5 ms·

so what were the security permissions requested by this app at the time of installation? i have to imagine that if it was taking web browsing history that it w

by there 16y ago

so what were the security permissions requested by this app at the time of installation? i have to imagine that if it was taking web browsing history that it would have needed more permissions than just "uses network data". android's fine-grained security permissions, where the author has to explicitly request each type (network use, prevent the screen from turning off, etc.) and the user is shown the list of permissions requested before installing, is good from a security standpoint, but i think it's ended up being like windows vista. users either don't read, don't care, or don't understand what is being asked of them and they just click whatever is needed to continue. even an advanced user can't tell the difference between a free app requesting network access to download advertisements and a malicious one using it to upload private information.

jsz0 16y ago
It's a rarity to see any Android app that doesn't require half a dozen different permissions. I just installed the Google Maps update and it requires 9 including the ability to read my phone call logs (??)
- there 16y ago
  maybe on-demand permission requests would be better for many of those things, like apple ios does when an app requests your location. if i did something in google maps and it popped up a dialog asking for access to my call logs, i would certainly deny it, but i just did that update this morning and didn't even notice anything about it accessing my call logs.
  - masklinn 16y ago
    > maybe on-demand permission requests would be better for many of those things, like apple ios does when an app requests your location. Wouldn't change much, 95% of users would still go WANNA USE APPLICATION, DISMISS MEAN BOX NOW
    - elliottkember 16y ago
      Cancel or allow?
      - masklinn 16y ago
        Cancel doesn't give them APPLICATION NOW, so it's just training them to reflex-click allow. It's a pavlovian reaction: Cancel -> no application; Allow -> application. If they launched the application, they probably want to see what's in it.
- TeHCrAzY 16y ago
  The google apps are an outlier in my experience so far. They tend to ask for many indepth permissions. Most apps just want full network access (for ad's) and sometimes phone call state/sdcard access etc.
maxjg 16y ago
Just out of curiosity, when an android app is updated, how are permissions handled? Do you receive a prompt to allow new privileges, or does it assume you approve of it already? You bring up an astute point on the vague "network access" permission, but there's really not an easy answer to this. How would you fix it? Ask the developer to simply say what the access will be used for? In an malicious app, they'd obviously just lie. Short of actually displaying what data an app is sending, I don't see an easy answer.
- eli 16y ago
  Yes, if an update requires new permissions, it must be explicitly approved again and cannot be auto-updated.
- there 16y ago
  froyo (finally) has an automatic update feature, so most apps update on their own. i have noticed a few that say they require manual updating, but i didn't know if it was due to a download failure or if it was for a changed set of permissions. it does show you the full permission list again before updating manually. How would you fix it? Ask the developer to simply say what the access will be used for? In an malicious app, they'd obviously just lie. Short of actually displaying what data an app is sending, I don't see an easy answer. maybe show a list of domains it's allowed to resolve/contact? i guess that wouldn't make it any easier for most users to decipher though. i think a lot of free apps require network access just to download ads; maybe there is a better way (in the android api) of handling that to segment it away from full-blown network access? maybe have a set of permissions common to each category? it's expected that a web browser app has access to do a lot of things, but if you have an app in a wallpaper category that requires those same set of permissions, it should be raising a red flag somewhere. perhaps apple's app review process wasn't so crazy after all...
- papertiger 16y ago
  Maybe treating any ad network component as a "sub-app" with separate permissions would make it more obvious when a request for network access is unwarranted. As to how something like that might be implemented... I have no idea. I suspect people would ignore it anyway.
shirtless_coder 16y ago
And it DID request more than that. The thing is, that these wannabes like to paint themselves as "security experts", so they conceal facts and tell the story to the masses of non-techie users and scare them. Then, they sell a bogus security app.
- guelo 16y ago
  If a wallpaper app requests access to your contacts and millions of users install it anyways that is a flaw in Android's security model. After a while you become conditioned to just hitting Install without even looking at the permissions being requested. Just because users are lazy or even stupid is not an excuse for leaving them vulnerable.
  - zmmmmm 16y ago
    I agree it's a flaw. I do think it is better than iOS but it is still a huge problem. It is one of simultaneously too much and too little granularity. If you provide too much granularity it overwhelms users, while if you provide too little it forces people to approve too wide a scope. For example, the music app I just installed wants access to the phone state and identity. At first I baulked and said WTF does a music app need that for? And of course, the answer is it wants to make the music quieter / pause when a call comes in. But to do that it needs access to the identity of my phone because that seems to be lumped into the same bucket as the "state" of my phone. It also needs internet access because it wants to download album art. So these completely innocuous features also mean it could be tracking my location and reporting it to the web. How do I tell an evil app from a good one? I don't know - all I do is read the comments. I think Android needs to make the model richer while also streamlining certain sets of permissions into standard profiles that people can understand. For example, the set of minimal permissions to support ads in an app should be simply presented as "to present location based ads", not a set of 5 permissions that overwhelm people. This should in turn be honed by Google into a minimal set of permissions internally so that an app that just wants to present ads can't actually track me and report my location to arbitrary web sites. I hope Google is thinking about this stuff. I think it's in a reasonable state at the moment if it is just on a development curve. If this is how Google thinks it should stay then it is not enough and is going to become a serious problem.
orangecat 16y ago
users either don't read, don't care, or don't understand what is being asked of them and they just click whatever is needed to continue. True. That's sort of ok as long as advanced users can tell when something fishy is going on and flag the app. even an advanced user can't tell the difference between a free app requesting network access to download advertisements and a malicious one using it to upload private information. Also true. The Internet and SD card permissions are all-or-nothing, and therefore essentially useless. Apps should be able to declare that they only contact specific hosts or access specific directories, and there should be a standardized directory for per-app storage, like "Application Support" on OS X.
- flatulent1 16y ago
  It's really not even safe to have an app without strong credentials and audit trail bringing in ads. There's no protection against objectionable ads, or those doing things like taking advantage of Flash vulnerabilities etc. Isn't the Apple approach to host the ads themselves? While app developers still get data access, at least there's a healthy isolation between the client and the advertiser. Apple can certainly provide things like basic client stats and direct ads appropriately based on location. The Windows anti-virus / anti-spyware model is too flawed to be trusted. It's like having a bouncer at the door of a party that keeps out offenders from previous parties. The default is to trust everything else, so every zero day attack can get through. Defaulting to not trusting things and only allowing what's known okay would be far more effective. If apps had to request all net connections through IPs stored at Apple/Google etc, the potential to direct to some hostile developer or botnet would be greatly reduced. Although the plans may be for video and other high bandwidth content streaming, that huge server city Apple is building could certainly host any static non-generic content apps need, and perhaps be a proxy for much of the rest (news sites etc). Google certainly has the infrastructure to do something similar. Granted Google is better set to do that on a global level. Even advanced users can be tricked if granting access for something trivial opens the gates to something nasty. At least on a consumer device it makes sense to protect users from themselves. Limiting hosts and local directories is certainly prudent.
cludwin 16y ago
Again since the article doesn't mention which app was malicious it's hard to say but when I looked up the wallpaper apps developed by "jackeey,wallpaper" I see the apps requiring the following permissions: android.permission.ACCESS_COARSE_LOCATION android.permission.ACCESS_NETWORK_STATE android.permission.INTERNET android.permission.READ_PHONE_STATE android.permission.SET_WALLPAPER android.permission.WRITE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE It seems strange for a wallpaper app to require internet access.
- Tichy 16y ago
  I must admit I didn't know that READ_PHONE_STATE includes browsing history. But I don't know what is the message shown to the user. I have decided to not install apps that ask for too much several times. Maybe another way to categorize the security rights is needed.
- Zak 16y ago
  A wallpaper app is likely to need the ability to download new wallpapers. I'm not sure why it would need your location though.
  - tvon 16y ago
    It wouldn't need it, but it could be used to find wallpapers relevant to your location (photos).

