New Android Malware Uses Google Play Icon To Trick Users 223
An anonymous reader writes "A new trojan for Android has been discovered that can help carry out Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks. The malware is also capable of receiving commands from criminals as well as sending text messages for spamming purposes. The threat, detected as "Android.DDoS.1.origin" by Russian security firm Doctor Web, likely spreads via social engineering tricks. The malware disguises itself as a legitimate app from Google, according to the firm."
This is why you want a walled-off app store (Score:1, Insightful)
Because people will download and run apps from that store.
And there's little/no AV protection.
Re:This is why you want a walled-off app store (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This is why you want a walled-off app store (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This is why you want a walled-off app store (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes but this uses an official ICON. Clearly no way to forge that. I've never seen anyone think to use logos or icons for nefarious purposes before. Luckily I am protected here on my Windows 7 machine. I clicked an ad using the Windows 2000 theme that alerted me to major potential threats in my "regisetery"... Had a similar experience on my Macbook Air. Thank goodness for the altruism of all those interwebs ads and sites.
In all seriousness though, this could be a problem for people who root/ROM and install their Google apps from sources other than Google. Granted, when you root/ROM you should be aware of the risks, but it still presents a small danger.
Many Google apps however request permissions that need the app be signed with the same key as the ROM and/or the system key.
See: http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/manifest/permission-element.html#plevel [android.com]
"signature"
A permission that the system grants only if the requesting application is signed with the same certificate as the application that declared the permission. If the certificates match, the system automatically grants the permission without notifying the user or asking for the user's explicit approval.
"signatureOrSystem"
A permission that the system grants only to applications that are in the Android system image or that are signed with the same certificate as the application that declared the permission. Please avoid using this option, as the signature protection level should be sufficient for most needs and works regardless of exactly where applications are installed. The "signatureOrSystem" permission is used for certain special situations where multiple vendors have applications built into a system image and need to share specific features explicitly because they are being built together.
Re:This is why you want a walled-off app store (Score:4, Interesting)
Cricket.
I was investigating prepaid phone service options because I want to save money and prepaid service seems to be the way to do it. Once shop I visited was "Cricket." The first thing they asked was "what kind of phone do you have?" I said "unlocked GSM." They said, but we have to install our software on it... we have to flash your device before we can put it on our network. I was utterly shocked and then angered. I left before I said anything I might regret, but I will not be doing business with Cricket now or in the future. Bad enough the carriers I buy my phones from want to control my devices. Another carrier wants to modify my property so that I can be their customer.
No. And why would I object so much to that idea?
Because I don't know what they will be putting on my computer and nor will they tell me. And so for the same reason I would not do business with Cricket, I will not generally install software from unknown sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Did you get any sense of what they wanted to install? I dont know enough about that specific area but I wonder if there are any legit reasons they might do this. Maybe relating to ESN/MEID/etc, or some type of radio frequency tuning... Still, I would likely have done the same in your shoes.
Re: (Score:3)
The main reason is probably to lock you into their store for ringtones and games. Their guise for it all would probably be so-called security. At least that's the impression I got while I was their customer.
Check this out, to actually DOWNLOAD apps from their store they made you pay some sort of extra charge. Paying them money for apps wasn't simple enough. I passed and got busy modifying the firmware in a hex editor.
If you visit a Cricket location you'll see mostly poor folks who can't pass a credit ch
Re: (Score:2)
I was with Cricket for a couple years. I bought a new phone from them on one occasion, and when I asked for a data cable, the salesperson asked what I intended to do with it. I answered "sync my addresses" because I knew that was the answer she was looking for . . .
When did Cricket switch from CDMA to GSM?
Re: (Score:2)
All of this and the above replies are very interesting information.
I had no knowledge of their CDMA-ness. I use GSM phones.
One thing they mentioned was that they do not [yet] flash my phone model. (T-Mobile, Galaxy S2) That part didn't bother me as I was still stuck on the notion that they wanted to flash my phone at all.
I can see where they would be an "exploit the poor" type of company. It seems to fit.
Re: (Score:2)
I have always believed AT&T and T-Mobile are GSM carriers and that Sprint and Verizon are CDMA carriers.
Please educate me.
All Sprint MVNOs are also CDMA2000 carriers (Score:2)
Most US carriers use CDMA2000.
