Eric Schmidt Says Android is 'More Secure Than The iPhone', Prompting Laughter

[roadbloc]

So is Android more secure or not? Was this Schmidt's ignorance or the audience's?

 

[Oletros]

So is Android more secure or not? Was this Schmidt's ignorance or the audience's?

Counting vulnerabilities, Android is more secure but as you can sideload applications and there are many different app stores, the attack surface is greater than the curated iOS App Store.

Result? Android has more malware than iOS

 

[fredaroony]

You missed side loading of apps (outside of the Google Play store) which doesn't require being "tech savvy" to do so.

You actually have to turn this feature on before this is even possible.

 

[the8thark]

Very slow rumour day today if things like this make the side of the front page.

I'm not surprised this is on the front page. We all know MR by now. What does surprise me is why the Schiller "Can't innovate anymore my ass" comment didn't get it's own front page article also. It made people laugh too.

 

[Earendil]

Why do you believe that iOS is designed for non savvy users? Having a device that works great, is consistent, powerful, and polished isn't something the tech savvy are interested in? Okay...

Amen. As a software dev I do enough tinkering with stupid...
Anyway, I quite enjoy and appreciate software that just works and doesn't require my tinkering. I fully understand that other people like tinkering with their phone OS and that's cool. I like tinkering with my vehicle in my spare time or on electronics projects because those are different than my day-to-day work.

So while I appreciate software I don't have to fiddle with, bad software really peeves me

----------

Counting vulnerabilities, Android is more secure but as you can sideload applications and there are many different app stores, the attack surface is greater than the curated iOS App Store.

Result? Android has more malware than iOS

Counting vulnerabilities? Source please

 

[anomie]

Counting vulnerabilities, Android is more secure but as you can sideload applications and there are many different app stores, the attack surface is greater than the curated iOS App Store.

Result? Android has more malware than iOS

Sure, but android also has more users than iOS.
In fact, you simply cannot compare android and iOS here. If you calc in all restrictions if iOS, android would be as secure. If you'd open iOS to the flexibility of android, it'd be as insecure.

 

[Oletros]

Amen. As a software dev I do enough tinkering with stupid...
Anyway, I quite enjoy and appreciate software that just works and doesn't require my tinkering. I fully understand that other people like tinkering with their phone OS and that's cool. I like tinkering with my vehicle in my spare time or on electronics projects because those are different than my day-to-day work.

So while I appreciate software I don't have to fiddle with, bad software really peeves me

----------



Counting vulnerabilities? Source please

http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-1224/product_id-19997/Google-Android.html

http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-49/product_id-15556/Apple-Iphone-Os.html

 

[DOSNET]

This. The thing about an open source platform is that it's much more secure simply because exploits are found constantly and patched (short zero days). With a closed platform, the company has to wait for the exploits and patch them as they come up (long zero days). Just look at Linux vs. Windows, open-source always wins in terms of security. What you are all laughing at and referring to is not an exploit, but a failure on OEM's side to use the more secure platform effectively. By forking and closing their own versions of Android, they effectively eliminate the aforementioned benefit. iOS is more intuitive in creating a secure environment for the end user and I'd say that's much more important. Schmidt was getting off on a technicality in this case and it really only applies to stock Google phones.

Parts of iOS are open source. Imagine how bad it would be if it was entirely closed source. Windows for example.

 

[ascylto]

Schmidt *****

In January 2013, Schmidt visited North Korea - so, that's where he gets his notions!

 

[haruhiko]

Sure, but android also has more users than iOS.
In fact, you simply cannot compare android and iOS here. If you calc in all restrictions if iOS, android would be as secure. If you'd open iOS to the flexibility of android, it'd be as insecure.

So a house with all the doors and windows open is as secure as the other house with all the doors and windows locked because if the first house has locked all the doors and windows it would be as secure as the second house?

That's what I call reality distortion. The reality is that the first house is less secure.

 

[TC03]

Sure, but android also has more users than iOS.
In fact, you simply cannot compare android and iOS here. If you calc in all restrictions if iOS, android would be as secure. If you'd open iOS to the flexibility of android, it'd be as insecure.

So basically this is what you're saying:

If Android would be as secure as iOS, Android would be as secure. If iOS would be as secure as Android, it would be just as insecure.

Well duh. iOS is restricited by default, that's what makes it secure. The whole 'strategy' of iOS is to be secured by design.

You're pointing out reasons for Android not being secure, but that doesn't matter. At the end of the day, Android is insecure, whatever the reasons may be.

 

[akbarali.ch]

Android maybe more secure than iOS, very possible but whats the point of making a house of 8inch thick steel walls and door if you yourself give access to every part of the house to everyone. That just defies the whole security thing.

