5 ms·

You couldn't be more wrong and, unfortunately, I don't have the karma yet to enable downvoting :-). Easy example as long as we're on the topic, the Chrome brows

by dguido 14y ago

You couldn't be more wrong and, unfortunately, I don't have the karma yet to enable downvoting :-). Easy example as long as we're on the topic, the Chrome browser or ChromeOS. I can think of a dozen things that could be done to Android to both mitigate against current threats and exploited weaknesses and either not interfere with or improve user experience. Unfortunately, we are long past the point where fundamental architecture changes can be made to Android. We are stuck with a system that allows execution of downloaded code at runtime, that never updates, and that blames the user for security problems. Android would have been wise to adopt some of the best security decisions from iOS.

rdl 14y ago
I think Google can fix many of the security issues with Android, even at the cost of breaking compatibility. They will presumably try to merge Android and ChromeOS, and taking more of the ChromeOS security model on tablet/PC-form-factor devices makes sense.
msutherl 14y ago
The usability of the browser is severely hampered by the security requirements. For one, it necessitates running code downloaded from the web in a sandbox, which prevents it from interacting with the rest of the computer in a meaningful way except through narrow channels designed painstakingly by committee. The web would be a much more interesting place if we could hook up arbitrary peripherals. It's holding back the entire world from developing better computer interfaces.
- oscargrouch 14y ago
  >The web would be a much more interesting place if we could hook up >arbitrary peripherals. It's holding back the entire world from developing >better computer interfaces. Im enginering something, that was a spinoff of this thougths.. i 've go an answer balancing the good parts of the web with the good parts of the app platforms.. plus some concepts of biological cells.. it may be a party for google, apple samsung and the like.. but we technological people are back to the nighmare that were the 90's.. with multiple platforms.. and thats the only reason browsers became popular.. even when we were loosing so much.. here we are into the nightmare again.. have to create things for multiple platforms :(
  - msutherl 14y ago
    I don't know Oscar :(
DanBC 14y ago
> I don't have the karma yet to enable downvoting :-) You can't downvote direct replies to your comments. :-)
corresation 14y ago
You manage to say a lot while saying absolutely nothing of value. That sounds harsh, but seriously thus far you've said that Andy Rubin is to blame for <something vague and unsubstantiated> because <something vague and unsubstantiated>, and Android has <some unstated fundamental security gap> versus <some other alternative>. I don't think I've ever read such an absolutely and completely unsupported comment chain that wasn't sitting deep in negative territory on HN. And seriously, the nonsense tweet by Schiller (who would have known that Apple would toss barbs Android's way?) is why you think Rubin moved on? Give me a break. Android has a deeply secure design that runs each process as isolated, low-privilege users, needing to request services after passing through fine grained permissions. Do you contest this? Architecturally Android is much more secure than iOS. The only issues remaining are getting security updates out quickly, though in actual practice this has proven to not be an actual problem (somehow people imagine that if a device is on Gingerbread that also means security patches can't be deployed, I guess having never worked in branched source control systems), and better vetting of the Play store (which will come. The Play store can be both vetted and agile/inclusive. They need to block the bullshit). Neither of this are the apocalyptic "that ship has sailed" nonsense that you are parading.
