8 ms·

Android Developers Blog: Exercising Our Remote Application Removal Feature

51 points by jamesbritt 16y ago

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- joubert 16y ago
  Can't one patch Android to disable this "feature"?
  - vetinari 16y ago
    No need to patch Android. This is a "feature" of Google Market and it works only with apps installed via Market. If you installed your apk manually, it will not touch it.
fierarul 16y ago
Is this also available to developers ? For example, I would like to know I could remove remotely one of my applications if I wanted to.
- nuclear_eclipse 16y ago
  Even as a developer, I hope to God that is never available to anyone but Google. If I've downloaded a free app, and the developer decides he wants money instead, I don't want him having the power to forcibly uninstall the free app from my phone as "incentive" to buy the paid version. I could probably imagine other malicious uses of that feature if you need more proof that it's a bad idea.
  - fierarul 16y ago
    What if, for example, I include by mistake confidential information that I am forced by law not to disclose, or media I don't have the proper copyright for? For example, I make a statistical financial simulator for Android and by mistake the build includes my test data which is from some big bank ? Being able to pull the plug on that build would be really nice -- because I'm pretty sure nobody at Google would care to help you with that. Or, I might do an audio player and I'm including some music whose copyright expired in the rest of the world, but not in US. Indeed it might do more harm than good that normal developers have the right to do this, but if you assume developers are responsible about it, it might be a good thing. For example, Google could supervise this or charge a flat fee, etc.
    - nuclear_eclipse 16y ago
      Or don't include sensitive data in your test set or build system. If you include something in a release that you should not have included, then you are responsible full stop, and a revocation system is not a solution. This sort of functionality should not be used to fix developer mistakes; you can't do this sort of thing with desktop applications either, and once again, for good reason. Even if Google initiates a mass revocation, that doesn't mean the application is no longer in the wild. Users who want to exploit your mistake could just as easily do one ogf the following: - Disconnect their phone from a data connection or wifi signal - Dump their current ROM/data to a backup image using a 3rd party bootloader - Extract the .apk from the phone using root access, using an app like Titanium Backup - Install the .apk from a source other than the Market, so that the revocation system will ignore it Google's mass-revocation system only "works" because it is designed to remove malicious applications from the phones of unsuspecting users. If you make sensitive data public, it becomes public data, period; there's no going back.
      - fierarul 16y ago
        Well, it was just an example and >If you make sensitive data public, it becomes public data, period; there's no going back. this is true, but it sure would be nice to do damage control no ?
    - Kadin 16y ago
      Why should we treat the situation differently just because you distributed the application electronically, versus shipping it in the traditional/literal sense on CD-Rom or floppies? If you wrote an application that contained (say) code that wasn't yours, and shipped a few thousand copies before anyone caught on, well you'd be S.O.L. I'd imagine that the damages you'd be responsible for would depend in some way on the number of copies that made it out the door. But I don't see any reason why a developer ought to be able to conduct a sort of clawback to cover their own ass if they let something out the door that they shouldn't have.
      - fierarul 16y ago
  - jcl 16y ago
    Of course, there's nothing stopping the developer from releasing an update that makes the free app less functional/desirable. As far as I know, the only way to tell what an update will be like without installing it is to look for App Market comments from disgruntled users who have installed the update. And you cannot return to a previous version of the application once an update is installed. Several of the useful free apps that I have installed later became annoying, ad-supported ones.
augustl 16y ago
This poses an interesting question. What's worse for Google: media claiming "Android is unsafe: Google refuses to remove malicious software" or raging users?
- ugh 16y ago
  I don’t know. For me this is very obvious proof that you can have all the freedom of Android and all the supposed security of Apple’s app store all in once. It makes it harder for Apple to argue for their model without looking stupid.
bzajax 16y ago
So, after it's too late, we'll remove the app to make it seem like nothing bad really happened.
- jokermatt999 16y ago
  "If an application is removed in this way, users will receive a notification on their phone." And honestly, you're trying to spin the removal of malicious apps as something bad? Really now?
  - norswap 16y ago
    They can remove things, that is the point. Today something bad is malicious software. Tomorrow it will perhaps be depiction of two men kissing or political satire as seen on the iphone, who knows ?
    - masklinn 16y ago
      > Today something bad is malicious software. Or it might be, it happens that it isn't: > These applications intentionally misrepresented their purpose in order to encourage user downloads, but they were not designed to be used maliciously, and did not have permission to access private data — or system resources beyond permission.INTERNET.
      - norswap 16y ago
        I can read good sir, but I wasn't talking about that. I do think the application they removed was pretty useless (the experiment it was designed for seemed to be over). What they said is that they removed it in order to test their system, which, according to them, will be used to remove malicious software. So what's labeled at bad is malicious software. And if I am wrong and the experiment wasn't over, then it just makes my point as it is already (in some meanings of the term) abusive :)
    - jcl 16y ago
      The Android Market has a list of content that is not allowed, including an ambiguous "any material not suitable for persons under 18". And since applications are not individually screened for content, we will see a number of them revoked via this mechanism. http://www.android.com/market/terms/developer-content-policy.html http://www.android.com/market/terms/developer-content-policy... However, note that, unlike the iPhone, Android allows you to install apps from other sources besides the App Market -- sources which are not limited by Google's content policy.
protomyth 16y ago
My big question about the ability to remove apps from phones, is if a malicious party will be able to impersonate Google and send the "kill" signal?
emilam 16y ago
This reminds me of when Amazon removed 1984 and Animal Farm from their users' kindles. It seemed to just piss users off, and is kind of a scary feature.
nuxi7 16y ago
Here is more info from the security researcher who wrote the app that got removed: http://jon.oberheide.org/blog/2010/06/25/remote-kill-and-install-on-google-android/ http://jon.oberheide.org/blog/2010/06/25/remote-kill-and-ins...

