itself, and having hand-compiled it (because otherwise you'd have to rely on an unchecked compiler to compile your compiler).
Oh, and don't forget to study the circuit design of your phone's processor!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually this sounds like it is an HTC Sense issue, not an Android issue. Android doesn't come with a browser that uses Flash Lite. And since HTC Sense is not open, people can not make their own fixes.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, I'm pretty sure the stock browser in Froyo has the ability to run plugins, and Flash is in the Market. Sounds like Adobe did an awesome job of recreating their desktop experience on my phone. Well, HTC on Adobe's behalf. Course, the entire point of securing the rest of the userland is kind of lost when you can just gain root through a fork bomb with no permissions needed...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the stock browser has a Flash plugin which is updated via the market as all other apps are. This is talking about the HTC Sense browser using a Flash Lite plugin which apparently auto-updates via its own mechanism separate from the market.
Re: (Score:2)
So that means anyone can compile and install his or her own fixes? So this sounds like a non-issue to me.
I would have modded you insightful. You're just as screwed with open source as you are with closed source.
Adobe @#^@#$ us over again (Score:2, Insightful)
A security hole so @#^%&@ adobe can update its garbage flash player every thirty seconds because of security issues.
Re: (Score:1)
A security hole so @#^%&@ adobe can update its garbage flash player every thirty seconds because of security issues.
It beats having an unpatched and vulnerable adobe flash....
Re: (Score:2)
It's an incentive just to uninstall flash altogether. Mobile battery life and 3G download quota being the main beneficiaries.
They're up to version 10.1 now - Adobe have had over a decade to implement secure sandboxing. If they were serious they'd offer a blank cheque to, say, Theo from OpenBSD and fix Flash and Acrobat Reader properly once and for all.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm not sure that throwing a systems guru at what is effectively application software would be a prudent use of company funds. First off, going by the available feature set for Flash "developers," the code base for the Flash runtime would make Java and its standard libraries look concise. Hell, it implements two discrete native scripting environments; I'm not even getting anywhere near rendering logic.
Now you might say that in a sane world, "systems" logic (such as device access) would be entirely separate
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A security hole so @#^%&@ adobe can update its garbage flash player every thirty seconds because of security issues.
No, more like a retarded way of allowing flash player to update. If that's specifically for flash, then it should require signed packages, or possibly a fixed URL where it downloads Android updates from, or both (to avoid DNS spoofing etc).
Either that, or mentioning Flash was just sensationalism, and it's just one use case.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to move to a repository system? (Score:5, Interesting)
As mentioned before on /., Maybe Google should consider moving to a repository system. By default, Android devices should have a repository where apps are vetted, Apple App Store style. Of course, have the ability for a user to easily turn on the second repository (which would be the current Google App Store) for items not found on the "blessed"/default repo.
This has worked for OSS projects for over a decade. It should work quite well for Android.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, that's exactly how it works right now - only market apps can get onto the phone, unless the user enables the installation of non-market apps. The problem here is that Google left a back-door open. No amount of security design will help if the vendor leaves a back-door open. The iPhone in theory doesn't run anything not signed by Apple, but since lots of users are walking around with jailbroken iPhones they didn't get it right either.
Google just needs to stop leaving back-doors open in their OS. Apps
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Google has a decent app store. However, I'd like to see the default be a store that is vetted, perhaps even the same store, except just showing apps that have been checked over and approved (perhaps with an additional fee for the time to approve.) Then offer an option right next to the one to install from ADB to use un-approved apps.
This way, Joe Sixpack (whom we all know and love) will tend to stick in the walled areas where there is far less chance of him downloading malicious software.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I still think a better solution is to make it impossible to write malicious software in the first place.
Apps should not generally open arbitrary network sockets. Apps should generally not be able to use gobs of bandwidth. Apps should generally not be able to call 911/etc.