I have always believed AT&T and T-Mobile are GSM carriers and that Sprint and Verizon are CDMA carriers.
I was under the impression that more well-known mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) in the United States were on Sprint than on AT&T or T-Mobile.
Insert free advert for Windows 2000 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Actually the android sandbox is quite sophisticated. Jellybean will randomize the location of an application's...
It's too bad that it was released in June 2012, and still, nobody has it [android.com]. So while I'm sure newer versions of Android are much improved, but it doesn't much matter to anyone if the horrible manufacturers won't put an ounce of effort into maintaining the devices.
Re:This is why you want a walled-off app store (Score:4, Informative)
....
My Samsung galaxy s3 (gt-i9000) received the 4.1.1 update about 3 or so months ago (from samsung). My neighbors Motorola atrix 2 or whatever received the 4.1.2 update about 2 months or so ago (He has verizon). The Motorola xoom I got my grand father also has received 4.1.1 iirc when I set it up for him after I received it from eBay about 3 weeks ago
Re: (Score:1)
It shouldn't have even taken that long though. When Google releases an Android update, it trickles down to the phone manufactures like Samsung who put their tweaks into the code. Samsung in particular seems pretty fast about it (and I'm sure they get access to the pre-release source as well to speed up go-to-market time).
The real bottleneck are the carriers who absolutely drag their feet. AT&T (my carrier) took several months to do what is basically just adding in their bloatware and spyware garbage int
Re: (Score:3)
S2 here. It took them a year to deploy ICS after it came out. Seven months since Jelly Bean came out will actually be a huge improvement, even though it'll already be out-of-date.
While I still prefer Android over iOS, I've learned my costly lesson... don't even consider buying an Android device that isn't a Nexus.
Also, as someone that writes software for Android, I don't like having to target Gingerbread (circa 2010) or give up half the market. Google needs to do something about the savages leeching the pl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a) Most devices that are still stuck on Gingerbread are cheap feature phones. These are the people who won't buy your app anyway.
That 50% number is from people in the Play store.
b) Even giving up half the market, you still have a larger audience than any other smartphone OS. Android is sitting at ~70-80% worldwide marketshare; the nearest is sitting at like 30%ish.
That doesn't change the fact that you're giving up on 50%* of the Android users. I'm not here making a case for iOS over Android, just that the situation among Android devices absolutely sucks in this regard.
* You're actually throwing out 61%, if you also consider that more people are using Froyo (2.2) than Jelly Bean.
Re: (Score:2)
Stock Android 4.1 is nowhere near as capable as Samsung's 4.1. You can, of course, add in software to Stock 4.1 to add features to make it equivalent to Samsung's 4.1. There is no "edge"; Samsung is already providing you with some 4.2 features in their 4.1 firmware PLUS a bunch of other things.
Can you give an example of any features in Samsung-"improved" 4.1 that are actually useful? The only one I can think of is that set of switches (auto-rotate lock, wifi, Bluetooth etc) that they offer in the notification drawer, but this can be provided by any app in 4.1, and those apps not only exist, but are infinitely more configurable. The only other thing that comes to mind is that stupid full memory access exploit.
Of course, since Nexus devices are already at 4.2, the more appropriate way would be comp
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a list of devices [computerworld.com] that either have or will get Jelly Bean.
Also, this page [wikipedia.org] shows a (fairly complete, though I hesitate to say "complete" for the fact that there's almost certainly at least one Android phone/tablet not mentioned on it that exists somewhere...) list of Android devices, including what version they run. It contains 41 mentions of 4.1 and 11 mentions of 4.2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ASR is cute, but only stops the most trivial of exploit efforts. And this isn't exploiting anything other than the user so ASR is 100% useless.
Granular permissions in the style of Android are practically useless and heres why, a statement from my wife just last night as she played with her Nexus 7:
Does anyone even say no to these permissions since every app wants a bunch of them and you can't use it without click yes?
When every app including crap from Google asks for all sorts of shit, like access to your
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone even say no to these permissions since every app wants a bunch of them and you can't use it without click yes?
Why should someone do that? In 99% of the installs the required permissions match the purpose of the app, so there simply is NO REASON to say no. I definitly would (and did so) say no if suddenly a simple flashlight (or in my case metronome) app asks for access to contacts, location and internet.
