New Permission System Could Make Android Much Less Secure 249
capedgirardeau writes: An update to the Google Play store now groups app permissions into collections of related permissions, making them much less fine grained and potentially misleading for users. For example, the SMS permissions group would allow an app access to both reading and sending SMS messages. The problem is that once an app has access to the group of permissions, it can make use of any of the allowed actions at any time without ever informing the user. As Google explains: "It's a good idea to review permissions groups before downloading an app. Once you've allowed an app to access a permissions group, the app may use any of the individual permissions that are part of that group. You won't need to manually approve individual permissions updates that belong to a permissions group you've already accepted."
How is this a good idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it has to be explained why this is a potential problem. So then, it should be explained why this is such a great idea that the problems it creates are insignificant.
Re:How is this a good idea? (Score:5, Informative)
This permission grouping is the exact opposite direction that Android permissions should be heading. There are a number of permissions, such as "Read Phone State and Identity" that should be broken up because they aren't even strongly related to each other.
Re:How is this a good idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
They should be moving towards a model where you can individually allow or disallow a permission, even if the app says it requires it. But this would cause chaos for all those apps that require 'full internet access' so they can push ads, collect data, invade your privacy, and molest your children.
Well, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google wants companies to actually write apps for the Google Play store. If they give end-users too much power over the permissions, they drive companies out of the Google Play store and over to the Apple store.
On the other hand, Google also wants end-users to actually buy these products. By grouping permissions up, they seem innocuous, so users feel less threatened (even though they should feel more threatened) and will buy the stuff.
From a business perspective, this move makes perfect sense. From an educated geek end-user's perspective, it really sucks. But what are you going to do? The world you want to live in does not exist.
Re:Well, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, I'm not going to purchase any of those fancy apps. I'm going to use my smart phone as for phone calls, photographs, maps, and web browsing. While it's truly a waste of a beautiful technology, it's merely inconvenient not to bother with all those invasive programs.
I consider the new security model worse than not having the apps at all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone use SnoopWall? It allows fine-grained permission setting after installation of an app
http://www.citeworld.com/artic... [citeworld.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no. (Score:2)
Re:Well, no. (Score:5, Interesting)
But what are you going to do? The world you want to live in does not exist.
Simple, install XPrivacy. Problem solved. App wants a IMEI? No problem - just give it a random one, or a different one on each boot.
Re: (Score:3)
and this requires root, which is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. as soon as you root, the entire sandbox runtime model is out the window.
Re: (Score:3)
as soon as you root, the entire sandbox runtime model is out the window.
That's not how root works on Android. For an app to get root permissions there are only two ways. The method used by the 'su' app that grants permissions to other apps is to be installed via the boot time recovery console, similar to single user mode in Linux. It requires extensive user intervention. Other apps can then ask the 'su' app for various root level permissions, and the user has to grant them individually. Most 'su' apps offer features like a 15 minute time limit on permissions.
So it doesn't break
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, you do realize that root exists on the phone whether it is rooted or not, right?
please take a non-rooted phone and try to obtain root permissions. you can't. so no, apps absolutely cannot obtain root permissions on a non-rooted device.
Sure they can - there just has to be a local priv exploit. That's also the only way an app can get root permissions on a rooted device, unless you grant it to the app.
There isn't anything inherently insecure about a rooted device. Now, if you just grant access to su to any application that asks for it, then that is insecure.
However, the whole point of this article is that the Android OS will happily give away your IMEI, serial number, phone number, contact info, all the files on your sdcard, and whatever
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying developers will flee Google Play for Apple - if Google implements the EXACT SAME privacy/permissions controls iOS already has??
Lack of control over app permissions, just having to blindly accept whatever an app requests all-or-none, is precisely why I avoid Android. Now they've just made it even worse!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So get cyanogenmod. There, you can install an app and revoke permissions later. A simple use is to install "angry birds" (or similiar games) and then revoke the internet permissions. No more ads, the game still works. (It has to, to the game it merely seems like you aren't online at the moment.)
