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

[wisty]

So is he right or what?

I have no idea.

Who's smart here?

He's right, in a very narrow sense.

Android, the operating system, is probably better designed (from a security sense) than iOS. But Apple prevents carriers from messing with their phones, and they lock them down to the Apple Store.

If both phones were running apps from the same badly-run store, iPhones would probably be easier to attack. But they don't.

 

[smirking]

Schmidt can be both right and wrong. The iOS system is more strictly controlled, which usually means lower probability of a breach succeeding, but it's also far more homogeneous which means that if anything does break through, everything is in danger.

An iOS7 vulnerability can spread like wildfire, but a breach specific to Kit Kat is going to need a while to bump into enough enough Kit Kat brothers to pass the bad payload around.

If someone finds a vulnerability that specifically affects just Ice Cream Sandwich or the Amazon customization of Android, it won't spread as fast because everyone's packing a different version of Android.

 

[iBug2]

In general open platforms are more secure than closed ones. But that's a rule of thumb, so one cannot simply say A is more secure than B because A is open and B is closed.

 

[Taipan]

And for the same reason Windows has always been known as the most secure desktop OS...

 

[mikegchambers]

Video has been posted...

Laugh is faintly audible...

 

[Smigit]

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...

Yeah you hear that a lot. My personal experience has been that many of the more technical people at my IT firm tried Android 2.X devices and then went back to iPhones not because they weren't technically inclined, but their technical interests weren't aligned with phone modifications or customisations. Of the people I know that considered or went android, most are non technical and got their device because it was cheaper on a plan.

Thats not to suggest non technical people aren't compelled to go towards Android either, just I think it has far more to do with personal preference and interests than it does on any technical merit (or the user plain doesn't care). Just because someone is technically capable it doesn't mean they want to tinker with their phones. Likewise I work in IT but I try and avoid being tech support for family or friends if I can because I find that aspect a drag.

 

[gotluck]

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...

Many tech savvy users would prefer a greater access level, so to speak.
This would mean androids security is only as good as the user using the device. Same with any other OS that lets you install whatever you want. I dont like Apple's "we will protect you from yourself" approach.
The only real relevant security advantage versus an android product that actually receives updates (nexus and GPE -the only android products worth buying imo) is the application lockdown. I'm not stupid enough to need that but by all means have at it, I'm sure you all can't wait for the OSX lockdown. Its all for security right?
I'd rather have more rights as a user, like it has always been in computing up until iOS.

 

[rdlink]

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.

And therein lies the very reason why virtually everything you just said was wrong. The fact that Android is designed to let OEMs fork, close, customize their installations causes the whole system to be fragmented and thereby inherently insecure. We're talking real world here, not the laboratory. Not some tech geek's basement. OEMs are putting insecure variants in the wild, which makes Android insecure in real world scenarios. The product can be rooted and customized, which makes Android insecure in real world scenarios. Apps can be side loaded by simply turning off an option, which makes Android insecure in real world scenarios.

Any security expert will tell you that the most insecure part of any hardware or OS is the person pressing the buttons. Android gives that person plenty of opportunities to hose himself.

You can put a 6 inch thick, cold rolled steel door with 7 deadbolts on the front of your house. But if you leave a bag of keys sitting on the front porch your house is inherently insecure.

 

[Popeye206]

In general open platforms are more secure than closed ones. But that's a rule of thumb, so one cannot simply say A is more secure than B because A is open and B is closed.

I think you have your A's and B's mixed up.

 

[rdlink]

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

Yes, and that's so hard. It takes such a long time and a really tough series of keystrokes.

In fact, the Samsung will walk you through the process when needed. Say, when you need to allow side loading of a supplementary app necessary to use Airwatch, which is, ironically enough a security (Mobile Device Management) app.

 

[lobeyonekenobi]

Yeah you hear that a lot. My personal experience has been that many of the more technical people at my IT firm tried Android 2.X devices and then went back to iPhones not because they weren't technically inclined, but their technical interests weren't aligned with phone modifications or customisations. Of the people I know that considered or went android, most are non technical and got their device because it was cheaper on a plan.

Thats not to suggest non technical people aren't compelled to go towards Android either, just I think it has far more to do with personal preference and interests than it does on any technical merit (or the user plain doesn't care). Just because someone is technically capable it doesn't mean they want to tinker with their phones. Likewise I work in IT but I try and avoid being tech support for family or friends if I can because I find that aspect a drag.

Don't try to speak sense, some people don't like to hear that. They want to argue my OS is better than yours or more secure (Android is more open and customisable and iOS is more stable and reliable) some people like openness and some people like security and reliability.

And as has already been pointed out there's a reason why security experts laughed when ES said what he said.

 

[Kebabselector]

ooops

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/08/android_ad_peril/

 

[cgk.emu]

Yes, apps are less tech savvy on iOS because we SUMMON them and don't develop them.

Also, we truly do need that level of control to be tech savvy and create great things

I'm not sure you understand what "tech-savvy" means.

----------

http://youtu.be/eZztC7xwLB8

Laugh is faintly audible...

Are you saying faintly to diminish the meaning of it? If so... you do know that the audience generally does not have lapel mic's....

 

[dBeats]

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.