How about letting the app run WITHOUT those permissions? Why do I have to decided if I want an app or not based on the fact that it wants access to my call log at install time rather than saying 'no, you cant see me call log' and still getting the app? Why can I not use the app but tell it to go fuck itself when it wants access to my contacts?
The answer is simple. Google doesn't actually want it to be too secure as that would prevent them from getting all the information they want to target you.
Sorry but that's BS. The reason why those rights are asked for at install time is that they are considered as required for the app. What use would a calendar application have that is denied access to the phone calen
Re: (Score:2)
Read my complete post. I completly agree with you that optional permissions are lacking on Android.
I don't agree with you that it should be the users choice to break the core funcionality of an app. That would be contradictory to Apples "it just works" philosophy.
Re:This is why you want a walled-off app store (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed this is the most significant truth of it all.
In iOS land alone are users "not responsible for their actions." For people to go around installing malware on PCs is a known problem. Save MSIE vulnerabiilities enabling drive-by installations and program execution, people install malware on their own machines.
Now if this story was about a vulnerability in Android devices which permitted this type of system compromise, we might have a much more significant story. But what we have, instead, is reaffirmation that with Android, users have freedom to install the software of their choice just as they have with MacOSX and Microsoft Windows and other Linux distributions. We also have the recognition that users are not invulnerable to attack because they are using something other than MS Windows.
Is this a sign that Android has "matured"? No. iOS is pretty mature and does not exactly suffer from such attacks. (oh wait, yes it does! [forbes.com]) It is a sign that bad-wetware has recognized that Android is popular enough and free enough to make its users a target. At the end of the day, of course, it is the users which are being targetted and their devices, software and data are the means and the objective of the attack.
This story is useful in that it is important that everyone be aware of the risks of running any software, but especially software from dubious sources. But let's hope the real message is not lost in the hype and flag waving.
Re: (Score:2)
Though the function was different, the point is the same. Malware was installed by users using a trusted source (in this case the apple app store) and it did things the user were not aware of or gave permission for it to do. That the functions were different is not relevant. It was a compromise of the device and its contents by use of malware which is the relevant similarity.
And should Apple's app store let another one slip through, this process can and will repeat itself.
Where did you get this strange n
Address book mining is not "malware" (Score:2)
the point is the same. Malware was installed by users using a trusted source
That's an incredibly stupid and ill-informed view because it masks the relative seriousness of two situations.
Having someone else get some of your contacts is nowhere near the same league as having an app that is contacting others and sending them apps. It is insane to claim that it has the same impact on users, and is doing them a HUGE disservice to hide the danger Android users are in compared to iOS users.
Not to mention, perhaps
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain how iOS users are protected?
Re: (Score:2)
In iOS6, apps are not allowed to access the contacts database until the user has authorised the app to do so. Unlike Android, the authorization is asked for whilst the app is running, the first time it needs access, not at installation time.
Which means it's a dialog with a single question, about contacts, at the time when you can assess why the app would need it. And thus is far less likely to be affected by click-yes-to-continue-without-actually-reading problem that the Android sandbox has.
Re: (Score:2)
A vulnerability is found in door lock #1 and in that case, the result of the vulnerability was a burglary.
A vulnerability is found in door lock #2 and in that case, the result of the vulnerability was a rape and murder.
Clearly, the house of door lock #1 is safer than the house of door lock #2 because of the severity of the instance which followed the breech.
Do you see a problem with that line of logic? I do. The point is the breech. Not what was done after the breech.
Re: (Score:2)
That one slip proves it is possible. And knowing it's possible, if I were to plan a massive hit, I would make sure the timing on activation was such that my trojan app would have the widest possible distribution before it became active.
I did not say anything in support of any particular platform as I mentioned them all in a neutral manner. But perhaps I should have said something about the notion of "giving up freedom for [the illusion of] security" has been a false notion for hundreds and hundreds of yea
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that you think because big brother Apple has locked things down in some way that you are safe. That just isn't the case. If Apple is in control, then you are not. Who does Apple serve?
In any case, Apple iOS is equally vulnerable. As another commenter pointed out, for this malware to get onto an Android, the user would have to enable other sources to install. Though it's not a simple check box, it's fairly easy to enable other sources on iOS at which point malware can be installed by t
Granular permissions up-front worse for security (Score:2)
Granular permissions allow a user to know exactly what an app wants to do before they even install it
No they do not.