Maybe an in-between solution is for Google to vet apps that request more sensitive permissions. So, if your app just displays on-screen, makes connections back to the distributor's website with modest bandwidth use, and maybe plays some
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that is that there are ways around that. If I can have my app phone home, then I can install a proxy on the receiving end to allow connections anywhere on the Internet. If my app plays music, then I can do nasty things from random farts to other things. Microphone access? I now have a bug 24/7 which can either stream in real time, or save the compressed sound for transmitting every so often when the device isn't used.
Your idea of a failsafe permission set is good; I'd like to see an app
Re: (Score:2)
While I like letting apps advertise their minimum permissions, I'd still like to be able to override them.
I'm not concerned with apps that call back to the source website and then get to the internet via a proxy. That is a perfectly safe way to provide internet access - if the app does something nasty they're doing it on the attacker's IP and not mine. If the attacker wanted to send spam from phones this way, or whatever, then they'd just do it without the phone component.
That is why java sandboxes allow
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is really a great idea...
Re: (Score:2)
If it was that easy it would have been done already.
And how do you determine if an app is going to request sensitive permission without umm, vetting it in the first place? Chicken and egg situation there mate.
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you determine if an app is going to request sensitive permission without umm, vetting it in the first place?
Simple - developer uploads app to market. If app's manifest only requires "safe" permissions then it goes right into the market. If it wants more, then a human looks at it. That is a compromise between the current Google and Apple approaches.
So you have a situation where the app is constantly asking the user for confirmation before doing things, kind of like how MS Vista used to do.
There
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that when install an android app it gives a list of permissions of what it needs to access. Problem is, according to those I know who have the phone, barely anyone pays any attention and just clicks "okay". Also, most Android users are not geeks and wouldn't know the first steps towards compiling or installing an OS update on their phones. So when the phone manufactures stop supporting that model phone, they are SOL.
As far as app stores are concerned, if this continues to be a "prob
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, according to those I know who have the phone, barely anyone pays any attention and just clicks "okay".
Well, WHY don't they look at it?
Simple - your only choices are agree or don't agree. It is like an EULA - what is the point of reading it? The fact is that you wouldn't have bought/downloaded/etc the software if you didn't want to run it, so what is the point in reading a bunch of text that you can't do anything about.
Now, if you could CHANGE the permissions then people might actually care wha
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Where in the article summary implicates Google as the responsible party? Read again.
VENDOR SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATIONS have this security hole. HTC specifically added a permission to update internal plug-ins.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, then the fault is not with Google.
Granted, you should note that ALL Android distributions are vendor-specific. They do of course vary in how much the vendors mess with the core OS.
Re: (Score:2)
There is exactly one hole described in Android in this story, that involves fake Market authentication tokens. That sounds like a real vulnerability that needs to be addressed.
The other issue is a hole that HTC opened up in the browser app to update Flash Light. If you run a proper Android phone with a proper version of the OS (2.2) and have Flash installed, it updates via Market like every other app. This is a stupid HTC kludge. You can't completely stop stupid people from shooting themselves in the fo
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, why one size fits all? Why not multiple app stores? Choose the app store you trust an which meets your need.
Better yet, why not let anybody vett applications then sign the installer? You as a user would choose which certifiers to trust. Some certifiers might be *necessary*, others *sufficient*. This would be great for IT departments who issue Android phones. They could require all apps to be certified by them, or by a set of trusted analysis.
Re: (Score:2)
There is also the fact that Google will yank the app off the market and in extreme cases, kill it from handsets, especially if it is malicious. For sophisticated users, Google's store works well.
Appbrain, as well as other tools such as Droidwall are the staple of a /. user. However, what we consider not an issue is totally different compared to the average people buying these phones and who will be dictating future sales. You are a clued person, or at least post as one.
However, the people buying the phon
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Tourettes and schizophrenia?
What of old versions (Score:5, Insightful)
Old phones are rarely updated.
New phones and evices are still coming out with 1.6
Old 1.6 phones are still alive
All vulnerabilities will persist.
So an auto logging in banking app is there for the taking
Re:What of old versions (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it remains to be seen if they backport fixes to 1.6, but I agree completely that this is a potential weakness of the platform. Vendors are WAY too quick to abandon old phones. If it isn't still in stores, they don't care about it.
