No, but continue thinking you’re safe, I guess.
I think you misunderstood what they were referring to as ISP's. They were not talking about consumer ISP's like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Etc.. They were talking about upstream service providers that provide data centers their network connections, providers like Level3. Also they typically are using fiber, not public airwaves. No they are not a monopoly and most data centers have several providers to prevent a single point of failure. They are however still regulated by the FCC and yes they are certainly subject to being taxed all the way down the food chain so to speak; which is why many data centers are located in states that don't have (or have low) additional state taxes like Texas.
The title of the article would indicate that the whole play store was infiltrated when it appears that there was only one app that has since been removed.
Yes, I’m sure you are the one who gets to decide what the arbitrary definition of “infiltrated” means, particularly when that’s explicitly what happened¡
DDOS usually attacks web servers. We have been affected on several occasions when we were in a shared colo-datacenter. We had a gamer company on the same firewall/router that we we're on. When some hackers went after the gamer company we got DDOS too. We used to have our own mini datacenter but we opted for the big data center bandwidth and security. As it turns out we had to abandon that program because of DDOS on our neighbors. We brought everything in-house again. A lot more expensive but no attacks for the last year or two. Neighborhood is an accurate analogy. Difference between living in the city and out in the suburbs.
When a data center gets attacked with DDOS they bring in the Cisco security team and try to identify the packet signature and set up an edge router rule to drop the request. This usually takes a couple hours. Once they have identified the packet they notify the upstream providers and start blocking it at the major peering points. Takes a long time and the damage is usually done by the time they get a handle on it.
I'm curious which DC you were colo'ed in. The experiences you mention seem like they didn't have a very well designed network or monitoring service. There are a few options DC's have to combat DDoS attacks and from your description the DC you used did none of them. Yes it's significantly more difficult to defend a DDoS attack to your servers IP's, but an attack on another server in the DC causing service interruptions for your server seems like a poorly managed data center. The first thing they can do is null route the IP(s) being attacked, which kills the service for those IP's but prevents the routers and switches from being overwhelmed causing issues with other servers.
Another option is to employ something like a RioRey (http://www.riorey.com/products-rg.html) that can handle the load of packet inspection to scrub the packets coming from a DDoS. This allows the servers being attacked to remain online (albeit with a slowed connection) rather than being null routed. Some data centers will send all traffic through this type of solution, others will develop a solution that will automate the process of routing specific addresses through an appliance when there are a large number of connections to that address. Also, not all data centers use Cisco routers/switches and a well designed network either automates this with the use of options like a RioRey or gives their system administrators tools to quickly mitigate the impact an attack will have on other clients.
Anyway, Just some food for thought incase you want to revisit collocating your servers in a DC at some point. In a well designed DC those rowdy neighbors shouldn't be impacting you for 3+ hours like you mentioned. I work at a DC (that I won't name or provide propaganda for) and we have several clients that regularly get attacked, everything from Game Services to Streaming music services, and while sometimes they have down time from an attack, our other clients do not.
Doom and gloom for all Android users¡ I'll refrain from a pointless discussion in semantics. While I appreciate awareness in situations like this, the FUD ad nauseam doesn't do much for me.
Probably missed someone mentioning this above, but the numbers above, bad as they are, are getting worse for Android, which was targeted by 97% of mobile malware apps last year (says F-Secure, amounting to 566 mal-apps, in comparison to 238 in 2012). While it notes there is a "relatively low" number of vulnerabilities in Android itself, this apparently doesn't really matter, since Android owners are pretty reliable in terms of side-loading "free" (and malware infected) versions of paid apps, allowing folks like the Dendroid makers an easy way in.
BTW, the other 3% of malware targeted...Symbian. Total number of malware apps targeting iOS, Blackberry, and Windows last year (at least according to F-Secure) was...
Bottom line, I suppose if you stick exclusively to the Google Play store, you'll probably be okay (although not always, as this article points out). But that kind of kills the "open vs walled garden" Android vs iOS argument, doesn't it?
If you never leave your house, you are statistically much less likely to get run over by a bus. Obviously people that leave their homes are at risk and nowhere near as safe as those who see the wisdom in remaining locked indoors.
Apple fans tend to want to blow any Android ill way out of proportion to reality. Android fans tend to do the same to all things Apple. Both are very secure overall, but have their flaws.
If you look at all they hyped up malware articles here, the general rule is they usually apply to a small subset of devices, and of those devices they actually apply to an even much smaller subset of people are affected, and of those affected an even smaller subset actually incur any harm.
When dealing with Android, an avid Apple fan such as EricTheHalfBee would be likely to argue that whether or not anyone actually incurs harm is irrelevant- it is clearly junk because the vulnerability is there. But would he apply the same standard to Apple? When there is a breach in iOS, the downside to the walled garden is everyone is the same and usually 100% of devices are affected. Consider the recent MITM attack vulnerability exposed on iOS devices. Way overblown by Android enthusiasts and poo-poo'd by Apple fans. But 100% of iOS users were at risk. By Eric's definition, regardless of whether actual harm can be shown, iOS is clearly 100% infected and completely unsafe! So which is worse, putting a spotlight on one case of software with malicious potential that in the end affected 50 users (but there are many such cases), or tens of millions of iOS users all being prone to MITM attacks?
Your answer is most likely to depend on which side of the Android or Apple side of the argument you choose to be on- if you've chosen a side. If avoiding Malware were difficult on either platform, people would stop using it.
Yeah, I think that for a significant number of people on both sides, the platform decision comes first, and remains, despite the relative malware risk. The plural of anecdote is not data, but as a Mac user I remember getting great gobs of infected emails from Windows users years ago (all entitled "I love you" awww- I had no idea that that contractor felt that way!) and although the worst security days of Windows have passed, our significantly sized company was still struggling with infections two years ago. On the Mac side, despite the absence of anti-viral software, I've never had a virus, nor has any Mac user I've known. Personal experience obviously, but I can tell you that no one- no one- in any IT I've ever worked with ever considered a different platform.
So it is with phones, I think - and again, probably on both sides. Nevertheless, I think the evidence that mobile malware _almost exclusively_ affects Android (perhaps through no fault of its own) is indisputable, and to deny that is being disingenuous to others (or oneself).