The first chink in Android's armor

[smiddlehurst]

So all the rehtoric over "Android is open because you can install whatever you want from anywhere" is just BS?

Is that what I'm missing? I'd thought that statement was true which is where my confusion is coming from. If THAT part is the lie than everything about this particular thread makes sense again.

No, that's not quite right... hold on while I have a go at this:

Android is open as a platform. Anyone can obtain the source code and do what they like with it. However Android does NOT include certain apps as standard, the most obvious of which is the Market. Google authorises devices to install the Market application on a case-by-case basis (seemingly) and can impose whatever conditions they like. A couple of examples of this would be insisting that manufacturers use Google's location services rather than Skyhook and that a device must have 3G access not just Wi-Fi. But they could demand that a device be painted purple and yellow if they wanted to.

Apps installed via the Market are subject to Google's terms and conditions. While a lot looser than, say, Apple's equivalent documents there are certain things that will cause an app to be pulled but there is, AFAIK, no review process when an app is submitted. In order to allow Google to manage rouge apps (or ones that look at 'em funny) they have the tools and rights to pull apps from the store and do remote wipes.

However as Android IS open there's nothing to stop other companies launching their own App store for the OS. Apps can be installed from multiple sources (much as, say, a Jalibroken iPhone uses app repositories) which may offer more or less control than Google's own market. In addition Apps can be installed without going through any App store by getting an apk file onto the phone and installing manually. You do have to confirm multiple times you want to install an app in this manner however.

Phew, I think that covers it, hope it helps.

 

[Small White Car]

Phew, I think that covers it, hope it helps.

It does. Thanks.

So basically when I say "no one can stop bad apps on Android" the answer is "they can stop them only if they come from the right store."

So if these apps come from somewhere else then, no, they can't be stopped. So I find it confusing when people say "it's the same as iOS!" because no, it really doesn't look that way. We're back to my original thought: iOS is more restrictive but Apple's in charge of your safety while Android lets you do more but you have to take responsibility for your own safety. People were trying to tell me that there wasn't a difference between them but I still think that statement holds true.

 

[smiddlehurst]

The same could be said about iOS and it's "multitasking" or other features which only a "geek" would know/understand/use

Different platforms. Different quirks. Both have their positives and negatives. The pissing contest is silly.

Umm, sorry, I can't quite tell from your reply but just to clarify I'm not engaged in a pissing contest here. This was intended as a comment on Android compared to the rest of the market, not just iOS, and is a genuine problem that I'm running into as more people I know get Android handsets. No intention whatsoever to say that this makes Android worse than anything else, just that it IS a problem that the platform needs to address. Believe it or not I'd like to see at the very least Android, WP7 and iOS all do well and continue to thrive because there's certainly space in the market for all three and I'm a big fan of, uh, 'consumer operating systems' as opposed to 'business operating systems'.

 

[mad-dog-one]

One thing that could stop android's growth dead in its tracks is people starting to think that Google is spying on them *without telling them*.

I expect this issue to become a significant one as more people discover what their smartphones are broadcasting to the cloud.

"After developing and using TaintDroid, several universities found that of 30 popular free Android apps, half were sharing GPS data and phone numbers with advertisers and remote servers. A few months ago, one app was sending phone numbers to a remote server in China but today the situation looks a lot more pervasive. In their paper, the researchers blasted Google saying 'Android's coarse grained access control provides insufficient protection against third-party applications seeking to collect sensitive data.'

Apple could encounter this same flaw if they insist on controlling Apps and operating systems on their devices.

 

[Daveoc64]

It does. Thanks.

So basically when I say "no one can stop bad apps on Android" the answer is "they can stop them only if they come from the right store."

So if these apps come from somewhere else then, no, they can't be stopped. So I find it confusing when people say "it's the same as iOS!" because no, it really doesn't look that way.

The only time you wouldn't use the Android Market to install an App is because that App isn't on the market.