by there 16y ago

jsz0 16y ago

It's a rarity to see any Android app that doesn't require half a dozen different permissions. I just installed the Google Maps update and it requires 9 including the ability to read my phone call logs (??)

there 16y ago
maybe on-demand permission requests would be better for many of those things, like apple ios does when an app requests your location. if i did something in google maps and it popped up a dialog asking for access to my call logs, i would certainly deny it, but i just did that update this morning and didn't even notice anything about it accessing my call logs.
- masklinn 16y ago
  > maybe on-demand permission requests would be better for many of those things, like apple ios does when an app requests your location. Wouldn't change much, 95% of users would still go WANNA USE APPLICATION, DISMISS MEAN BOX NOW
  - elliottkember 16y ago
    Cancel or allow?
    - masklinn 16y ago
      Cancel doesn't give them APPLICATION NOW, so it's just training them to reflex-click allow. It's a pavlovian reaction: Cancel -> no application; Allow -> application. If they launched the application, they probably want to see what's in it.
TeHCrAzY 16y ago
The google apps are an outlier in my experience so far. They tend to ask for many indepth permissions. Most apps just want full network access (for ad's) and sometimes phone call state/sdcard access etc.

maxjg 16y ago

Just out of curiosity, when an android app is updated, how are permissions handled? Do you receive a prompt to allow new privileges, or does it assume you approve of it already? You bring up an astute point on the vague "network access" permission, but there's really not an easy answer to this. How would you fix it? Ask the developer to simply say what the access will be used for? In an malicious app, they'd obviously just lie. Short of actually displaying what data an app is sending, I don't see an easy answer.