Can't someone entice an Android user to side load malware through a website and have it wreak havoc? I really don't know since I've never used Android and have no desire to. But my understanding was this is the main security flaw in Android.

 

[samcraig]

I can understand the laughter (although I am sure it was more a chuckle or snicker)

It's not that Android is uber insecure. But stating it's more secure rather than just as secure was a mis-step in language.

I do think that iOS is more secure being more of a walled garden. Not that the app review process remotely catches many things which can easily get through. However - I don't think any insecurity of Android is a huge threat to the majority of people. Note I said majority.

 

[iBug2]

I think you have your A's and B's mixed up.

Not really. Open in general is more secure.

 

[musicianm]

When I read about the first laugh, I thought it was amusing,
then when I read that he repeated it again and the crowd burst into laughter again I just died at my desk

 

[B4U]

Please tell me he's joking.

Isn't that why the audiences laughed?

 

[Oletros]

Yeah you hear that a lot. My personal experience has been that many of the more technical people at my IT firm tried Android 2.X devices and then went back to iPhones not because they weren't technically inclined, but their technical interests weren't aligned with phone modifications or customisations. Of the people I know that considered or went android, most are non technical and got their device because it was cheaper on a plan.

Thats not to suggest non technical people aren't compelled to go towards Android either, just I think it has far more to do with personal preference and interests than it does on any technical merit (or the user plain doesn't care). Just because someone is technically capable it doesn't mean they want to tinker with their phones. Likewise I work in IT but I try and avoid being tech support for family or friends if I can because I find that aspect a drag.

But you don't have to tinker with the phone if you have an Android.

 

[SkippyThorson]

Because all a "tech savvy" person wants to do is dick around customizing their phone all day long, obviously!

I work with a large group of people in IT at a local college, and I can't count the times I've heard people refer to Android's level of customization, which makes it than the iPhone.

Yes, that's just what I want. A phone with settings within settings. A phone with fragmentation as far as the eye can see. A platform with a store containing who the hell knows what infestations controlled by no one.

As far as I'm concerned, Android is a hot mess. Which is a shame, because I do use Gmail and Chrome every day. I do admire Android's ever-reaching grasp on the smartphone market. Admittedly, some hardware out there is fantastic.

It's just a hot mess compared to the standardization, ease-of-daily-use, and total security that is iOS, running on only one phone - the iPhone.

-----

Side note, it's a nightmare when the general public use a wide range of smartphones, from brand new to 5 years old, with potentially any version of Android ever released. Every day is a crap-shoot, and at least once a week, someone has to come to me to ask me how to do *this* on *this version* of Android on *this phone*.

 

[springsup]

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.

LOL, no.

I've developed applications for both platforms, and I can categorically say that's false. Both in the technical details of the platform, and the more important distribution side (which is where lots of average consumers get caught out - downloading some fake app which actually steals their contacts or other important information).

Not to mention Android fragmentation means that lots of users are running outdated software. That alone is a massive, massive security threat.

Also, in what way does the lack of customisation make iOS less secure? If anything, having people not tinker with important settings probably makes it more secure!

iOS has a friendly and easy-to-use frontend (obviously; why should it be anything less?) but it's got a solid foundation. People think of Apple as makers of expensive toys, but in reality the stuff they don't make a song-and-dance about (the details under-the-hood) are just as impressive. Look at how much of a struggle Microsoft went through migrating Windows to 64-bit; in that time Apple make much bigger changes from PPC to Intel and then from Intel 32-bit to Intel 64-bit, and it was totally painless. Apple get the technical decisions spot-on.

 

[840quadra]

Not really. Open in general is more secure.

I assume you are using Linux, BSD, Solaris and the likes as your source for that thought process?

 

[C. Robert]

Faux metal, faux leather, faux stitching, faux wood boxes, and now faux comments from their boss. What's next?

 

[ghostface147]

I think Schmidt has a point. Yes android has malware, but usually that's through sideloaded apps. I don't hear about lock screen bypasses, making phone calls using specific methods when a phone is locked. There are other examples.

However apple is much faster in repairing those issues than android. Android is at the mercy of the carriers.

 

[samcraig]

I work with a large group of people in IT at a local college, and I can't count the times I've heard people refer to Android's level of customization, which makes it than the iPhone.

Yes, that's just what I want. A phone with settings within settings. A phone with fragmentation as far as the eye can see. A platform with a store containing who the hell knows what infestations controlled by no one.

As far as I'm concerned, Android is a hot mess. Which is a shame, because I do use Gmail and Chrome every day. I do admire Android's ever-reaching grasp on the smartphone market. Admittedly, some hardware out there is fantastic.

It's just a hot mess compared to the standardization, ease-of-daily-use, and total security that is iOS, running on only one phone - the iPhone.

-----

Side note, it's a nightmare when the general public use a wide range of smartphones, from brand new to 5 years old, with potentially any version of Android ever released. Every day is a crap-shoot, and at least once a week, someone has to come to me to ask me how to do *this* on *this version* of Android on *this phone*.

Written by someone who hasn't used an Android phone and/or one in several years?

You realize you don't need to do any customization to have a great working Android phone, right? The OPTION is there to do whatever you want. But out of the box many phones works great.

Fragmentation is a developer issue and getting less and less. I would imagine the general public notices any "fragmentation" rarely if ever.

But I love your hyperbole.