If you have a need to use such an App, you are either going to have made it yourself, it is going to be provided by your company/organisation or you understand what it does completely - that being the case, there should not be any security problem.

If you go and buy Alcohol from Wal Mart, you can trust it's not going to contain poison.

If you make your own Alcohol, you would presumably ensure that it doesn't contain poison.

If you buy alcohol from a guy in a back alley, you wouldn't know whether it was poisonous or not.

Apply the same rules to Android Apps:

From the Android Market > Trustworthy
Apps you made yourself > Trustworthy
Apps obtained from a third party > Treat with caution

 

[BaldiMac]

The only time you wouldn't use the Android Market to install an App is because that App isn't on the market.

If you have a need to use such an App, you are either going to have made it yourself, it is going to be provided by your company/organisation or you understand what it does completely - that being the case, there should not be any security problem.

If you go and buy Alcohol from Wal Mart, you can trust it's not going to contain poison.

If you make your own Alcohol, you would presumably ensure that it doesn't contain poison.

If you buy alcohol from a guy in a back alley, you wouldn't know whether it was poisonous or not.

Because the "only install apps from sources you trust" has worked so well on PCs.

 

[Small White Car]

From the Android Market > Trustworthy
Apps you made yourself > Trustworthy
Apps obtained from a third party > Treat with caution

I get this, I guess, but it seems like a nice bit of wordplay from the Android community...

Android is better than the iPhone because you can get apps from anywhere!
But some of those apps might not be safe...
Well, it's ok because no one uses those apps since they're not trustworthy!
Uhm...ok?

Nice way to have it both ways, I guess.

I'm not talking about you or anyone here, btw. You've all been very helpful. I'm talking about stuff I've read other places on the internet where people aren't as nice as the folks here.

Perhaps my problem is that I should just stop worrying about those other places on the internet. That might solve all my issues.

 

[Daveoc64]

Because the "only install apps from sources you trust" has worked so well on PCs.

It's so much simpler on Android.

By default, you can't just install Apps to your phone. You must go into a menu and turn the feature on. When you do that, it warns you several times that you should only install Apps you trust.

You must then obtain and run a .apk file (Android Package) which will begin the installation process.

It will then ask you to confirm the installation, with another warning about installing Apps in this manner. You'll also get the prompt about permissions.

If you manage to do all of that unintentionally, you've got a far bigger problem than can be solved with an OS!

 

[smiddlehurst]

It does. Thanks.

So basically when I say "no one can stop bad apps on Android" the answer is "they can stop them only if they come from the right store."

So if these apps come from somewhere else then, no, they can't be stopped. So I find it confusing when people say "it's the same as iOS!" because no, it really doesn't look that way.

Umm, again, not quite (sorry, this is becoming a habbit!). For an app to not be stoppable it'd have to come from a totally unchecked source with no recall facility. In order for that to happen either a) the device must come with such a source pre-installed (none do at the moment AFAIK) or b) a user MUST go through certain steps to allow that app to install and those steps are fairly big, obvious and suitably scary.

In the grand scheme of things Android is more 'open' than iOS out of the box. However the price you pay for that flexibility is you need to be a bit more aware of the pitfalls of adding apps from untrusted services and maybe put in a little more effort in maintaining and fiddling with the devices. In the real world with the vast majority of users there isn't a vast ammount of difference between Android and iOS (and I'd expect WP7 to add to that list quite soon).

 

[samcraig]

Umm, sorry, I can't quite tell from your reply but just to clarify I'm not engaged in a pissing contest here. This was intended as a comment on Android compared to the rest of the market, not just iOS, and is a genuine problem that I'm running into as more people I know get Android handsets. No intention whatsoever to say that this makes Android worse than anything else, just that it IS a problem that the platform needs to address. Believe it or not I'd like to see at the very least Android, WP7 and iOS all do well and continue to thrive because there's certainly space in the market for all three and I'm a big fan of, uh, 'consumer operating systems' as opposed to 'business operating systems'.

That last comment (pissing contest) was a general comment about the whole discussion - not you and not you specifically.