In fact, probably the best way for us poor G1 owners to get some official updates for our phones is to start releasing viruses designed to take down the cell network. THAT would get some updates out quick! :) (Disclaimer - I'm not advocating that anybody actually do this of course!)
Re: (Score:2)
More likely, it would get G1's banned from the network.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'd like to see that happen. Keep in mind that for another six months there will still be tons of people who bought G1s under contract and they are stuck with them. Can you say class-action-lawsuit?
However, if they just release G1 owners from contract and provide access to non-contract deals then I'd be happy with this approach... :)
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately for the individual user, the process of rooting a G1 and flashing a custom ROM is very straightforward and well documented (running Cyanogenmod 6.0 currently).
Though this opens up a lot of new concerns about platform incompatibility, not to mention that there is no guarantee that a given ROM is legitimate. It is by no means a solution for the community as a whole.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
True, but while CM has been a great solution for a while the focus of that distro has moved on to newer phone models. While CM 6.0 runs on the G1 it is VERY slow, and doesn't support apps/data on SD ext3, and official Froyo apps on SD doesn't work well for many apps.
6.1 seems to be a lot better, but I think it is only a matter of time before the G1 stops getting much attention, which then leaves a lot of more experimental mods floating around. CM was nice because it focused more on usability/stability and
Re: (Score:2)
I noticed you outlined several issues with the older CM6. I'm running CM6.1 on my G1 rignt now, with several relatively easy performance tweaks. It is as fast or faster than the sanctioned T-Mo firmware, supports apps and data on SD ext2/3/4, and official apps on SD seem to work fine. Only problem I've encountered is 3
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised if the newer versions work fine. I'm not sure it is really the OS so much as the accessories/etc that contribute to RAM use.
If you stripped out some of the features that are RAM-hungry while keeping the functionality I think that it would work fine. Cut down on the graphical glitter (3D gallery, fancier home screen, etc), and focus on functionality (better Exchange support, chrome2phone, API, etc). Much of the original benefit in CM was in the stuff that was left out - some of thi
Re: (Score:2)
Have any fixes been backported and have any of those fixes been released from the manufacturer?
The Xperia X10 *just* received 2.1. There's a pretty common bug in 2.1 where it can't connect to Cisco routers with a self-signed security certificate on their enterprise hardware. You wouldn't believe the number of hospitals, research institutions, and hotels have this same setup. The problem is that you cannot connect to any of these wifi networks.
From what I've read online on google's forums is that the fix was
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. The old versions may stay and it may still be a viable platform provided that they updates are funnelled through the market same way package repositories in Linux work.
You want to run this app. Fine, but you will have to update to the latest patchlevel or update your OS to a newer version altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to agree. I think the biggest problem is that these are $500 devices being bought by average people for whom $500 is quite a bit of money. Or maybe they're only $200 but only if you sign up for a new account/etc - which you can't do all the time.
And yet, the vendor treats them like a disposable free phone, and they only get updates for six months. Most consumers that buy a $500 device expect it to last years. Now, for devices that don't require updates to function that is one thing. However, sma
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See now that Android is becoming a big target = installed base
Old phones are rarely updated.
New phones and evices are still coming out with 1.6
Old 1.6 phones are still alive
That was the worst attempt at a haiku ever.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm looking to buy a new phone in a few months. My current Nokia 6300 has lasted for almost 3 years, and is beginning to act a bit weird at times.
I had a look at the Nokia N900 a few days ago and was amazed at the price compared to the specifications and the price point of other smartphones. Qwerty keyboard, 800x480 display, Maemo 5.
Here in Denmark I can buy a new and unlocked for 375 EUR, though I'm tempted to find a used one on eBay -- the price there starts around 200 EUR for a slighty used.
The Downside of Smart Phones (Score:2, Insightful)
There are a lot of upsides to phones that can install aps, browse the web, and so on and so forth. This article is an example of one of the downsides, though. With computer-type capabilities, you get computer type problems. The old wired phones, and probably even most "dumb" cell phones pretty much were only vulnerable to people who had physical access to them altering their behavior. Now phones can theoretically get viruses and dial out on their own and so on and so forth.