 

[Tamagotchi]

LOL, another fandroid on MacRumors.

Please take some time in learning about the security of iOS devices.

He is in fact right. I think you should take some time in learning about the security of Android Also, I wouldn't call him fandroid, he's a dev and most likely develops for both platforms.

Getting back to topic: I would be laughing at the audience. People who laugh at something they don't understand are the funniest.

 

[chakdey]

I wish there was a video of this.

 

[dumastudetto]

Schmidt is unintentionally comedy gold.

 

[sinsin07]

Funny thing is, he is correct.

iPhone: 304 exploits
http://www.cvedetails.com/product/15556/Apple-Iphone-Os.html?vendor_id=49
Android: 29 exploits
http://www.cvedetails.com/product/19997/Google-Android.html?vendor_id=1224

That 304 number includes OSX, iTunes, Corelgraphics, Quicktime etc.

 

[ValSalva]

Schmidt is unintentionally comedy gold.

I think Schmidt has a very dry sense of humor. He repeated himself after getting laughs. Some of his other comments have been so over the top ridiculous that you have to believe he is kidding around.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Anyone not highly skeptical of scare mongering created by antivirus companies in order to sell more software is demonstrating their naivety - they have been doing this for decades.

It's also important to realise the degree to which they play fast and loose with the term "malware". A number of these studies have previously classified all applications requiring root level access as malware and even apps which display in-app advertising as potential malware.

Of course Android is their biggest mobile market - their software would not even have the required privilege level to run on iOS.

 

[stroked]

This. The thing about an open source platform is that it's much more secure simply because exploits are found constantly and patched (short zero days). With a closed platform, the company has to wait for the exploits and patch them as they come up (long zero days). Just look at Linux vs. Windows, open-source always wins in terms of security. What you are all laughing at and referring to is not an exploit, but a failure on OEM's side to use the more secure platform effectively. By forking and closing their own versions of Android, they effectively eliminate the aforementioned benefit. iOS is more intuitive in creating a secure environment for the end user and I'd say that's much more important. Schmidt was getting off on a technicality in this case and it really only applies to stock Google phones.

Thanks for your post, it answered my question.

 

[DOSNET]

That 304 number includes OSX, iTunes, Corelgraphics, Quicktime etc.

Android has equivalents of all of that. Don't see your point. The comparison seems fair.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Apple deniers in full force but as a dev he is right. The only time security becomes an issue with android is with custom roms kernels and radios.

iOS just can't be customized at all. Most stock roms on android are super secure, very similar to iOS.

iOS is designed primarily for the average non Savvy user but that's fine it's a good OS for day to day tasks.

... You listed a primary vulnerability of Android, but then critized iOS for lacking the same vulnerability. I'm confused... Weren't you trying to argue Android was more secure?

 

[sofila]

He is right. From his point of view.
iPhone users are in danger with IOS.
iPhone users are not in danger with Android (as long as they don't use it).

 

[bearda]

I'm by no means an expert, but because Android is a open platform, naturally it'll be at the cost of some security.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. Security through obscurity isn't security at all, it's a false hope. Open platforms have been proving themselves time and time again to be more secure than proprietary closed systems that bet on attackers not knowing how they worked rather than well understood and peer reviewed systems. Linux kernel vulnerabilities tend to get discovered and patched sooner than Windows kernel vulnerabilities for just this reason.

 

[happywaiman]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. Security through obscurity isn't security at all, it's a false hope. Open platforms have been proving themselves time and time again to be more secure than proprietary closed systems that bet on attackers not knowing how they worked rather than well understood and peer reviewed systems. Linux kernel vulnerabilities tend to get discovered and patched sooner than Windows kernel vulnerabilities for just this reason.

No matter how good open source did their job, if users can't get the update, they are not secure.
And giving most of the user stuck before Android 4.2, this is what happening.
In fact, when a company only profit from hardware sales, why would they care about your safety? If you phone broken, you have to buy one.
It's like a private hospital: not enough patient? Then let's go out and make some.
In theoretical, open source is great, but when there's money, these ideal project always create problem.
And sadly, Android users are still sticking with the open source golden dream, with their phone still running years old OS.
For geek, I don't think they really thing in their life to talk about security. But for rest of us, phone has important things.
I got my online banking with saved password in it, for god sake.

 

[Oletros]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. Security through obscurity isn't security at all, it's a false hope. Open platforms have been proving themselves time and time again to be more secure than proprietary closed systems that bet on attackers not knowing how they worked rather than well understood and peer reviewed systems. Linux kernel vulnerabilities tend to get discovered and patched sooner than Windows kernel vulnerabilities for just this reason.

I think that the OP is talking about openness regarding installing applications from multiple sources and not about open as open source