- dguido 14y ago
  I linked to our research page, right? http://www.trailofbits.com/resources/mobile_eip_2.pdf http://www.trailofbits.com/resources/mobile_eip_2.pdf http://techchannel.att.com/play-video.cfm/2013/1/8/Conference-TV-CSAW-THREADS-2012-iOS-Jailbreak-Analysis http://techchannel.att.com/play-video.cfm/2013/1/8/Conferenc... http://techchannel.att.com/play-video.cfm/2011/7/14/Conference-TV-SOURCE-Boston:-Attacker-Math-101 http://techchannel.att.com/play-video.cfm/2011/7/14/Conferen... If you think that Android has a "deeply secure design", than then you probably want to start at the top. Android sits somewhere between "gift to hackers" and "Windows XP". Phil Schiller's tweet was pointing out the consequences of this and how it shows up in successful attacks performed against the Android platform. F-Secure, even though they're an AV firm, does good work once in a while :-). http://www.f-secure.com/static/doc/labs_global/Research/Mobile%20Threat%20Report%20Q4%202012.pdf http://www.f-secure.com/static/doc/labs_global/Research/Mobi... EDIT: I'll give you a few hints. First, Android hasn't solved the updating problem. It's getting better but at far too slow a rate. Every day, hundreds of thousands more devices that takes month to years to patch are entering the market. Furthermore, poor patch management by OEMs and carriers mean that sometimes they think they've patched when they've really rolled back updates. They do this unknowingly because their software deployment processes are abysmal. See http://www.xray.io http://www.xray.io for more info. Second, Android exploit mitigations are very, very weak. It lacks code-signing, one of the strongest mitigations available (just go ask an iOS jailbreaker). Apps have access to a shell. The Linux kernel is full of infoleaks that make kernel ASLR nearly useless. App Permissions, though many people think they help with this problem, actually have nearly no effect whatsoever on the ability to root/jailbreak/privilege escalate on Android. This is what I meant by "blaming users" for security problems, since so many people fall back on "educating" people not to allow apps with certain permissions even though, ironically, it does nothing. End effect: even if Android could patch, rooters will write new exploits when they need them, as they need them. It's getting harder, but it's nowhere near where it needs to be and we're on version 4 now. Third, Bouncer has a severely limited ability to impact this problem. Due to the lack of code signing and the overall architecture of Android, Bouncer can't ensure that the app that it scans is the app that runs on the phone. Apps can dynamically update their own code at runtime. Bouncer appears to rely principally on dynamic, rather than static, verification leading to tricks you can play with timers and environment detection (these attacks have been proven). Further, what about third party appstores? There are dozens out there and you can't just say that they're all second-class (third?) citizens that deserve to get 0wned. 3rd-party appstores are supposed to be a key feature for Android, but they're unsupported entirely by these controls. If you wanted to develop a mobile/embedded platform to bring a new generation of users onto the web and into your customer base, you should have spent about 5 minutes figuring out how to do it without opening them up to harm. Android is the way it is because it wasn't believed these design features (aka safety) couldn't be included in the beginning.
ersii 14y ago
Please be humble, when you have the capability to down vote comments in the future and think of the humbleness from the HN Guidelines and this particular part: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names." (Albeit, you're not calling names - but threatening to down vote is a little bit uneasing.) Thank you.
- dguido 14y ago
  Sorry! It wasn't a threat, just pointing out my disagreement.

