or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Mobile malware authors 'almost exclusively' focused on Android in 2013, says Symantec
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mobile malware authors 'almost exclusively' focused on Android in 2013, says Symantec - Page 2

post #41 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post

Having a false sense of security doesn't reduce the actual security of the system.  For example, a house with a security alarm that puts a sign up that says "This house is secured by XX" is no more secure than a house that has the same alarm system but doesn't put up that sign.

But a house with a real security system installed is more secure than a house where the installer did nothing but hang a fake cardboard alarm panel.
post #42 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post




Had to laugh at the reviews. If you are stupid enough to buy an Android phone, you are stupid enough to fall for a placebo app.

I can't agree with this comment at all.
  • There are numerous valid reasons why one would choose an Android-based device.
  • Stupidity (and intelligence) is rampant everywhere.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #43 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by JupiterOne View Post


But a house with a real security system installed is more secure than a house where the installer did nothing but hang a fake cardboard alarm panel.

 

Yes but installing the app in question didn't remove any existing security protocols. The actual security of the system is still the same as it was before and after the app was installed.  

post #44 of 114

So, despite everything we've been told, here is a group of developers that prefer to code for Android over iOS. This is because it's so much harder to create their projects on iOS. Apple...doomed...

 

I rather like iOS's security model  ;)

OS X and iOS user

Reply

OS X and iOS user

Reply
post #45 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

According to the most recent real data the rate of actual malware infection from Google Play apps is only .001% which is probably not far off from Apple's App Store.
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Google-says-less-than-.001-of-Android-malware-evades-Google-Play-security-to-cause-harm_id47960

 

If you click through, you find that the "most recent real data" in the link comes exclusively from Google, who (quelle surprise!) concludes that there is no Android malware problem. And if there is, it's not their fault.

post #46 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post

If you click through, you find that the "most recent real data" in the link comes exclusively from Google

Well of course it does. They're the only one's who factually know. 1rolleyes.gif
That's why you never see infection rates quoted by any of the anti-virus companies. They'd just be guessing. Instead they use phrases like "targeting Android" "focused on Android" or "written for Android", none of which means successfully attacked Android. It does make for a good piece of FUD tho and sells a few copies of AV apps.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/8/14 at 1:24pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #47 of 114

These sort of articles always bring out the defenders refusing to believe there is a problem.

 

So Android doesn't have freemium java programs?

 

The only straw they can grasp at when trying to tar iOS with the same brush.

 

Four bucks to change a check mark.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #48 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

These sort of articles always bring out the defenders refusing to believe there is a problem.

So Android doesn't have freemium java programs?

Dunno. Do they? Or are you just referring to stuff like free Google Play games with in-app purchases? FWIW I've always considered free iOS or Android games that need in-app purchases to play a bit on the dishonest side.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/8/14 at 1:34pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #49 of 114

...to follow up on the post above, F-Secure (a third-party who is neither Google nor Apple) reported last month that Android malware grew from 79% of all mobile malware in 2012 to 97% in 2013. 

 

They go on to say that only 5% of these were detected in the US - the third world (especially Saudia Arabia and India) were the major locations of malware detections. Nevertheless, 5% of 804 Android malware threats were identified in the US...which comes out to around 40 of the total.

 

But these folks also wanted to know what fraction of Android apps were malware, so they also looked at a sampling from various Android app stores, and found malware rates of up to 33%; four non-Google play stores in China were in the top ten, although their rates were below 10%.

 

In contrast, they found only 0.1% of US Google Play apps to be malware. That sounds like a pretty safe "walled garden", until you realize that Google claims to have 1 million apps in that store, which would thus presumably include around 1000 malware apps. Google says there were >25 billion apps downloaded from the Play store last year; 0.1% of that would exceed 25 million.

 

0.1% (from the F-Secure study) is also around 100 times higher than the malware rate Google claims (0.001%) in the article linked to above. Both are low numbers, until you multiply them times the number of users/downloads, or until your own phone gets infected.

 

By the way- the total number of 2013 malware threats from iOS and Windows Mobile combined in the F-Secure study was...

 

well, y0u kn0w.

post #50 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post

Having a false sense of security doesn't reduce the actual security of the system.  For example, a house with a security alarm that puts a sign up that says "This house is secured by XX" is no more secure than a house that has the same alarm system but doesn't put up that sign.

Well thieves will avoid the house with the sign. They'll attempt to break into the house without the sign before being scared off.
post #51 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post

...to follow up on the post above, F-Secure (a third-party who is neither Google nor Apple) reported last month that Android malware grew from 79% of all mobile malware in 2012 to 97% in 2013. 

They go on to say that only 5% of these were detected in the US - the third world (especially Saudia Arabia and India) were the major locations of malware detections. Nevertheless, 5% of 804 Android malware threats were identified in the US...which comes out to around 40 of the total.

