8 ms·

Remote code execution is least of the worries on Android. Today I downloaded an app and I read their privacy policy. They will read my browser , all the package

Remote code execution is least of the worries on Android. Today I downloaded an app and I read their privacy policy. They will read my browser , all the packages installed on my phone and my precise geolocation. Why did they need those permission just to show you ads. People don't really read terms and conditions. You can get pretty much any information from users because they reading is inconvenient.

hrjet 12y ago
Leave aside, terms and conditions. These days, the Play-Store doesn't even show all the permissions requested by an app! The Internet permission, arguably one of the critical ones, doesn't even register!
- allegory 12y ago
  I am prompted to review the permissions when I install an app and when it is upgraded if anything changes. I don't expect it to show me in tje store itself as I understand that it is defined by a manifest in the APK.
  - scintill76 12y ago
    Why is the technical manifest APK implementation relevant to why you don't expect to see it in the store? Google have the APK, it's not like they can't look and tell you what it says.
    - allegory 12y ago
      Because its a shit ton of metadata and it only makes sense to compare permissions when they know what version you already have which the device is better at doing.
  - hrjet 12y ago
    I was talking about the prompt itself. It now doesn't show all the permissions [1]. Quoting: "These days, apps typically access the Internet, so network communication permissions including the “full Internet access” permission have been moved out of the primary permissions screen." [1]: https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/6014972?p=app_permissions&rd=1 https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/6014972?p=app_p...
praptak 12y ago
It's the Android permissions model. You have to grant all or nothing, at installation, unmodifiable later, with no explanation why.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- pja 12y ago
  Which is the sole reason I install CyanogenMod - to regain control over what apps can do with my phone. It's not just "techie" people that have these concerns - my wife insisted that one of the criteria for her new phone be that a CM build be available for exactly the same reason.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    You don't need to install CM, just root the device and install XPrivacy. You can open very small holes without having to grant full permissions (e.g. read file /sdcard/xxxx instead of read/write to the whole sdcard)
    - eli 12y ago
      If you made XPrivacy easy to install and use, I think you could sell it for decent money. It's frankly too much of a hassle for me.
    - pja 12y ago
      XPrivacy has two main problems: 1) A terrible, terrible User Interface. As a connoisseur & past perpetrator of bad UIs I know one when I see one & the XPrivacy UI is awful. The gui of the App itself is obtuse, consisting of an enormous laundry list of Android API function calls with no clear explanation of what impact they have on the user's data. Meanwhile, the prompts shown to the user when an App asks for access to a resource which is marked as requiring a prompt to the user are atrocious: Now you have to decide whether or not to allow some opaque Android function call but you'd better decide quickly because there's a timer running out on the screen in front of you: If you don't decide before the timer runs out then the App will get one-time access to that resource. Did I mention that this is a terrible UI? It could be the poster child of UIs written by software engineers for people that are exactly like them. 2) It's not actually secure. Because it injects code into the address space of the target App, an App that is "XPrivacy aware" can overwrite that code with it's own code and eliminate the protections that XPrivacy claims to provide. (Technically the App has to load a binary library in order to do this, but many Apps need binary libraries so the user is likely to give permission to issue a loadLibrary() call & once that's happened all the XPrivacy guarantees are dead letters.) XPrivacy also requires the entire XPosed framework to be installed & I'm not entirely sure I trust that either. I doubt it's ever been audited by a security professional of any stripe. IMO, you get a much stronger privacy guarantee from either CyanogenMod or one of the other Android forks that build on the AppOp API that Google inadvertently shipped with previous Android versions.
allegory 12y ago
This. I was going to install a torch app and it wanted access to my contacts and call history?!?! Took a while but I found one that just needed camera access (to activate the LED). Not all apps are completely evil but the majority appear to be.
- rrtwo 12y ago
  Care to share which App you found for the flash light, by chance looking for one too :)
  - allegory 12y ago
    'Nexus Torch'. It says nexus but it works fine on my Moto G after an initial warning on first start up: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.cactii.flash https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.cactii.fla...
    - rrtwo 12y ago
      Thanks!
- donniezazen 12y ago
  That is what I am talking about. I downloaded a silly entertainment app. It has no need to my browser history, my geolocation and all the apps I have installed on my phone. But it still requires those permission to show me ads.
  - coldpie 12y ago
    Yeah. It would be really nice if stock android included the permissions editor thingy, where you can revoke permissions that applications claim to require. I know dumb users will use it to break stuff, but tuck it behind a secret code and four warning screens or something.
    - allegory 12y ago
DCKing 12y ago
1. There is an exploit that leaves complete control of your phone to anyone without you even having to look at the screen. 2. Some applications want to use too much permissions on your phone. You probably don't want to install them. And the second is a bigger problem? Really? Android is the most transparent and detailed about what applications can actually do on your phone from any such system I've ever seen. People make concious (stupid, but concious) decisions to still use apps and ignore the presented information. This exploit removes all control a user may have. By making this comparison in the first place, you are confusing the discussion already. Yes, Android can and should improve when it comes to user control. But this is a problem that leaves hundreds of millions devices exploitable even without depending on user ignorance. This exploit and the issue you mention are not even related.
- wzdd 12y ago
  In terms of impact right now, the app permissions thing is a much bigger problem, yes. People get scammed by apps every day, whereas this doesn't appear to be being exploited in the wild at all.
  - DCKing 12y ago
    That is not the point. Both are very serious issues. But one is a usability+curation problem, and this is an unpatched security exploit. Combining the discussion on these things in this thread is confusing and unhelpful to both issues.
  - localhorse 12y ago
    The biggest different is that (to some extent) this vulnerability requires no user intervention (at least not in an active capacity), whereas the app permissions issue is one where the user has actively chosen to accept something.
- aroch 12y ago
  >Android is the most transparent and detailed about what applications can actually do on your phone from any such system I've ever seen. Not anymore they're not [1][2], permissions now fall into large buckets. iOS is probably the best as far as privacy sensitive permissions go. You're prompted at request time instead of at install, so you know the context of why it needs a permission (like GPS or contacts). You can also revoke a permission after granting it. You can't do that in Android. [1] http://www.xda-developers.com/android/play-store-permissions-change-opens-door-to-rogue-apps/ http://www.xda-developers.com/android/play-store-permissions... [2] https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/6014972?p=app_permissions&rd=1 https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/6014972?p=app_p...
mvlad 12y ago
At least, in your case, you can opt not to download/install. You can read those terms and you can choose either to install or not. Yes, nobody does, but maybe it is time to do it. Let's not mix apples with oranges. Privacy will always be a issue when you want an ``enriched experience'' from that app (although in some cases, privacy it is just being abused from other malign or commercial value).
john_b 12y ago
I've been looking for a task-based alarm app (i.e. solve math problems before you can disable it) that doesn't require any more access than knowing whether or not I am currently in a call (to reduce or mute the alarm). So far, all the apps I have found require some combination of the following priveleges: - Identity - Wi-fi - Location - Photos/Media/Files - Camera/Microphone - Device & app history - In-app purchases - Device ID & call info Only the last is required (and only the "call info" part). I can't imagine anyone who would ever want an alarm app to track their location or have access to their identity information, but perhaps such people exist. I'd prefer no ads, so I'm willing to pay for a no-ads version. But ONLY if the app is not a power grab by the developer so that any conceivable monetization strategy is available to them in the future. If I can't find such an app I'll just have to use the built in Android alarm (which isn't task-based, sadly).