They know what RESOURCES an app would like to have beforehand. But having never run the app they have NO idea when and for what reason they are required.
On iOS you also have granular access. But the key is, you are asked at the time that resource is required. So for example, you are asked if the application can access your contacts only when you've hit the "send to a friend" button or what
Re: (Score:2)
A big list of permissions that non-technical users hardly understand helps almost no-one. It allows a technical user to avoid some traps, but it screws over the large majority of users.
If a user is not technical enough to understand "This app requires access to your contacts" and "This app requires dialing phone numbers", they probably should donate their phone for their own good.
The more difficult thing is to judge if those permissions are reasonable for that app they want to install. But as they're the only one who know what for they're installing it, no one can take that burden from them.
The Technical Elitist (Score:2)
If a user is not technical enough to understand "This app requires access to your contacts" and "This app requires dialing phone numbers", they probably should donate their phone for their own good.
That's odd, I would like to live in a world where even such people can make use of technology. The world I want to live it allows EVERYONE to benefit from technical advances, not a high-tech priesthood that snickers at the LUsers.
You can stay up in that ivory tower if you like but I'm trying to make the world be
Re: (Score:2)
If a user is not technical enough to understand "This app requires access to your contacts" and "This app requires dialing phone numbers", they probably should donate their phone for their own good.
That's odd, I would like to live in a world where even such people can make use of technology. The world I want to live it allows EVERYONE to benefit from technical advances, not a high-tech priesthood that snickers at the LUsers.
Well, let me rephrase it: In my ideal world, everyone would understand that "This app requires dialing phone numbers" means that this app might dial phone numbers - at your expense. That's not too difficult. OK, I would love to free users from the burden of permission checking, too. But you can't complety block phone or net access, when you WANT half of the apps to have phone or net access.
So how could anyone but the user decide if a required permission is neccessary for what the app is supposed to do? Evil
Re: (Score:2)
If a user is not technical enough to understand "This app requires access to your contacts" and "This app requires dialing phone numbers", they probably should donate their phone for their own good.
Ah, the old "blame the user" tactic of the fanboy. Well, these are mobile phones. And mobile phones are meant for ordinary people. If they're not suitable for ordinary people, then that's the fault of the hardware/software, not the user.
The fact is that there's a better way to do it, and iOS shows the way. Ask the user for permissions for a resource whilst the app is running, the first time the app wants access to that resource. That way the user can better assess the app, and whether it is a reasonable req
Re: (Score:2)
If a user is not technical enough to understand "This app requires access to your contacts" and "This app requires dialing phone numbers", they probably should donate their phone for their own good.
Ah, the old "blame the user" tactic of the fanboy.
No objection to that.
Well, these are mobile phones. And mobile phones are meant for ordinary people. If they're not suitable for ordinary people, then that's the fault of the hardware/software, not the user.
Cars are meant for ordinary people too. And that's why we don't let anyone drive but require driving licences. Not because we want to keep it some special privilege, but because it is potentially dangerous. And storing private data in a connected device is not without dangers, too. And with that, there are some responsibilities.
Like servicing your brakes. And if cars are for everyone, not everyone can do that. But the solution is not to do it, but to pay someone to do it. And in exactly
Re: (Score:2)
I think that overall safety is better on iOS. But that's not due to WHEN an app asks for privileges. It's the stricter checks before something goes into the store.
It's both.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3344205&cid=42407663 [slashdot.org] and yes http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3344205&cid=42407763 [slashdot.org]
APK
P.S.=> Take a read - be VERY "enlightened" on many fronts...
... apk
More like being owned by pointless and gratuitous use of bold tags. I thought using too many exclamation marks was bad enough but those posts both take the biscuit.
Maybe if you concentrated on posting stuff that wasn't so annoying to read people might not down mod you so much and you would be fine having an account like the rest of us. As it is your posts look like the demented ramblings of someone overly obsessed with markup.
Re: (Score:2)
That'd just be one "front", namely your whiny gibberish which is telling indeed... you seem to be in a constant state of hurt, and also having issues with penguins. Awww.
Re: (Score:2)
The internal permissions manifests are actually much more granular. For whatever reason (probably ease of use, but I don't know for sure), Google grouped them up into easy to understand chunks.