There are people on this thread (and forum in general) who constantly have to bash one platform and compare it to another while totally disregarding the flaws that exist with iOS. It's great to be supportive of a company - but NO company is perfect, infallible, etc.

For example - Google makes software not phones. Apple makes both. If Apple ONLY made iOS and didn't make a phone - do you really think they'd be that much different than Google as far as issues/carrier requirements, etc? The point is to get the OS on a device. Software without hardware is pretty useless.

So those that are trying to compare Google's control with carriers (for example) vs Apple's have failed to look at the big picture.

 

[smiddlehurst]

That last comment (pissing contest) was a general comment about the whole discussion - not you and not you specifically.

There are people on this thread (and forum in general) who constantly have to bash one platform and compare it to another while totally disregarding the flaws that exist with iOS. It's great to be supportive of a company - but NO company is perfect, infallible, etc.

For example - Google makes software not phones. Apple makes both. If Apple ONLY made iOS and didn't make a phone - do you really think they'd be that much different than Google as far as issues/carrier requirements, etc? The point is to get the OS on a device. Software without hardware is pretty useless.

So those that are trying to compare Google's control with carriers (for example) vs Apple's have failed to look at the big picture.

Thought that's what you meant but wasn't quite sure...

The problem with Google being willing to let the carriers etc run wild with Android is... actually there's a couple of problems:

1) Ultimately it's not necessarily in their best interest. If you end up with a ton of Android devices that don't use Google as the search engine, don't have Google Market and remove Google location services etc then Google ain't going to make anything like as much money from those devices as they could do. Worse, it'll end up in a massively fragemented market with users having poor experiences. Might be acceptable in basic feature phones (the Cookie's of this world) but not in high end devices and there are other alternatives out there.

2) Not a year ago Google made an effort to launch the Nexus One as carrier independent. They made a big deal over that and the carriers basically told them where to stick it. If they now roll over and let the carriers do whatever they like they're on dodgy ground with their core supporters. Now, granted, a lot of those core supporters give death threats if you so much as hint that there's any problem at all with Android (witness the insanity over that Engaget editorial a week or so back) but they're also the ones that are the most vocal in spreading the word. Google NEEDS to keep them onside and that won't happen if they're seen to capitulate to the providers.

On a totally different topic, horray for actually being able to discuss this stuff here without a full-on flamewar. Cookies for all!

 

[kdarling]

... We're back to my original thought: iOS is more restrictive but Apple's in charge of your safety while Android lets you do more but you have to take responsibility for your own safety..

The part you're missing is that at least with Android, the user has a chance of protecting themselves.

With iOS, you're making the huge mistake of acting as if Apple can always protect the user. Apple sure didn't know about the WiFi hotspot hidden in that flashlight app before it approved the app.

There have been many security fixes to iOS over the years, and no doubt there are more that are not known to Apple yet. It's very possible (and statistically, I'd say likely) that there other iOS apps with hidden code.

The App Genome Project recently posted some results of analyzing 300,000 iOS and Android apps.

"So far, findings suggest that Android applications tap into sensitive data, such as contact lists, less often than comparable applications for the iPhone.

For example, 33 percent of free applications on the iPhone can access a user’s location, compared to 28 percent of free Android applications.

Third-party code is common on applications for both iPhone and Android devices, creating cross-platform vulnerabilities.

While more free Android applications (47 percent) include third-party code than comparable iPhone applications (23 percent), Lookout says that the permission model of the iPhone platform makes it easier for such code to cause applications to access sensitive data.

For example, some iPhone applications interact with a user’s address book simply based on the presence of third-party code.

The same activity would be more difficult on the Android platform.

The application developer would both need to integrate the third-party code and request a permission from the operating system to access the contact list."

The real life upshot is this: there is no guarantee of safety with either the Apple or the Android model. Perhaps the best lesson is, use only official banking or other apps that want important passwords. Otherwise, use SSL websites instead. And be aware that someone can always find a way to steal info.