51 points by jamesbritt 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

joubert 16y ago
Can't one patch Android to disable this "feature"?
- vetinari 16y ago
  No need to patch Android. This is a "feature" of Google Market and it works only with apps installed via Market. If you installed your apk manually, it will not touch it.

fierarul 16y ago

Is this also available to developers ? For example, I would like to know I could remove remotely one of my applications if I wanted to.

nuclear_eclipse 16y ago
Even as a developer, I hope to God that is never available to anyone but Google. If I've downloaded a free app, and the developer decides he wants money instead, I don't want him having the power to forcibly uninstall the free app from my phone as "incentive" to buy the paid version. I could probably imagine other malicious uses of that feature if you need more proof that it's a bad idea.
- fierarul 16y ago
  What if, for example, I include by mistake confidential information that I am forced by law not to disclose, or media I don't have the proper copyright for? For example, I make a statistical financial simulator for Android and by mistake the build includes my test data which is from some big bank ? Being able to pull the plug on that build would be really nice -- because I'm pretty sure nobody at Google would care to help you with that. Or, I might do an audio player and I'm including some music whose copyright expired in the rest of the world, but not in US. Indeed it might do more harm than good that normal developers have the right to do this, but if you assume developers are responsible about it, it might be a good thing. For example, Google could supervise this or charge a flat fee, etc.
  - nuclear_eclipse 16y ago
    Or don't include sensitive data in your test set or build system. If you include something in a release that you should not have included, then you are responsible full stop, and a revocation system is not a solution. This sort of functionality should not be used to fix developer mistakes; you can't do this sort of thing with desktop applications either, and once again, for good reason. Even if Google initiates a mass revocation, that doesn't mean the application is no longer in the wild. Users who want to exploit your mistake could just as easily do one ogf the following: - Disconnect their phone from a data connection or wifi signal - Dump their current ROM/data to a backup image using a 3rd party bootloader - Extract the .apk from the phone using root access, using an app like Titanium Backup - Install the .apk from a source other than the Market, so that the revocation system will ignore it Google's mass-revocation system only "works" because it is designed to remove malicious applications from the phones of unsuspecting users. If you make sensitive data public, it becomes public data, period; there's no going back.
    - fierarul 16y ago
      Well, it was just an example and >If you make sensitive data public, it becomes public data, period; there's no going back. this is true, but it sure would be nice to do damage control no ?
  - Kadin 16y ago
    Why should we treat the situation differently just because you distributed the application electronically, versus shipping it in the traditional/literal sense on CD-Rom or floppies? If you wrote an application that contained (say) code that wasn't yours, and shipped a few thousand copies before anyone caught on, well you'd be S.O.L. I'd imagine that the damages you'd be responsible for would depend in some way on the number of copies that made it out the door. But I don't see any reason why a developer ought to be able to conduct a sort of clawback to cover their own ass if they let something out the door that they shouldn't have.
    - fierarul 16y ago
- jcl 16y ago
  Of course, there's nothing stopping the developer from releasing an update that makes the free app less functional/desirable. As far as I know, the only way to tell what an update will be like without installing it is to look for App Market comments from disgruntled users who have installed the update. And you cannot return to a previous version of the application once an update is installed. Several of the useful free apps that I have installed later became annoying, ad-supported ones.

