4 ms·

In today's media environment is it strange scary-sounding headlines are published without deep analysis or actual evidence to back them up? But headlines sayin

In today's media environment is it strange scary-sounding headlines are published without deep analysis or actual evidence to back them up? But headlines saying devices are vulnerable is not evidence that the Android users are adversely impacted by PHA. On the other hand, I referenced a report with actual numbers of devices impacted. Obviously you should be skeptical, but as you point out, if millions of devices affected is true, shouldn't we be seeing millions of instances of Android spam, remote roots, SMS fraud, botnets, etc.? Yes, it is true that some users sideload, and threats to Android users vary a lot by country. There is only so much Google can reasonably do, and this is appropriate given Android is open source and has so many participants (device vendors, carriers, app stores, etc.). But it turns out with good integration with the developers, the distribution platform, and regular check ups, you can do a decent job at protecting your users. You can also compare to other platforms and recall how devastating actual malware on Windows was, and how long Microsoft struggled (and still struggles) to protect their users. In Android, yes there are many vulnerabilities like Stagefright found, but in the end Android users are surprisingly safe.

oefrha 10y ago
> ... scary-sounding headlines are published without deep analysis or actual evidence to back them up... Scary-sounding headlines, sure. But there usually is actual evidence. > I referenced a report with actual numbers of devices impacted. No, there is no "actual numbers of devices impacted". A number 1.4 billion is thrown out to impress; the pool of devices to which their analysis applies is much smaller, and of which only a percentage is given. > if millions of devices affected is true, shouldn't we be seeing millions of instances of Android spam, remote roots, SMS fraud, botnets, etc.? First, what you mentioned do exist. Maybe not in large numbers (not sure), but there's no guarantee they're not rising. Secondly, there are plenty of easier and more profitable channels for hackers these days. Please don't equate vulnerabilities not being exploited with being invulnerable. > There is only so much Google can reasonably do. Changing the subject? I was responding to "The Android ecosystem is huge and remarkably safe", and specifically how you quoted the blog post to back that up. > ... in the end Android users are surprisingly safe. Webcam users are surprisingly safe too. Not realizing their webcams are DDoS'ing some poor website right now, or their video feed is being streamed online.
- therpe1 10y ago
  > On the other hand, I referenced a report with actual numbers of devices impacted. Really. "We can't trust Google (because!) so ignore the detailed report with actual data and instead remember all those scary headlines!" This sort of conspiratorial thinking is so strange every time I see it I do a double take. That report is indeed remarkable given the number of devices. If they're seeing penetration rates of .05 percent that means most Android users will never see a virus or a trojan. It is a bit disturbing the way this was achieved though: by centralizing application distribution in a store. It would be great if there was a decentralized way to accomplish the same.
- vetinari 10y ago
  > Scary-sounding headlines, sure. But there usually is actual evidence. Actually, there usually isn't any evidence. Scary headlines sell, finding evidence is a hard work that most readers will not understand anyway. Guess what happens then.

oefrha 10y ago

> ... scary-sounding headlines are published without deep analysis or actual evidence to back them up... Scary-sounding headlines, sure. But there usually is actual evidence. > I referenced a report with actual numbers of devices impacted. No, there is no "actual numbers of devices impacted". A number 1.4 billion is thrown out to impress; the pool of devices to which their analysis applies is much smaller, and of which only a percentage is given. > if millions of devices affected is true, shouldn't we be seeing millions of instances of Android spam, remote roots, SMS fraud, botnets, etc.? First, what you mentioned do exist. Maybe not in large numbers (not sure), but there's no guarantee they're not rising. Secondly, there are plenty of easier and more profitable channels for hackers these days. Please don't equate vulnerabilities not being exploited with being invulnerable. > There is only so much Google can reasonably do. Changing the subject? I was responding to "The Android ecosystem is huge and remarkably safe", and specifically how you quoted the blog post to back that up. > ... in the end Android users are surprisingly safe. Webcam users are surprisingly safe too. Not realizing their webcams are DDoS'ing some poor website right now, or their video feed is being streamed online.

therpe1 10y ago
> On the other hand, I referenced a report with actual numbers of devices impacted. Really. "We can't trust Google (because!) so ignore the detailed report with actual data and instead remember all those scary headlines!" This sort of conspiratorial thinking is so strange every time I see it I do a double take. That report is indeed remarkable given the number of devices. If they're seeing penetration rates of .05 percent that means most Android users will never see a virus or a trojan. It is a bit disturbing the way this was achieved though: by centralizing application distribution in a store. It would be great if there was a decentralized way to accomplish the same.
vetinari 10y ago
> Scary-sounding headlines, sure. But there usually is actual evidence. Actually, there usually isn't any evidence. Scary headlines sell, finding evidence is a hard work that most readers will not understand anyway. Guess what happens then.