I'm not advocating that people
Microsoft's fault (Score:1, Funny)
I've been suspicious for a long time that Google is having Microsoft write all their software. This proves it.
Telco backdoors (Score:2)
I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that's what my cousin told me, who works with setting up mobile infrastructure.
Re:Telco backdoors (Score:5, Funny)
If I'm not mistaken, all mobile phones have backdoors for telco's to use, for silently pushing firmware updates and bricking phones, etc.
I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that's what my cousin told me, who works with setting up mobile infrastructure.
No kidding? Well, my best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Abe Froman can afford to give you mod points.
Re: (Score:1)
The sausage king of Chicago?
Re: (Score:2)
The Sausage King of Chicago?!?!?!?
iphone isn't secure either (Score:1)
General purose computing device (Score:2, Insightful)
Until smart phone manufacturers realize that they are making general purpose computing devices we will see this. To some there is a "war" going on between Apple and Android but that really misses the issue - in this respect trying to figure out which is the "better" on is like trying to figure out if Frosted Flakes or Fruit Loops is the better breakfast cereal - it is personal preference and there are most likely "better" solutions out there (and as a disclaimer I am an Android user - Droid One).
Until one s
Re:General purose computing device (Score:5, Insightful)
Until smart phone manufacturers realize that they are making general purpose computing devices we will see this.
I say just the opposite. Until the Android crowd realize that a lot of people do not want a general purpose computing devices on their phone, they will be talking past all iPhone users.
I work with computers for a living, I know very well the high cost of ownership for owning a general purpose computing devices. I do not want that for my phone. I deliberately stayed away from "smartphones" until Apple got smart enough and produce one that obviously is not intended to be a PC on a phone.
All your reasons for calling Android "superior" is exactly the reasons that I found it inferior. I want a limited device that only do what I want and no more. The "no more" part is important to me, as it keeps the cost of ownership low. This seems to a point that the Android crowds never understand.
Maybe you find it intellectually simulating to find which security hole is patched in which Android version, and fun to track down exactly which Android version can be hacked to be installed on your phone (since your phone supplier probably won't give you a fix until a year later).
For me, I just want iTunes to periodically check if my phone has the latest patch and tell me about any updates, so I can install it by clicking "Yes".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I want a limited device that only do what I want and no more. The "no more" part is important to me, as it keeps the cost of ownership low.
It's called the 90-10 problem. 90% of the users only want 10% of the features. The problem is that they don't all want the same 10%. This is why modern computers have so many features that you never use - it's not because people want general purpose computers, it's because people all want different special-purpose computers.
Re: (Score:2)
That is simply not true.
It may be the case that about 40% of people are willing to tolerate only having the same 10% of features because the feature they value most is "looking cool in front of my friends", but there's a reason why the iPhone does not have 90% market share -- it simply does not meet that many people's needs.
Re:General purose computing device (Score:5, Insightful)
Your logic fails. First, the main aspect of the iPhone that you could claim is an advantage over Android, the harsh policing of the app store, is irrelevant for security. Google can, and has, taken down apps that were insecure. The Android Market can be just as monitored as the iOS app store is. The real advantage is not anything to do with the market, it is the fact that you can install apps that are not from there. I'm sure you'll say "but I don't need that", but that's not true. You don't need it yet. I'm sure you'll feel differently if you ever have the bad luck to start to heavily use an app that Steve Jobs decides offends him in some way, and subsequently gets removed from the app store.
Second, if your reason for having an iPhone includes "I can just wait for iTunes to tell me when there's a new version", that's ridiculous. You can be ignorant of security flaws on Android, as well. Trust me, there's no one that makes you go read up on them on /. (although apparently you would do so anyway, since you read this article). You can just wait for the phone to tell you that there's a new update for the OS available, and install it. Just like the iPhone! Of course, just like the iPhone, if there's a security bug you won't know about it and can be exploited, but if that's really what you want you can get it.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not my logic that fails. It is merely that my values is different from yours, and you have already assumed your values is the correct one so anyone not subscribing to the same values has faulty logic.