hrjet 12y ago

Leave aside, terms and conditions. These days, the Play-Store doesn't even show all the permissions requested by an app! The Internet permission, arguably one of the critical ones, doesn't even register!

allegory 12y ago
I am prompted to review the permissions when I install an app and when it is upgraded if anything changes. I don't expect it to show me in tje store itself as I understand that it is defined by a manifest in the APK.
- scintill76 12y ago
  Why is the technical manifest APK implementation relevant to why you don't expect to see it in the store? Google have the APK, it's not like they can't look and tell you what it says.
  - allegory 12y ago
    Because its a shit ton of metadata and it only makes sense to compare permissions when they know what version you already have which the device is better at doing.
- hrjet 12y ago
  I was talking about the prompt itself. It now doesn't show all the permissions [1]. Quoting: "These days, apps typically access the Internet, so network communication permissions including the “full Internet access” permission have been moved out of the primary permissions screen." [1]: https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/6014972?p=app_permissions&rd=1 https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/6014972?p=app_p...

praptak 12y ago

It's the Android permissions model. You have to grant all or nothing, at installation, unmodifiable later, with no explanation why.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
pja 12y ago
Which is the sole reason I install CyanogenMod - to regain control over what apps can do with my phone. It's not just "techie" people that have these concerns - my wife insisted that one of the criteria for her new phone be that a CM build be available for exactly the same reason.
- icebraining 12y ago
  You don't need to install CM, just root the device and install XPrivacy. You can open very small holes without having to grant full permissions (e.g. read file /sdcard/xxxx instead of read/write to the whole sdcard)
  - eli 12y ago
    If you made XPrivacy easy to install and use, I think you could sell it for decent money. It's frankly too much of a hassle for me.
  - pja 12y ago
    XPrivacy has two main problems: 1) A terrible, terrible User Interface. As a connoisseur & past perpetrator of bad UIs I know one when I see one & the XPrivacy UI is awful. The gui of the App itself is obtuse, consisting of an enormous laundry list of Android API function calls with no clear explanation of what impact they have on the user's data. Meanwhile, the prompts shown to the user when an App asks for access to a resource which is marked as requiring a prompt to the user are atrocious: Now you have to decide whether or not to allow some opaque Android function call but you'd better decide quickly because there's a timer running out on the screen in front of you: If you don't decide before the timer runs out then the App will get one-time access to that resource. Did I mention that this is a terrible UI? It could be the poster child of UIs written by software engineers for people that are exactly like them. 2) It's not actually secure. Because it injects code into the address space of the target App, an App that is "XPrivacy aware" can overwrite that code with it's own code and eliminate the protections that XPrivacy claims to provide. (Technically the App has to load a binary library in order to do this, but many Apps need binary libraries so the user is likely to give permission to issue a loadLibrary() call & once that's happened all the XPrivacy guarantees are dead letters.) XPrivacy also requires the entire XPosed framework to be installed & I'm not entirely sure I trust that either. I doubt it's ever been audited by a security professional of any stripe. IMO, you get a much stronger privacy guarantee from either CyanogenMod or one of the other Android forks that build on the AppOp API that Google inadvertently shipped with previous Android versions.