by dguido 14y ago

rdl 14y ago

I think Google can fix many of the security issues with Android, even at the cost of breaking compatibility. They will presumably try to merge Android and ChromeOS, and taking more of the ChromeOS security model on tablet/PC-form-factor devices makes sense.

msutherl 14y ago

The usability of the browser is severely hampered by the security requirements. For one, it necessitates running code downloaded from the web in a sandbox, which prevents it from interacting with the rest of the computer in a meaningful way except through narrow channels designed painstakingly by committee. The web would be a much more interesting place if we could hook up arbitrary peripherals. It's holding back the entire world from developing better computer interfaces.

oscargrouch 14y ago
>The web would be a much more interesting place if we could hook up >arbitrary peripherals. It's holding back the entire world from developing >better computer interfaces. Im enginering something, that was a spinoff of this thougths.. i 've go an answer balancing the good parts of the web with the good parts of the app platforms.. plus some concepts of biological cells.. it may be a party for google, apple samsung and the like.. but we technological people are back to the nighmare that were the 90's.. with multiple platforms.. and thats the only reason browsers became popular.. even when we were loosing so much.. here we are into the nightmare again.. have to create things for multiple platforms :(
- msutherl 14y ago
  I don't know Oscar :(

DanBC 14y ago

> I don't have the karma yet to enable downvoting :-) You can't downvote direct replies to your comments. :-)

corresation 14y ago

You manage to say a lot while saying absolutely nothing of value. That sounds harsh, but seriously thus far you've said that Andy Rubin is to blame for <something vague and unsubstantiated> because <something vague and unsubstantiated>, and Android has <some unstated fundamental security gap> versus <some other alternative>. I don't think I've ever read such an absolutely and completely unsupported comment chain that wasn't sitting deep in negative territory on HN. And seriously, the nonsense tweet by Schiller (who would have known that Apple would toss barbs Android's way?) is why you think Rubin moved on? Give me a break. Android has a deeply secure design that runs each process as isolated, low-privilege users, needing to request services after passing through fine grained permissions. Do you contest this? Architecturally Android is much more secure than iOS. The only issues remaining are getting security updates out quickly, though in actual practice this has proven to not be an actual problem (somehow people imagine that if a device is on Gingerbread that also means security patches can't be deployed, I guess having never worked in branched source control systems), and better vetting of the Play store (which will come. The Play store can be both vetted and agile/inclusive. They need to block the bullshit). Neither of this are the apocalyptic "that ship has sailed" nonsense that you are parading.

dguido 14y ago
I linked to our research page, right? http://www.trailofbits.com/resources/mobile_eip_2.pdf http://www.trailofbits.com/resources/mobile_eip_2.pdf http://techchannel.att.com/play-video.cfm/2013/1/8/Conference-TV-CSAW-THREADS-2012-iOS-Jailbreak-Analysis http://techchannel.att.com/play-video.cfm/2013/1/8/Conferenc... http://techchannel.att.com/play-video.cfm/2011/7/14/Conference-TV-SOURCE-Boston:-Attacker-Math-101 http://techchannel.att.com/play-video.cfm/2011/7/14/Conferen... If you think that Android has a "deeply secure design", than then you probably want to start at the top. Android sits somewhere between "gift to hackers" and "Windows XP". Phil Schiller's tweet was pointing out the consequences of this and how it shows up in successful attacks performed against the Android platform. F-Secure, even though they're an AV firm, does good work once in a while :-). http://www.f-secure.com/static/doc/labs_global/Research/Mobile%20Threat%20Report%20Q4%202012.pdf http://www.f-secure.com/static/doc/labs_global/Research/Mobi... EDIT: I'll give you a few hints. First, Android hasn't solved the updating problem. It's getting better but at far too slow a rate. Every day, hundreds of thousands more devices that takes month to years to patch are entering the market. Furthermore, poor patch management by OEMs and carriers mean that sometimes they think they've patched when they've really rolled back updates. They do this unknowingly because their software deployment processes are abysmal. See http://www.xray.io http://www.xray.io for more info. Second, Android exploit mitigations are very, very weak. It lacks code-signing, one of the strongest mitigations available (just go ask an iOS jailbreaker). Apps have access to a shell. The Linux kernel is full of infoleaks that make kernel ASLR nearly useless. App Permissions, though many people think they help with this problem, actually have nearly no effect whatsoever on the ability to root/jailbreak/privilege escalate on Android. This is what I meant by "blaming users" for security problems, since so many people fall back on "educating" people not to allow apps with certain permissions even though, ironically, it does nothing. End effect: even if Android could patch, rooters will write new exploits when they need them, as they need them. It's getting harder, but it's nowhere near where it needs to be and we're on version 4 now. Third, Bouncer has a severely limited ability to impact this problem. Due to the lack of code signing and the overall architecture of Android, Bouncer can't ensure that the app that it scans is the app that runs on the phone. Apps can dynamically update their own code at runtime. Bouncer appears to rely principally on dynamic, rather than static, verification leading to tricks you can play with timers and environment detection (these attacks have been proven). Further, what about third party appstores? There are dozens out there and you can't just say that they're all second-class (third?) citizens that deserve to get 0wned. 3rd-party appstores are supposed to be a key feature for Android, but they're unsupported entirely by these controls. If you wanted to develop a mobile/embedded platform to bring a new generation of users onto the web and into your customer base, you should have spent about 5 minutes figuring out how to do it without opening them up to harm. Android is the way it is because it wasn't believed these design features (aka safety) couldn't be included in the beginning.

ersii 14y ago

Please be humble, when you have the capability to down vote comments in the future and think of the humbleness from the HN Guidelines and this particular part: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names." (Albeit, you're not calling names - but threatening to down vote is a little bit uneasing.) Thank you.

dguido 14y ago
Sorry! It wasn't a threat, just pointing out my disagreement.