Full list is here: https://developer.android.com/reference/android/Manifest.permission.html [android.com]
I do wish, however, you could tick a box in your settings to get the full story in the permissions confirmation window if you know what you're doing. Looking at that list, though, I can understand why they would choose to fold i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because people will download and run apps from that store.
And there's little/no AV protection.
There is very little AV protection against users. They are the weakest link, but we can't have successful software companies without end users.
I'm not sure you understand. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know your trying to defend Apples "lets gouge our customers policy" by limiting customer choice (and competition) to Apple on its (not your) phone...but to do do so I think you need to understand that on Android you have to actually go into the settings and *enable* his voluntary, and have to agree to a warning screen...Apple users are do desperate to have this functionality they "Jailbreak" Apples phone, even though Apple have attacked their customers for doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
And practically every US Android user ha
Re: (Score:2)
Apple bought Quattro :) (Score:2)
If I wanted a hobby phone I could kick around I would get an Android. I want a phone that works and apps without ads. I went Apple after finding out the not-so-stellar truth about Android.
LOL the irony of your post is one of the reason the iPhone is so unsuccessful is its price, and please don't pretend that Apple do not make money from Advertising, they famously made siri useless with advertising. The sad fact is your post is not only off topic but irrelevant...Android outsells Apple 6:1 and sells 1.5million a day...its doing something right, and what Apple is doing wrong, and nothing you or I is going to change that. Personally I would love Apple to create a competitive product.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple has only 1.6% Market share. (Score:5, Insightful)
The iPhone is unsuccessful? Apple has 53.3% of the smartphone market:
LOL in the US...worldwide it had dropped from 23% to 14.9%. This is original report for your figures http://www.kantarworldpanel.com/global/News/Apple-achieves-its-highest-ever-Smartphone-share-in-US [kantarworldpanel.com] they are on in a pdf but include figures like in Brazil Apple dropping from 3.2% to 1.6% while Android moves from 28.9% to 60.7% of the market.
I post the figures as I see them (Score:2)
They are simply IDC's latest figures, although all major players figures match, but then you know that. Android Activate 1.5Million phones daily. Its a phenomena.
Re: (Score:2)
They are simply IDC's latest figures
If they were you'd have a link.
Doing a simple google search for iOS IDC marketshare shows a much higher overall percentage for iOS.
Then you need an Android Phone (Score:2)
They are simply IDC's latest figures
If they were you'd have a link.
Doing a simple google search for iOS IDC marketshare shows a much higher overall percentage for iOS.
https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23771812#.UN4DmtE49yA [idc.com] seriously is google that hard :)
Android market-share 75% iOS 14.9%
Better Specification than Apple, at less cost :) (Score:2)
Android outsells Apple 6:1 in the "I use a smartphone like a featurephone and don't know what apps are, oh and this phone is only $79 on prepaid" area.
Absolutely not. In China for example the Average price of a smartphone is $250. Lets look at the best selling phones are on Amazon China http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=www.amazon.cn [google.com]. The top phone is Lenovo with a dual core processor, 2000mAh, Android 4.0, 2nd Phone is and 3rd Phone are both Huawei is both dual and quad cores with larger screens than your beloved iPhone :) (and includes a dual sim interestingly ), The thir
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, China's probably not the best market to compare to.
In North America and Europe similarly spec'd phones run in the same price range, which means everyone loves making a healthy profit off their customers.
Android phones are taking a bite out of Apple (Score:2)
Apple makes 80% of all mobile phone profits.
It doesn't and it hasn't for a long time [and never did :)], and there is no such thing as % of profits. It does produce a phone which it sells at a vastly overinflated price to small market share of customers, that strategy has been so successful it had made the largest company by market cap in the world...but that was three months ago, Apple have now lost 30% of its market cap, and its whole strategy is looking weak for the company...it always looked shitty for their customers [its kind of sad you point i
Seriously (Score:2)
http://bgr.com/2012/08/06/apple-mobile-industry-profit-share-q2-2012/
Eat it. Then put your foot in your mouth.
To repeat myself :) and no, a posting a 6month old guesswork is not going to change my statement.
It doesn't and it hasn't for a long time [and never did :)], and there is no such thing as % of profits. It does produce a phone which it sells at a vastly overinflated price to small market share of customers, that strategy has been so successful it had made the largest company by market cap in the world...but that was three months ago, Apple have now lost 30% of its market cap, and its whole strategy is lookin
Re: (Score:2)
To repeat myself
You can repeat yourself, but the other poster has shown that what you are repeating is false.