Also, android has a linux kernel, which means iptables-based firewalling works. So go ahead and block ad-servers and such.
Re: (Score:2)
No more ads, the game still works. (It has to, to the game it merely seems like you aren't online at the moment.)
Until it disables starting the game because the player hasn't connected to the Internet for weeks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily.
On my phone the kernel was built without iptables support.
I had to beg for the modified kernel sources, wait 3 months to get them, and then waste a lot of time to learn about the stupid idiosyncrasies of 'android is not gnu', just to get that standard linux feature working.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get why. I have PrivacyGuard on CyanogenMod, and it allows me to individually approve or deny permissions. So far, no app has broken in any strange, unexpected way. Some apps ask for SMS permissions because they have the ability to text friends for shares. I deny that ability, because I don't use that feature. It may be legitimate, or they may have provided a legitimate excuse to mask more nefarious behavior. Likewise, I've blocked GPS access to all apps except maps. For anything else (weathe
Re: (Score:2)
Why not both? Show them to me in grouped lists that I can blanket accept, and that expand with allow/disallow options when I click the group.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I think the best way is to do it like both. List the permissions (in groups, sure, that's fine) so that users can decide not to install the torch app which requests permission to their contact list and text messages at all (because you can bet if it is doing that then when an exploit appears one day that developer will pounce) and then on-demand so users can choose whether an app should have permission to XYZ in context. Using Facebook: at one point its app grabbed your phone number and sent it to
Re: (Score:2)
Helper apps (Score:2)
Often times, a well meaning dev will explain that he has to have X permission because google has buried one particular function (not always obviously related) into that permission and that function makes sense for the app. You almost get the feeling the dev is apologetic in many cases and would like to just have a single finer grained permission.
Where I come from, such an explanation has a name: a "privacy policy".
And one more thing: How about installation require the minimum number of permissions to make the basic app functions work and additional permissions queried and granted/denied if optional features are enabled?
If you're talking about a checkbox to turn permissions on and off, the party line is that that would cause apps to crash. Too many existing apps are not designed to catch the SecurityException that the system would throw if the user were to disable a permission.
Otherwise, in Android's current security model, the developer could separate each optional feature into a separate helper app that gets its own set of permissions, and the helpe
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with moving in that direction is that this moves Android in the direction of TOS agreements: nobody bothers to read TOS because they're too long and take too much time to read.
Sure, it's true that grouping permissions reduces how fine-grained the information is, but it also lowers the cognitive burden, making it more likely that people will actually pay attention to the permissions that an app has. Users should naturally assume that an app that has SMS permissions may, at some point, send SMS m
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Its a great idea because most people are idiots who click 'Accept' anyway and this will mean less apps break. As for the problems.. what problem.. you wanting privacy is a bigger problem for Google's business.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they meant smaller apps break and bigger ones don't?
Or they break when you take part of them away?
Re: (Score:3)
Some folks in Oxford would like to have a word with you, mate [oxforddictionaries.com].
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have thought Google would have copied the iOS approach to permissions by now.
(Denying a permission doesn't stop the whole app from working if there are things that the app can do without the permission. Permissions are requested from the user when the app first tries to do the restricted thing. They may be accepted or denied, and may be changed at any time in the future.)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but that would help users block tracking and advertising, so it's a no-no.
The absurd permission demands from simple, crappy applications is why I'd love to see a real alternative to Android that doesn't cost Apple prices.
Re:How is this a good idea? (Score:4, Insightful)
The absurd permission demands from simple, crappy applications is why I'd love to see a real alternative to Android that doesn't cost Apple prices.
It seems like Cyanogenmod is probably the best alternative available right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially if you value your privacy, and battery life
Re: (Score:2)
Duh. So it can sell that information to advertisers to serve targetted ads.
