4 ms·

Related anecdote: I've recently had a banking app on my Android that would close itself after reporting that I had "Flappy Bird" installed on my phone and that

Related anecdote: I've recently had a banking app on my Android that would close itself after reporting that I had "Flappy Bird" installed on my phone and that it was malicious which of course isn't true. (It's the original authentic version of Flappy). That said, it is very eerie that the banking app would scan my phone for other apps. I didn't log in and uninstalled the app. It was either it or Flappy Bird.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
I find it more eerie that your (and probably mine) phone lets an app get that info at all. We wouldn't need to talk about privacy abuses if phones wouldn't let apps do all the shady stuff at the first place, and if privacy controls were better.
Jaygles 4y ago
In general that shouldn't be allowed. I believe on the latest versions of Android, both apps need to explicitly set which apps may have visibility of each-other. I think you can apply to Google to bless your app with visibility of all installed apps, but I think that's limited to things that need extra security. The banking app could qualify for that. https://developer.android.com/training/package-visibility https://developer.android.com/training/package-visibility
mormegil 4y ago
It is fairly common for banking apps to include various "RASP" (runtime application self protection) tools/libraries which scan for various syndromes of attacks, including whether the phone is rooted, any screen overlay is active, a debugger is active or a dangerous app is installed (e.g. a SMS stealer). See e.g. https://www.ibm.com/products/trusteer-mobile-sdk https://www.ibm.com/products/trusteer-mobile-sdk
laegooose 4y ago
I'm so confused. Why would banking app be against Flappy Bird?
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  Probably because there were many clones of it, that were im fact malicious. So collateral damage in trying to protect.
- btown 4y ago
  Very possibly just that it is an ID that is no longer on the App Store - in Flappy’s case because the developer was frustrated with the demands being placed on him by all of the app’s global users (it was a sad story at the time). But a security provider wouldn’t be wrong to assume that the majority of times an app is removed from the App Store it is because it was found by Apple to violate policy in some way - and why introduce the liability of having a whitelist for things like Flappy Bird?
- alias_neo 4y ago
  I think there was a time when it was popular to release clones with malware because everyone wanted to get their hands on it. The app is likely trying to protect itself from these clones.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

ajsnigrutin 4y ago

I find it more eerie that your (and probably mine) phone lets an app get that info at all. We wouldn't need to talk about privacy abuses if phones wouldn't let apps do all the shady stuff at the first place, and if privacy controls were better.

Jaygles 4y ago

In general that shouldn't be allowed. I believe on the latest versions of Android, both apps need to explicitly set which apps may have visibility of each-other. I think you can apply to Google to bless your app with visibility of all installed apps, but I think that's limited to things that need extra security. The banking app could qualify for that. https://developer.android.com/training/package-visibility https://developer.android.com/training/package-visibility

mormegil 4y ago

It is fairly common for banking apps to include various "RASP" (runtime application self protection) tools/libraries which scan for various syndromes of attacks, including whether the phone is rooted, any screen overlay is active, a debugger is active or a dangerous app is installed (e.g. a SMS stealer). See e.g. https://www.ibm.com/products/trusteer-mobile-sdk https://www.ibm.com/products/trusteer-mobile-sdk

laegooose 4y ago

I'm so confused. Why would banking app be against Flappy Bird?

hutzlibu 4y ago
Probably because there were many clones of it, that were im fact malicious. So collateral damage in trying to protect.
btown 4y ago
Very possibly just that it is an ID that is no longer on the App Store - in Flappy’s case because the developer was frustrated with the demands being placed on him by all of the app’s global users (it was a sad story at the time). But a security provider wouldn’t be wrong to assume that the majority of times an app is removed from the App Store it is because it was found by Apple to violate policy in some way - and why introduce the liability of having a whitelist for things like Flappy Bird?
alias_neo 4y ago
I think there was a time when it was popular to release clones with malware because everyone wanted to get their hands on it. The app is likely trying to protect itself from these clones.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]