For the value of a hypothetical possibility that I might like and heavily use an app that will eventually banned by Jobs, the trade off is to give up the Apple app store for the Google one that I cannot make any payment from where I live. Not to mention that there are fewer apps to start with. I am not i
Re: (Score:1)
The iPhone *is* a general purpose computer, as such it has all the risks associated with it.
The fact that *you* are only allowed the bits they want to let you see may make you feel like it isn't, but from a security standpoint (of which I was primarily addressing) it is a general purpose computer. This limits how much *you* do, not how much a hacker/phreaker can do.
Of course, I do agree that I'm talking over most iPhone users heads (apparently yours included), but not in the way you mean. A large portion of
Re: (Score:2)
As such I find no security difference and a great deal of usability difference.
You exhibit the same problem as those who blindly support the idea that "security by obscurity is no security at all," in that you appear to dismiss the fact that security isn't made of one thing or another, but the sum of all the efforts to make something secure.
The iTunes App Store does not itself make the iPhone secure. It only attempts to improve the quality and conformity of applications provided to the user.
The lockdown/sandboxing of the iOS device itself makes it harder to install apps that have not
Re: (Score:1)
"You exhibit the same problem as those who blindly support the idea that "security by obscurity is no security at all," in that you appear to dismiss the fact that security isn't made of one thing or another, but the sum of all the efforts to make something secure."
Almost all security comes through some form of obscurity - you password, private key, pre-shared key, or heck even your one time pad are only secure because no one else knows them. In the and all security comes down to obscurity - so no, I do not
Re: (Score:2)
What you fail to understand - and searching on Apple iPhone exploits shows - is that the pre-screening Apple gives has *no bearing on the security of the phone*.
So how does a scan for what APIs your app calls not have any bearing on security?
Nor are the immune to the description you give of the G1's - ask anyone with any hardware before the 3G where all their shiny new updates are.
If you read the point I was making, it wasn't that the G1 doesn't have updates. It's that Google can only push updates directly to end users of the G1, N1, and MyTouch dev phones. Google cannot push updates directly to users of other handsets like the Droid, the Epic, the Evo, and all other handsets/tablets/etc.
But yeah, the fact that Google is no longer supporting the G1 is true too.
Indeed, the original iPhone is in the same b
An open platform can find it's own solution (Score:2)
I'm sure many Apple devotees will see this news as confirmation that Apple's "we know better than the user" approach is superior.
While I disagree for a number of reasons, for sake of argument, let's assume that they are right. If the walled garden approach is better, won't some enterprising entity create just such a service for Android? The platform is open, anyone can create a market place. Several alternative markets already exist.
There is no reason someone couldn't make a tightly controlled market whe
Damn H4xx0rz! (Score:1)
Angry rovio? (Score:2)
. So the real question is, will rovio hit the authors with an explosive angry bird or bomb them with an egg-dropping angry bird?
On the plus side, this has reminded me that there is one more level pack I can buy for my n900...
Is this news? (Score:2)
The real issue here is how quickly these are fixed and how easy it is for the end user to get that fix. All major desktop software have done a decent job of making it easier to get the updates, the end user just has to either allow the install or maybe do a click through update. Phones are moving in that direction but some move quicker than other. I hope in time android will be at a point
Re:I can't find that app in the App Store (Score:4, Funny)
Man I found it but Fake Location Tracker doesnt seem to work :(
You must first be in a fake location...duh!
Re: (Score:2)
They're called "mock locations" on Android. Settings/Applications/Allow mock location.
Shachar
Re: (Score:2)
You need a phone with more gee bees and the wifi.
Re: (Score:2)
Crap like this is why I have data disabled on my phone and install nothing. I'll take the inconvenience of not being able to do other things with my phone for the convenience of not having to fight a ridiculous data or voice charge.
I can understand just wanting a dumb phone, but if that's the case, then why have an android phone in the first place?