Re: (Score:3)
The Android permissions model is a mess and has been since day one, but not in the way most Slashdot geeks are up in arms about. When was the last time you actually looked at the full list of permissions? It's ridiculous. You have to be an Android developer to understand some of them. Many are pointless in the extreme: the result o
Whew (Score:5, Funny)
Makes me glad I run a Windows 8.1 phone.
Re:Whew (Score:5, Insightful)
Alert! Alert! Sarcasm overuse detected!! (at least I hope that's the case).
Re:Whew (Score:5, Funny)
Hey! I also use a windows phone. And the truth is, without any apps available to install (period), my privacy is still intact.
cyanogenmod? (Score:3)
So this is a bit off-topic, but probably the right time to ask...
I've been increasingly concerned with my lack of control over my Android (Verizon) phone. This current issue lies in the same area as my earlier worries.
Is this the kind of problem that cyanogenmod addresses? I didn't have the time, or ability to live with a broken phone, to try it out earlier. But I'm about to stop traveling so much, so I'm wondering if it's time to give cyanogenmod a try.
Re:cyanogenmod? (Score:5, Informative)
Using an alternate rom (ie cyanogenmod) will allow you to use different android versions, with different (or no add on) UI. These are things like touchwiz or HTC Sense. The permisions system for apps remains the same. Also, cyanogenmod and other ROMS may not support all your hardware or be stable (but then again some carrier builds are not that great either).
There are programs that when rooted will allow you to block access of apps to certain subsystems, giving finer grained control, but it is not automatic, you have to go in and do it yourself, and that is regardless of the ROM/android version.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. But is it safe to say that with Cyanogenmod, it's at least possible to install an app / tweak that will refuse to let apps use certain subsystems (such as GPS) if I so choose, whereas I have no such control with the carrier-supplied Android version?
Re:cyanogenmod? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. It absolutely IS possible. Cyanogen calls it Privacy Guard, and I have it enabled by default, such that anything I install from Play automatically gets blocked unless I go in and enable something specific.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've done a lot of custom ROM installations, and many of them to support AppOps to expose these granular permissions. Cyanogen has actually expanded upon this functionality.
Re:cyanogenmod? (Score:4, Informative)
Google have chosen to remove user access to AppOps from recent Android releases and while CM's Privacy Guard is a slightly improved and much easier to use approach on those system calls it requires a custom ROM and even those are still limited to a minority of devices. (Hint: consider only buying devices that will be supported by custom ROMs!)
There is something that is more comprehensive and granular, although more complicated to use as a result. XPrivacy is built upon the well-known Xposed framework (requires root) and it lets the user to control essentially all permissions individually.
Here's a brief and useful recap by xda-developers [xda-developers.com] about the main options.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Rooting will allow you to remove unwanted apps that are locked on by the manufacture or carrier, as well as give you access to the entire file system. Using an alternate rom (ie cyanogenmod) will allow you to use different android versions, with different (or no add on) UI. These are things like touchwiz or HTC Sense. The permisions system for apps remains the same. Also, cyanogenmod and other ROMS may not support all your hardware or be stable (but then again some carrier builds are not that great either).
There are programs that when rooted will allow you to block access of apps to certain subsystems, giving finer grained control, but it is not automatic, you have to go in and do it yourself, and that is regardless of the ROM/android version.
Once you are rooted, on any ROM, you can install XPrivacy or PDroid to completely control application access to your data.
Re:cyanogenmod? (Score:5, Informative)
With limits, yes.
CM's privacy guard allows you to block apps from getting at your address book or SMS and such. It also allows you to control things like camera/microphone access. And you can even disable background apps and notifications (for example, I have Facebook pretty much tuned so it can't do anything more than it can in a web browser).
One notable thing CM doesn't do is allow you to prevent Internet access for apps. I read that this is to prevent someone from downloading an add-supported app and then cutting it off from its ad networks. I order to do that sort of thing, you usually need to root and install a firewall or some other ad blocker.