Hate to say it, but perhaps avoid simple and/or free apps from devs in suspicious countries.

 

[ChazUK]

Just to make clear the permissions systems on Android for Daveoc64's posts here are a few of the warnings when you install/download an app:

Install permissions: (This is shown when installing from Android Market and from "unknown sources"

By default, Android devices can't install applications from "unknown sources" and some can't sideload applications at all (I'm looking at you at&t).

If you try to install an app from an unknown source, you are first warned that you are doing so.

I can't wait for the TaintDroid app to be released as it will be very interesting (and probably worrying) to see what developers/advertisers are up to when I install or use an application. You can also look at what permissions mean what in the "show permissions" option of the Application Settings menu

The whole article is a great read and this thread has been an excellent read too.
http://arstechnica.com/security/new...-to-covertly-send-gps-data-to-advertisers.ars

There certainly is room for abuse with Android (albeit with some warnings).

 

[Small White Car]

The real life upshot is this: there is no guarantee of safety with either the Apple or the Android model.

I totally agree with this.

The part you're missing is that at least with Android, the user has a chance of protecting themselves.

That's what I'm fuzzy on. From what I've seen it doesn't look like this is so unless you're just going to just block anything that uses the internet. I guess that's a "chance" or sorts.

 

[samcraig]

I totally agree with this.



That's what I'm fuzzy on. From what I've seen it doesn't look like this is so unless you're just going to just block anything that uses the internet. I guess that's a "chance" or sorts.

I see the fuzzy line. And I might not be addressing your fuzziness - maybe just mine when I say that (and this isn't criticism) it's really all about trust and who has it vs gives it.

Apple, being a walled garden is the gatekeeper. An end user takes it on full faith that they are doing their job and that no app downloaded will do harm.

With Android it's different. They trust that the app store is doing their job and if not, that they have "the last say" on whether or not to actually give permissions.

No ecosystem is 100 percent safe. The "exposure" of Android and "lack" of control over the apps can instill "fear" but that fear isn't necessarily bad as it makes the user think (you would hope) about the ramifications of access.

Facebook (the website) got into a lot of trouble for what information was exposed / external websites could access - because they were giving permissions without letting users know exactly what was going on. Users have access to settings/permissions - but the defaults gave carte blanche. Now apps/websites give warnings and state what information is being accessed. It's the nearest comparison I can think of.

 

[kdarling]

That's what I'm fuzzy on. From what I've seen it doesn't look like this is so unless you're just going to just block anything that uses the internet. I guess that's a "chance" or sorts.

Not so much the internet, but access to other things. (Here's a list of Android permissions on Wikipedia, btw.)

For instance, I would see no reason for a game to access my Calendar info and the internet. It would make me suspicious, especially if it were a free game from Nigeria

I totally agree that the permission model is not perfect, of course, for at least two reasons:

1) A combination app might actually need internet and Calendar access to work. It could use those permissions for both good and evil. (One solution would be that it should also be required to list allowable urls or domains.)

2) The rise of ad-based apps on all platforms. They need Internet and GPS access and often other info in order to serve up personalized ads. Again, what would be nice is if all ad-based apps had to go through one proxy server that could be monitored, and not just anywhere. (Is there a business opportunity here?)

 

[Carniphage]

Goldman Sachs estimates at least $800 million in Android related income and savings right now.

I'd take that estimate with a large pinch of salt. How much is that per handset?

C.

 

[(marc)]

You'd think any well-developed smartphone OS would at least ask the user for confirmation before accessing confidential data such as phone numbers.

This should be implemented, regardless of whether the OS is open or closed.

 

[steviem]

You'd think any well-developed smartphone OS would at least ask the user for confirmation before accessing confidential data such as phone numbers.

This should be implemented, regardless of whether the OS is open or closed.

I just got an android handset to play with. When you install an application, it notifies you of the permissions that it needs.

This is pretty much user error, but I don't like the fact that there are people that develop wallpaper apps which then access your contact information.