Re: (Score:2)
You can repeat yourself, but the other poster has shown that what you are repeating is false.
LOL to repeat myself yet again :)
It doesn't and it hasn't for a long time [and never did :)], and there is no such thing as % of profits. It does produce a phone which it sells at a vastly overinflated price to small market share of customers, that strategy has been so successful it had made the largest company by market cap in the world...but that was three months ago, Apple have now lost 30% of its market cap, and its whole strategy is looking weak for the company...it always looked shitty for their customers [its kind of sad you point it as an advantage in absence of better hardware/software/price], Its no wonder their small market share continues to shrink. Perhaps if they had had a long term strategy things would look different now.
Re: (Score:2)
You can repeat yourself, but the other poster has shown that what you are repeating is false.
Re: (Score:2)
Apps without ads?? Christ I get just as many on the games for the iPad as I do my android phone
Re: (Score:3)
Funny that - this advice is 100% applicable to Android as well.
Re:I'm not sure you understand. (Score:5, Funny)
I want a phone I can hold any way I want, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
If I wanted a hobby phone I could kick around I would get an Android. I want a phone that works and apps without ads.
So, how did those maps work for you till Google released their app?
Android has over 710Million users :) (Score:2)
I see their success or failure determined by 'dumb users' who WILL download what is available and get pwned, complain, and eventually give up and buy the damn iphone
I guess the proof is the the pudding with Android hitting 710Million users(last quarter) with activations of 1.5Million daily, and is set to become the primary computing platform, taking the crown away from Microsoft Next year. I think when the platform that has the better hardware/software/value unsurprisingly gets the most users by a massive...calling them dumb(sic) might be somewhat inappropriate.
Android.DDoS.1.origin (Score:1)
nice disguise
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid disguise (Score:2)
nice disguise
I thought the opposite. The first think someone is going to do when they see a two stores on their phone...is look up why? It even has a different name, they would have been better hiding it behind a simple RSS feed or torch app
Re: (Score:2)
The first think someone is going to do when they see a two stores on their phone...is look up why?
No, if the user notices the duplication, and cares, their fist step is likely to be to click on each of them to see what the difference is.
"looking up why" (in Google or the manual) is what people might do after they've looked for themselves.
Doctor Who? (Score:1)
The app does not spread... (Score:3, Informative)
Users SPREAD the app. The app itself does not spread. It's an important distinction.
Re: (Score:1)
They didn't call it a virus, the summary in fact states likely spread by users. Guess what, its malware.
Did you have a point and what the fuck is it/how the fuck are you modded +5?
Re: (Score:2)
"The threat, detected as "Android.DDoS.1.origin" by Russian security firm Doctor Web, likely spreads via social engineering tricks"
That, from the summary, says that the threat spreads by social engineering -- and clearly identifies the threat as the malware, not the social engineering bit. TFA says that the malware spreads. Passive or active is important. The author of the summary is a twit. That's my point.
Re: (Score:2)
If people are fooled into thinking it's a legitimate app, then it has successfully disguised itself as a legitimate app, I'd say--your failed attempt at pedantry notwithstanding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Legitimate apps come from the Google Market/Play. So this app in no way "disguises itself as a legitimate app". Not that I'm for such a closed environment, but it exists for this reason.
This isn't Apple. With Android, it's perfectly possible to have a legitimate app that is on another store from Google Play, or no store at all.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it has really got to the point where I can read the first line of one his posts, cut straight to "Dear APK, Please die in a fire," and move on.
Re: (Score:2)
*yawn*
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, if this is supposed to be some sort of a contest... you're the only one competing.
Re: (Score:2)
Despair.com is thataway -> [despair.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That said, in general I agree with you: there is no OS that can protect against gullible users, not even Linux can do that.