Quite frankly, if you've got a phone that's out of warranty or no longer getting vendor updates, installing CM is worth looking into. It's a bit of a pain in the ass the first time (at least it was for my devices), but after that it's pretty smooth sailing.
you should be able to... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:you should be able to... (Score:5, Informative)
cripple apps by denying parts of their permission request. right now its all or nothing
Funny, I was expecting this crowd to have fantasies of crippling those apps' developers.
I mean seriously, $(app vendor), your app does not need access to my location and/or phone calls in order for me to do $(menial computation X).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the app state can be saved to storage and the app suspended
What is this, the 90s? Your app should always be in a "saved" state, or at least a safe one. From consumer apps to backend transaction process, it should always be OK if you suddenly lose power. 20 years ago, I/O performance was so wretched that you just couldn't do this, but today there's no excuse.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a lot of insanity and paranoia at
>I mean seriously, $(app vendor), your app does not need access to my location and/or phone calls in order for me to do $(menial computation X)
No it doesn't have to, but a developer has the right to require whatever permissions they want in return for their (probably priced at $0) work. The user has the right to
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, No
Notes can be synced to any IMAP server [apple.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Want to backup your Notes? Oh wait, that's a hidden db and you need a @me.com email address...<br><br>It isn't a permission per se but Apple has a lot of their own lock-in in how they do things.
Why are you trying to redirect the conversation to something else? Yes Apple has a lot of lock-in: Facetime, Airdrop, Airplay, Lightning, etc... but that's not relevant. The point is iOS's security model is better than Android's, iOS has copied so much from Android recently maybe Android could copy their security model.
Adding flaws to flaws (Score:2)
If users aren't paying attention (I do, my flashligh widged and scientific calculator do not need SMS or contact access thank you), then no amount of tweaking by adding or removing complexity will help.
As much as I hate walled gardens, I guess the hope is that the play store is well curated enough to remove most significant thre
I want silent denial (Score:5, Interesting)
One feature I really want on my cell is the ability to tell the app that I've given it all the permissions it is asking for, but behind the scenes remove that ability from the app. This is especially for apps like games that ask for all permissions, but only really need a few. I should be able to accept the game onto my system and then after adjusting the app's permissions, it would receive garbage contact details, garbage friend details, garbage location data, garbage file listings, messages go to /dev/null, etc.
I'm sure if I root my device I could do something like that, but I just wish something like that was built in. {I kinda feel safer in my walled garden, easier to recover from garbage apps.}
Re: (Score:2)
This. This is what I want too.
Anyone, does this exist without root?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I want silent denial (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, somebody posted it below: http://repo.xposed.info/module... [xposed.info]
Then load the XPrivacy module. The thread is here: http://forum.xda-developers.co... [xda-developers.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I would love this... Now if only it didn't require rooting the device.
Re: (Score:3)
What's wrong with rooting your device is that it takes a ton of research to figure out how to do it, that research is different for every device, and if you do it wrong, you can totally screw up your device, and if you're *lucky*, it'll take a bunch more research to figure out how to un-screw it.
I did root my device (installing cyanogenmod), because I got tired of not being able to uninstall a bunch of crapware that was installed on it. I would have been much happier if I hadn't had to, though, given the ti
Re: (Score:2)
He said without root.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what Windows does with UAC virtualization. An app wants to write a file to C:\Program Files\MyApp\Data and Windows redirects the file elsewhere. (Although Windows does not have fine-grained permissions like Android)
New Permissions (Score:5, Interesting)
Just finished updating a few apps on my phone.
Adobe Air has a new permission group it requests. However, on the 'here's the permissions Air is requesting' pop-up after you hit the update button, they no longer mark the new permissions with "NEW". So now you have to cancel out of the update and go check each and every app you're going to update to see what the new permissions it's requesting.
Totally stupid move by Google to not even mark the new permissions with 'NEW'
Re:New Permissions (Score:4, Informative)
Hint: you can still see the onld screen with new permissions marked as NEW by scrolling all the way down in app description to PERMISSIONS and clicking on"View details".