allegory 12y ago

This. I was going to install a torch app and it wanted access to my contacts and call history?!?! Took a while but I found one that just needed camera access (to activate the LED). Not all apps are completely evil but the majority appear to be.

rrtwo 12y ago
Care to share which App you found for the flash light, by chance looking for one too :)
- allegory 12y ago
  'Nexus Torch'. It says nexus but it works fine on my Moto G after an initial warning on first start up: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.cactii.flash https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.cactii.fla...
  - rrtwo 12y ago
    Thanks!
donniezazen 12y ago
That is what I am talking about. I downloaded a silly entertainment app. It has no need to my browser history, my geolocation and all the apps I have installed on my phone. But it still requires those permission to show me ads.
- coldpie 12y ago
  Yeah. It would be really nice if stock android included the permissions editor thingy, where you can revoke permissions that applications claim to require. I know dumb users will use it to break stuff, but tuck it behind a secret code and four warning screens or something.
  - allegory 12y ago

DCKing 12y ago

1. There is an exploit that leaves complete control of your phone to anyone without you even having to look at the screen. 2. Some applications want to use too much permissions on your phone. You probably don't want to install them. And the second is a bigger problem? Really? Android is the most transparent and detailed about what applications can actually do on your phone from any such system I've ever seen. People make concious (stupid, but concious) decisions to still use apps and ignore the presented information. This exploit removes all control a user may have. By making this comparison in the first place, you are confusing the discussion already. Yes, Android can and should improve when it comes to user control. But this is a problem that leaves hundreds of millions devices exploitable even without depending on user ignorance. This exploit and the issue you mention are not even related.

wzdd 12y ago
In terms of impact right now, the app permissions thing is a much bigger problem, yes. People get scammed by apps every day, whereas this doesn't appear to be being exploited in the wild at all.
- DCKing 12y ago
  That is not the point. Both are very serious issues. But one is a usability+curation problem, and this is an unpatched security exploit. Combining the discussion on these things in this thread is confusing and unhelpful to both issues.
- localhorse 12y ago
  The biggest different is that (to some extent) this vulnerability requires no user intervention (at least not in an active capacity), whereas the app permissions issue is one where the user has actively chosen to accept something.
aroch 12y ago
>Android is the most transparent and detailed about what applications can actually do on your phone from any such system I've ever seen. Not anymore they're not [1][2], permissions now fall into large buckets. iOS is probably the best as far as privacy sensitive permissions go. You're prompted at request time instead of at install, so you know the context of why it needs a permission (like GPS or contacts). You can also revoke a permission after granting it. You can't do that in Android. [1] http://www.xda-developers.com/android/play-store-permissions-change-opens-door-to-rogue-apps/ http://www.xda-developers.com/android/play-store-permissions... [2] https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/6014972?p=app_permissions&rd=1 https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/6014972?p=app_p...

mvlad 12y ago

At least, in your case, you can opt not to download/install. You can read those terms and you can choose either to install or not. Yes, nobody does, but maybe it is time to do it. Let's not mix apples with oranges. Privacy will always be a issue when you want an ``enriched experience'' from that app (although in some cases, privacy it is just being abused from other malign or commercial value).

john_b 12y ago

I've been looking for a task-based alarm app (i.e. solve math problems before you can disable it) that doesn't require any more access than knowing whether or not I am currently in a call (to reduce or mute the alarm). So far, all the apps I have found require some combination of the following priveleges: - Identity - Wi-fi - Location - Photos/Media/Files - Camera/Microphone - Device & app history - In-app purchases - Device ID & call info Only the last is required (and only the "call info" part). I can't imagine anyone who would ever want an alarm app to track their location or have access to their identity information, but perhaps such people exist. I'd prefer no ads, so I'm willing to pay for a no-ads version. But ONLY if the app is not a power grab by the developer so that any conceivable monetization strategy is available to them in the future. If I can't find such an app I'll just have to use the built in Android alarm (which isn't task-based, sadly).