 

[Carniphage]

In terms of actual reported instances of malicious apps sending personal data - as far as I can tell, of the actual reported instances seem to be Android apps beaming contact data overseas.

That fact is not surprising because the Android market place is un-policed. It is the wild-west. There is no vetting of content - and the responsibility is placed on the users to defend themselves. Instead of Android, perhaps Deadwood might be a better name?

But my main point is different. Google's entire business model is predicated on selling the eyeballs of users to advertisers. That's where its cash comes from. And the Google people are smart enough to realise that it does no good to sell sanitary towels to men.

It is Google's business model to collect personal data, look at browsing history and so on. They set-out to collate a file on users in order to better sell the right eyeballs to the higher paying advertisers. And the mobile device is a much more precise instrument to do that with.

It is that aspect of Android that worries me more than malicious apps pilfering credit-card details.

C.

 

[samcraig]

In terms of actual reported instances of malicious apps sending personal data - as far as I can tell, of the actual reported instances seem to be Android apps beaming contact data overseas.

That fact is not surprising because the Android market place is un-policed. It is the wild-west. There is no vetting of content - and the responsibility is placed on the users to defend themselves. Instead of Android, perhaps Deadwood might be a better name?

But my main point is different. Google's entire business model is predicated on selling the eyeballs of users to advertisers. That's where its cash comes from. And the Google people are smart enough to realise that it does no good to sell sanitary towels to men.

It is Google's business model to collect personal data, look at browsing history and so on. They set-out to collate a file on users in order to better sell the right eyeballs to the higher paying advertisers. And the mobile device is a much more precise instrument to do that with.

It is that aspect of Android that worries me more than malicious apps pilfering credit-card details.

C.

And I repeat - Apple is/has moved to a similar model. Especially with iAds. And you know they provide usage data to their advertisers and partners with information/data collected by your iPhone.

So I don't see much of a difference. If you're going to condemn or criticize Google, don't turn a blind eye to Apple. Unless your point is to ignore the dust in your eye to point out the plank in someone else's

 

[Carniphage]

And I repeat - Apple is/has moved to a similar model. Especially with iAds. And you know they provide usage data to their advertisers and partners with information/data collected by your iPhone.

So I don't see much of a difference. If you're going to condemn or criticize Google, don't turn a blind eye to Apple. Unless your point is to ignore the dust in your eye to point out the plank in someone else's

I have already responded to this point.

C.

 

[samcraig]

I have already responded to this point.

C.

You did. It got lost in the shuffle when I was reading. But even so - you re-asserted your same opinion. And so it's just as "fair" to re-assert mine.

Both companies are profiteering over user information. Apple was doing it even before iAds. Maybe not your personal info (phone/name) - but stats based on your usage, etc were being sold to 3rd parties. Now with iAds - even more so. The end result is the same - no matter how they are deriving at it.

 

[Carniphage]

You did. It got lost in the shuffle when I was reading. But even so - you re-asserted your same opinion. And so it's just as "fair" to re-assert mine.

Both companies are profiteering over user information. Apple was doing it even before iAds. Maybe not your personal info (phone/name) - but stats based on your usage, etc were being sold to 3rd parties. Now with iAds - even more so. The end result is the same - no matter how they are deriving at it.

Yes, but Apples primary profitability derives from selling products to consumers. The vast bulk of their revenue depends on that business model. The hand that feeds Apple is end users and their good will.

Google's entire business model is 100% advertising funded. Which means end users are not their primary customers. End-users are farmed by feeding them free services, and then their eyeballs sold to advertisers. Google has to do this to survive - it's their only trick.

My argument is that difference is not a technicality. I think it is a profound difference. It fundamentally affects how the two companies treat and deal with end-users. And I think if you look hard its possible to taste that difference in how their respective products are presented and delivered.

C.

 

[BeyondtheTech]

LOL @ "chink."

Disclaimer: I'm Asian. And Jewish. Go figure.