But I completely agree with you. Totally lame move by Google. I want to see this screen when I press the update button. Config option for advanced users would be sufficient.
Do not want. (Score:3)
Xprivacy (Score:5, Informative)
Install XposedFramework: ...then the Xprivacy module.
http://repo.xposed.info/module... [xposed.info]
This isn't a great option for many, however, as you need root access. It does give you extremely fine-grained control over permissions, and includes options like randomizing (on each boot) the garbage data returned to apps to keep them happy.
Xposed is great; the GravityBox module, for example, has a ton of interesting and useful functions, like setting your cellular radio to 2G when connected to wifi, a mode to have an increasing ring, a network speed indicator, etc.
While I'm plugging Android software I use: the F-Droid open source repository is full of nice stuff (like AdAway.)
https://f-droid.org/ [f-droid.org]
Dumb idea. (Score:5, Interesting)
I want to have a settings page where I can go in whenever I want and selectively disable permissions.
This just sounds like more dumbed down version.
And, cynically, I believe that Google is doing this to ensure they can still collect data on you, and the people using their advertising services can continue to do to.
This is why when I download a new app, the first thing I do is try it in airplane mode. If it's not an application which should require access to the interwebs, but tries to access it, it gets deleted.
I must say, I'm disappointed in this. Because I want more control over app permissions, not less.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you review the permissions from app settings, gives you a break down on time and what was accessed. Google keyboard that I don't used accessed my contacts 50 minutes ago.
Re: (Score:2)
it's the app developers
free apps they collect and sell the data to you know, make some money
Re: (Score:2)
And, cynically, I believe that Google is doing this to ensure they can still collect data on you, and the people using their advertising services can continue to do to.
Given that's how Android is profitable for Google why shouldn't they be doing this?
In theory bad, but in reality not so bad (Score:2)
The fact is, if an application is desired... and isn't abusing the privileges currently...
Then 99.9% of users simply click thru a list of 17 permissions the same as they do for a list with 5 permissions.
s/could/does/ (Score:2)
fixed that for ya
Toxic hellstew (Score:2)
It might even turn the platform into a toxic hell stew.
Broken permissions (Score:5, Interesting)
Something like 90% of all apps require access to the IMEI of the phone which requires read_phone_state and that pretty much abandons all pretense of security compartmentalization since it can also see who you're calling, when you're talking, etc.. Most applications should only care and use it for a unique ID token. IF they want to fix permissions models:
1. Separate the 'phone unique number' from the phone's call state functions. Must have, end of line. This is just plain retarded form day 1
2. Write in permissions which are optional vs. required. Optional permissions are requested on demand like IOS and can be rejected or permantently accepted. Required permissions must be explicitly allowed when the application is installed
3. Re-introduce AppOps functionality or at the minimum an audit trail of when-last and how often the application attempts a specific permission operation/category
4. Consider second tier permissions model where if you want to include common and generally well understood permissions like read_gps there's no hoops to jump through, but if one wants to read and access the variety of accounts I have on my phone, I want to make damn sure that the company asking for this information has at least passed the stink test.
5. Lastly, I want third parties to be able to flag applications (based on APK signature or through store functionality) as a problem so that even if Google doesn't have the time or resources to police all applications in the sun, I should be allowed to trust a thrird party who can flag programs problems based on any reason they find.
This allows for uses like:
- Flag applications for parental categories
- Flag apps as 'ad-enabled'
- Flag apps that are outright malicious in terms of stealing data/information
- Flag apps that violate certain country laws
- Flag apps that are banned based on administrative oversight (for work phones)
Having this barrier mandatory or optional is up for debate as well as the ability to unistall is using a 'master' control password, etc..