augustl 16y ago

This poses an interesting question. What's worse for Google: media claiming "Android is unsafe: Google refuses to remove malicious software" or raging users?

ugh 16y ago
I don’t know. For me this is very obvious proof that you can have all the freedom of Android and all the supposed security of Apple’s app store all in once. It makes it harder for Apple to argue for their model without looking stupid.

bzajax 16y ago

So, after it's too late, we'll remove the app to make it seem like nothing bad really happened.

jokermatt999 16y ago
"If an application is removed in this way, users will receive a notification on their phone." And honestly, you're trying to spin the removal of malicious apps as something bad? Really now?
- norswap 16y ago
  They can remove things, that is the point. Today something bad is malicious software. Tomorrow it will perhaps be depiction of two men kissing or political satire as seen on the iphone, who knows ?
  - masklinn 16y ago
    > Today something bad is malicious software. Or it might be, it happens that it isn't: > These applications intentionally misrepresented their purpose in order to encourage user downloads, but they were not designed to be used maliciously, and did not have permission to access private data — or system resources beyond permission.INTERNET.
    - norswap 16y ago
      I can read good sir, but I wasn't talking about that. I do think the application they removed was pretty useless (the experiment it was designed for seemed to be over). What they said is that they removed it in order to test their system, which, according to them, will be used to remove malicious software. So what's labeled at bad is malicious software. And if I am wrong and the experiment wasn't over, then it just makes my point as it is already (in some meanings of the term) abusive :)
  - jcl 16y ago
    The Android Market has a list of content that is not allowed, including an ambiguous "any material not suitable for persons under 18". And since applications are not individually screened for content, we will see a number of them revoked via this mechanism. http://www.android.com/market/terms/developer-content-policy.html http://www.android.com/market/terms/developer-content-policy... However, note that, unlike the iPhone, Android allows you to install apps from other sources besides the App Market -- sources which are not limited by Google's content policy.

protomyth 16y ago

My big question about the ability to remove apps from phones, is if a malicious party will be able to impersonate Google and send the "kill" signal?

emilam 16y ago

This reminds me of when Amazon removed 1984 and Animal Farm from their users' kindles. It seemed to just piss users off, and is kind of a scary feature.

nuxi7 16y ago

Here is more info from the security researcher who wrote the app that got removed: http://jon.oberheide.org/blog/2010/06/25/remote-kill-and-install-on-google-android/ http://jon.oberheide.org/blog/2010/06/25/remote-kill-and-ins...