That's why it's a good idea to have a walled garden store, where apps are vetted before appearing. And where the few items of malware that get past the vetting can be removed from distribution once identified, thus preventing them affecting any more users.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
HIGH
06 x Cruise Missile Launcher I
01 x SMALL TRACTOR BEAM 1
01 x SALVAGER I
MEDIUM
04 x LARGE SHIELD EXTENDERS
01 x 'HYPHNOS' ECM
01 x MEDIUM SHIELD BOOSTER
LOW
01 x EMERGENCY DAMAGE CONTROL
01 x ARMOR KINETIC HARDENER I
01 x ARMOR THREMIC HARDENER I
02 x WARP CORE STABILIZER I
DRONES
02 x WARRIOR I DRONES
03 x HAMMERHEAD I DRONES
UPGRADES
01 x ROCKET FUEL CACHE PARTINTION I
01 x BAY LOADING ACCELERATOR I
Seriously? (Score:2)
But but but I thought the zealots assured us the Linux was immune to exploits? Or did they LIE????
This is about Android...and Ya its pretty secure :) Linux is pretty good too. I'm not sure calling people zealots(maybe you don't know what one is) because they have chosen platforms with better balance of security/flexibility than your own (clearly your upset), makes your own secure. In fact its a really strange comment to make at all, about either OS, as what is true about both is they put an inordinate amount of effort into ensuring their platforms are secure. That is why both have incredibly good track
Re: (Score:2)
Android is just as much Linux as Debian, Ubuntu and Redhat. Its just another distribution. Its just the only one that happens to be popular, and as such ... guess what ... just like Windows its becoming a malware target. and just like Windows you don't have to 'hack' the OS, just the user.
Does it affect the kernel :) (Score:2)
Android is just as much Linux as Debian, Ubuntu and Redhat. Its just another distribution. Its just the only one that happens to be popular, and as such ... guess what ... just like Windows its becoming a malware target. and just like Windows you don't have to 'hack' the OS, just the user.
I understand the argument...and have even made it myself "in context" except this attack won't work on "Debian, Ubuntu and Redhat"...and no its nothing like windows :).
Re: (Score:2)
And only a Linux fanboy would argue that distort incompatibility is a feature.
Would love Android on Debian Chromebook (Score:2)
And only a Linux fanboy would argue that distort incompatibility is a feature.
Quite the reverse its not its just a simple fact. The reality is going forward I would love to be able to run my android apps on my ARM touchscreen chromebook running Debian...but right now the whole Userland is simply different to "Debian, Ubuntu and Redhat" and you know that. The benefits come from the massive shared development work going into Linux(the kernel) from Google and other companies now interested in Linux(the kernel) because its part of Android, which users of "Debian, Ubuntu and Redhat" benef
Re: (Score:2)
Sucks for you that Ohio Arts isn't a supported platform, I guess.
Typical Apple User (Score:2)
Fuckle Assdroid is continually proving to be the M$ Windoze of the mobile world.This is just the icing on the cake when it comes to why Fuckle Assdoid cannot be trusted. Glad I went with iOS rather than the steaming pile of shit called Fuckle Assdroid.
I always admire the enthusiasm of Apple Users, and another well thought out post that was. You raise several important points. I can't help questioning your point that Android is the new Microsoft Windows. It isn't and never will be...that privilege is Windows Phone which is currently 6th most popular OS; Popularity alone is not a measure of similarity. The reality is right now Microsoft is pushing for an "ecosystem" read its Desktop monopoly on your phone...and nobody is buying what they are selling [Liter
Re: (Score:2)
You're easily trolled. Suggest you raise your sights a bit above -1 rated ACs.
Typical Apple User :) (Score:2)
Fuckle Assdroid is horrible compared to iOS and always will be. While you Assdroid lUsers feel the walled garden is a negative it is in all sense a positive. Apple products Just Work and the work unless there is a manufacturing defect. All iOS products get updates to where none of the Fuckle Assdroid products are ever updated.
Another well thought out, point by point discussion. I see you have all the propaganda "Just Work" "Walled Garden Good" "Manufacturing Defect" "Updates". The sad fact is All phones just work, Its just that some have working maps, and pretty much all phones have solid hardware, if they don't have battery problems/antenna problems/purple lens flare like Apple have :) bless them if only Steve were still here. As for Apple restricting competition on their not your platform, i'm sorry your choice is limited to j
Re: (Score:2)
There were certainly enough exploits in Android (or manufacturer's versions of it, like the recent Sammy one) to make such a thing. It's just that it's not worth the bother - why do it the hard way, if you can just have users install it on their own?
Windows is in the same situation today - it's not like there's a shortage of exploits, but most malware you see out in the wild is of the "click here to install this super-useful toolbar!" kind. It doesn't need exploits, because the users will happily download a