Re: (Score:2)
Right way to go (Score:2)
For Google. Android is for the masses. The masses are stupid. Therefore the software for the masses must be written for the stupid. The less functions the better. You don't like it? How often in IT related discussions come lines like this: "MeeMeeMeeMee... I just want to use and not study computer science. You are arrogant. Stupid nerds". In the right forum, 80% applaud this crap. So, this is the result. I am certainly not Google, but I write my software the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
Does not work this way. 'Sheep' don't allow advanced settings. Embarrasses them. Make them feel stupid. But of course it is not them who are stupid, but the software developer. Calling something 'advanced settings' is like putting a sign on: 'Randomly click here. No knowledge or understanding necessary'.
Sorry, not enough nerds there to make a difference. I write my android software myself. If I can. Usually not perfect, usually not so fine eye candy, but sufficient for my needs. And I know that it is 'clean
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
Android is for the masses - so it must be easy. That does not preclude an "advanced settings" page. Entirely optional to use, but that is where the "nerd" will find the fine-grained permissions system. The "sheep" won't need to go there.
So, the nerds will block spyware and possibly ads. The sheep won't, so megacorps gets most of what they want. Win-win for everybody...
I'm constantly encouraged by volume of comments left about apps in app store regarding permissions or demanding to know why x is needed or why y is now needed with a new version of the same app. I think if given tools to properly control access we could be surprised by how much they actually get used by "normal" peeps.
Would be happier if (Score:2)
I would be a lot happier....even with this change.... if they made one other change: allow me to override.
Very simple "App X requires A, B, C" Why does that mean I HAVE to grant A,B,C too it? Why can't I say "Give it A,B and run it anyway, yes I, the owner of the device, approve this" I don't see why its all or nothing like some sort of stupid contract
"Well to run our app you must give us access to your SMS messages"
"I don't plan to use those features"
"Then you can't run our app on your hardware"
I mean don'
Less-knowledgeable users misplace the blame (Score:2)
as the owner of the device....isn't it well.... my problem if I break an app?
The problem is that too many end users are not knowledgeable enough in how computers work to know whose problem it really is. They think it's Google's or the phone manufacturer's because the app broke.
Rollup Already? (Score:2)
I thought the Google Play store always showed the top level permission in the list as opposed to the more fine grained ones? Is the only difference that applications will now be able to use anything in the category displayed?
In either case Google does need to ressurect AppInfo, the argument that applications can't handle not being provided a given permission is bogus - I don't believe there are any permissions which do not have an empty value which the application should already be capable of happily consu
Most people don't care (Score:3)
Doubtful.
Coming soon... even *simpler* permissions (Score:4, Funny)
You're about to install "Angry Birds 7.0". This app wants to...
1. Do whatever the hell it wants to with your tablet setup, your phone connections, and the Internet
2. Not tell you about it
[ ] Yes: I'm bending over right now!
[ ] No: uninstall Android, brick my tablet, and post all my downloaded porn to Facebook
While Apple doubles down on privacy... (Score:2)
Looks like Google is doubling down on making it harder for you to stay private. Classy move, Google. You make it easier for me to avoid recommending the Play store and Android altogether.
Exactly the opposite of where it should go.. (Score:3)
Applications shouldn't be 'asking' for permission. They should just attempt access. The security configuration for each service or resource should have three settings: reject (with api notification), deny (return success but with bogus/user entered data), or allow (work as intended), for each application. The default should be reject, with a first time startup prompt (from the OS, not the app) when the app starts. This way a user retains his dominion over the device and what it does with network IO. For example, he can use an app that demands access to location information when it doesn't really need to. The user should own the android device and applications, not the other way around.
Of course this would break the market and surveillance imperatives of google, app developers, and the state. Fuck them.
A little surprised. (Score:2)
Google must know by now how bad a light its broken permission system is putting on Android. I can't run half the android apps I want to run on any of my Android devices any more because of the permissions they want. And a lot of the ones that I intentionally do not upgrade no longer work. It's making my three android devices useless and almost worthless.