eli 16y ago
Yes, if an update requires new permissions, it must be explicitly approved again and cannot be auto-updated.
there 16y ago
froyo (finally) has an automatic update feature, so most apps update on their own. i have noticed a few that say they require manual updating, but i didn't know if it was due to a download failure or if it was for a changed set of permissions. it does show you the full permission list again before updating manually. How would you fix it? Ask the developer to simply say what the access will be used for? In an malicious app, they'd obviously just lie. Short of actually displaying what data an app is sending, I don't see an easy answer. maybe show a list of domains it's allowed to resolve/contact? i guess that wouldn't make it any easier for most users to decipher though. i think a lot of free apps require network access just to download ads; maybe there is a better way (in the android api) of handling that to segment it away from full-blown network access? maybe have a set of permissions common to each category? it's expected that a web browser app has access to do a lot of things, but if you have an app in a wallpaper category that requires those same set of permissions, it should be raising a red flag somewhere. perhaps apple's app review process wasn't so crazy after all...
papertiger 16y ago
Maybe treating any ad network component as a "sub-app" with separate permissions would make it more obvious when a request for network access is unwarranted. As to how something like that might be implemented... I have no idea. I suspect people would ignore it anyway.

shirtless_coder 16y ago

And it DID request more than that. The thing is, that these wannabes like to paint themselves as "security experts", so they conceal facts and tell the story to the masses of non-techie users and scare them. Then, they sell a bogus security app.

guelo 16y ago
If a wallpaper app requests access to your contacts and millions of users install it anyways that is a flaw in Android's security model. After a while you become conditioned to just hitting Install without even looking at the permissions being requested. Just because users are lazy or even stupid is not an excuse for leaving them vulnerable.
- zmmmmm 16y ago
  I agree it's a flaw. I do think it is better than iOS but it is still a huge problem. It is one of simultaneously too much and too little granularity. If you provide too much granularity it overwhelms users, while if you provide too little it forces people to approve too wide a scope. For example, the music app I just installed wants access to the phone state and identity. At first I baulked and said WTF does a music app need that for? And of course, the answer is it wants to make the music quieter / pause when a call comes in. But to do that it needs access to the identity of my phone because that seems to be lumped into the same bucket as the "state" of my phone. It also needs internet access because it wants to download album art. So these completely innocuous features also mean it could be tracking my location and reporting it to the web. How do I tell an evil app from a good one? I don't know - all I do is read the comments. I think Android needs to make the model richer while also streamlining certain sets of permissions into standard profiles that people can understand. For example, the set of minimal permissions to support ads in an app should be simply presented as "to present location based ads", not a set of 5 permissions that overwhelm people. This should in turn be honed by Google into a minimal set of permissions internally so that an app that just wants to present ads can't actually track me and report my location to arbitrary web sites. I hope Google is thinking about this stuff. I think it's in a reasonable state at the moment if it is just on a development curve. If this is how Google thinks it should stay then it is not enough and is going to become a serious problem.

orangecat 16y ago

users either don't read, don't care, or don't understand what is being asked of them and they just click whatever is needed to continue. True. That's sort of ok as long as advanced users can tell when something fishy is going on and flag the app. even an advanced user can't tell the difference between a free app requesting network access to download advertisements and a malicious one using it to upload private information. Also true. The Internet and SD card permissions are all-or-nothing, and therefore essentially useless. Apps should be able to declare that they only contact specific hosts or access specific directories, and there should be a standardized directory for per-app storage, like "Application Support" on OS X.

flatulent1 16y ago
It's really not even safe to have an app without strong credentials and audit trail bringing in ads. There's no protection against objectionable ads, or those doing things like taking advantage of Flash vulnerabilities etc. Isn't the Apple approach to host the ads themselves? While app developers still get data access, at least there's a healthy isolation between the client and the advertiser. Apple can certainly provide things like basic client stats and direct ads appropriately based on location. The Windows anti-virus / anti-spyware model is too flawed to be trusted. It's like having a bouncer at the door of a party that keeps out offenders from previous parties. The default is to trust everything else, so every zero day attack can get through. Defaulting to not trusting things and only allowing what's known okay would be far more effective. If apps had to request all net connections through IPs stored at Apple/Google etc, the potential to direct to some hostile developer or botnet would be greatly reduced. Although the plans may be for video and other high bandwidth content streaming, that huge server city Apple is building could certainly host any static non-generic content apps need, and perhaps be a proxy for much of the rest (news sites etc). Google certainly has the infrastructure to do something similar. Granted Google is better set to do that on a global level. Even advanced users can be tricked if granting access for something trivial opens the gates to something nasty. At least on a consumer device it makes sense to protect users from themselves. Limiting hosts and local directories is certainly prudent.

cludwin 16y ago

Again since the article doesn't mention which app was malicious it's hard to say but when I looked up the wallpaper apps developed by "jackeey,wallpaper" I see the apps requiring the following permissions: android.permission.ACCESS_COARSE_LOCATION android.permission.ACCESS_NETWORK_STATE android.permission.INTERNET android.permission.READ_PHONE_STATE android.permission.SET_WALLPAPER android.permission.WRITE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE It seems strange for a wallpaper app to require internet access.

Tichy 16y ago
I must admit I didn't know that READ_PHONE_STATE includes browsing history. But I don't know what is the message shown to the user. I have decided to not install apps that ask for too much several times. Maybe another way to categorize the security rights is needed.
Zak 16y ago
A wallpaper app is likely to need the ability to download new wallpapers. I'm not sure why it would need your location though.
- tvon 16y ago
  It wouldn't need it, but it could be used to find wallpapers relevant to your location (photos).