I'm flabbergasted that there are full-on idiots in the Google command chain who are unwilling to address such a severe and obvious problem. Truly flabb
Apple's having a good month (Score:2)
First, and impressive showing at WWDC, and now Google is nerfing their security model to be weaker than iOS's (iOS will notify when a new permission is required as part of an update when the application tries to make use of that permission.)
I think Windows Phone and iOS are both in a good position to start taking some market share from Google. If Google doesn't have a good Google/IO with Android, they may have officially dropped the ball on Android.
11 months to go on warranty (Score:2)
Xprivacy fixes that (Xposed Framework) (Score:4, Insightful)
I use Xpivacy which is a module add on to Xposed Framework to control permissions now. Have been using it for sometime. Allows using something like the Facebook app without allowing it all of the permissions it thinks it neededs.
Not really sure what Google is thinking though. There needs to be more fine control of permissions not less.
Straw on the camel's back (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The tradeoff is flexibility. Android apps can replace the SMS app, camera, launcher, etc. On a desktop system, the ultimate in flexibility, any "app" can look at all the files in your homedir. Privacy and flexibility are opposite design goals unfortunately. Maybe that'll change in the future but right now that's how it is.
Phone security frameworks are fundamentally flawed (Score:3)
What is the point of asking a security policy question when the only answer is yes? Why do apps want access to so many different services? The android/apple security permissions frameworks are fundamentally flawed. A polite term might be naive.
At DeveloperWeek 2014 I went to a talk by a Mozilla developer on the Android security policy framework. He put forward two ideas:
Fine grain access control.
Prompt for permission the first time an app accesses a service, not at install time.
His first observation was that the granularity of the permissions was far to coarse. Access the Internet. Use the phone. Access memory. Why are you forced to allow near complete access to the Internet when a service might only want to write to a specific site? Why read/write entire user memory when it only needs to store a state file or a small collection of cache files. Fine grained access controls are all standard features of the operating systems that underlie Android and Apple smart phones.
The argument might be made that it would confuse users to be asking for complex permissions. I would say, what's the diff? The user is going to say yes either way. The only other option is to not use the app.
Fine grained permissions enforced by the OS would limit damage that a rouge app could do by limiting what it could do without popping up an access request.
The speaker's second idea was that the permissions policy questions should be asked the first time you use a service in an app, not at install time. The first time an app might build a current list of requirements/sites/etc and ask in one question. If an app needs to access something new like a new tracking URL or call a new phone number, a new permission request pops up enforced by the OS. A user who is annoyed by the pop-ups can always click "Don not show this message again".
The benefits of these two changes is that you do not have blanket permissions granting for apps even for services the user may never use. This would prohibit a virus from starting to use a service that had not been previously accessed. Even a naive users might think twice when his GPS app suddenly wants to reformat the memory card.
The two prongs of making permissions more granular and not granting them until they are actually accessed by the user would fundamentally improve the smart phone security policy. Both of these should be implemented by the OS so they are automatic, uniform and enforced.
The argument of its too complex for the user is null because the users it might confuse are going to say yes in any case. They always do. The argument that it is too complex for the developers, my answer is "tough, you're a developer, deal with it".
I wish I could find a reference to the talk. It was the afternoon of the last day of DeveloperWeek 2014 in San Francisco. The guy was from Mozilla. I recall it being a last minute change because someone canceled.
Standard arguments about how nothing is perfect and everything can be bypassed apply. The standard reply of something is better than nothing apply as well.
Brought to you by Captain Obvious
Re: (Score:3)
This sounds very much like the way Microsoft tried to do security in Windows Vista. People did not react well to so many dialog boxes popping up.
Maybe that is why google decided that most people would rather just not have to deal with permissions in any real and meaningful way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You can get much money from smart people, if you offer a great product.
You can get little money from totally brainless people, even if your product is total crap.
Too bad that there are so many brainless people compared to the few smart ones, that the latter approach is by far more profitable.
If you want to be successful... target the imbeciles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)