But these folks also wanted to know what fraction of Android apps were malware, so they also looked at a sampling from various Android app stores, and found malware rates of up to 33%; four non-Google play stores in China were in the top ten, although their rates were below 10%.

In contrast, they found only 0.1% of US Google Play apps to be malware. That sounds like a pretty safe "walled garden", until you realize that Google claims to have 1 million apps in that store, which would thus presumably include around 1000 malware apps. Google says there were >25 billion apps downloaded from the Play store last year; 0.1% of that would exceed 25 million.

0.1% (from the F-Secure study) is also around 100 times higher than the malware rate Google claims (0.001%) in the article linked to above. Both are low numbers, until you multiply them times the number of users/downloads, or until your own phone gets infected.

By the way- the total number of 2013 malware threats from iOS and Windows Mobile combined in the F-Secure study was...

well, y0u kn0w.

I guess you don't leave your house for fear of a real infection.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #52 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post

...to follow up on the post above, F-Secure (a third-party who is neither Google nor Apple) reported last month that Android malware grew from 79% of all mobile malware in 2012 to 97% in 2013. 

They go on to say that only 5% of these were detected in the US - the third world (especially Saudia Arabia and India) were the major locations of malware detections. Nevertheless, 5% of 804 Android malware threats were identified in the US...which comes out to around 40 of the total.

But these folks also wanted to know what fraction of Android apps were malware, so they also looked at a sampling from various Android app stores, and found malware rates of up to 33%; four non-Google play stores in China were in the top ten, although their rates were below 10%.

In contrast, they found only 0.1% of US Google Play apps to be malware. That sounds like a pretty safe "walled garden", until you realize that Google claims to have 1 million apps in that store, which would thus presumably include around 1000 malware apps. Google says there were >25 billion apps downloaded from the Play store last year; 0.1% of that would exceed 25 million.

0.1% (from the F-Secure study) is also around 100 times higher than the malware rate Google claims (0.001%) in the article linked to above. Both are low numbers, until you multiply them times the number of users/downloads, or until your own phone gets infected.

By the way- the total number of 2013 malware threats from iOS and Windows Mobile combined in the F-Secure study was...

well, y0u kn0w.

Note that F-Secure does not claim numbers of harmed users or even that any of the supposed malware apps they "discovered" on Google Play actually caused any harm to users at all. Some may have. Or maybe they didn't. Again targeting is not the same as hitting the bullseye. You've made the additional and almost certainly erroneous assumption that the number of downloads for a highly-regarded, popular and established app and a sketchy new unrated one would be roughly equivalent in arriving at your 25 million count. Darn doubtful. By the way do you know the types of behavior F-Secure considers malware? You should look for their definition.

Google Android is not the malware-infested platform you and a few others would like to believe it is (for whatever reason). There are no hard numbers to support what you apparently are convinced of, that every Google Android user is under attack, their phones and tablets infested with lots of malicious apps and on a regular basis. It's a myth with no basis in reality. Sure there's malware. It exists for iOS, MAC and Windows too. It's not a runaway problem for Google Android despite dire warnings filled with doom and gloom from anti-virus companies.

IMO I don't think the level of malware infecting and harming users from Google Play is significantly higher than from Apple's App Store.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/8/14 at 2:22pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #53 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
There are numerous valid reasons why one would choose an Android-based device.

 

Someone alert the moderation staff, Soli's account appears to have been hacked.

post #54 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

Someone alert the moderation staff, Soli's account appears to have been hacked.

Not sure if your kidding or not but I don't recall ever making any blanket statement that Android had no utility anywhere or for any reason. I greatly prefer the UX of iOS and Mac OS X but Android and Windows have their strengths.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #55 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

Someone alert the moderation staff, Soli's account appears to have been hacked.

No, that's good ol' Soli alright.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #56 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

IMO I don't think the level of malware infecting and harming users from Google Play is significantly higher than from Apple's App Store.

 

Thank you for correcting my obviously erroneous published data with your personal opinion.

post #57 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Not sure if your kidding or not but I don't recall ever making any blanket statement that Android had no utility anywhere or for any reason. I greatly prefer the UX of iOS and Mac OS X but Android and Windows have their strengths.

 

Yup, just having some fun.  The post struck me as being very out of character from what I've seen, but it's one that I do happen to agree with.  :)

post #58 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

Yup, just having some fun.  The post struck me as being very out of character from what I've seen, but it's one that I do happen to agree with.  1smile.gif

In my defense I do go after pro-Apple contributors here whom I consider friends (and talk to outside this forum) who I feel make unfair comments.. and I expect them to do the same if they feel I make unfair comments.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #59 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post

Thank you for correcting my obviously erroneous published data calculations with your personal opinion facts.

Fixed it for you.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/8/14 at 3:16pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #60 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

Someone alert the moderation staff, Soli's account appears to have been hacked.

Even I would agree with his statement. I've consistently said Apple isn't trying to be all things to all people, nor should they. Most people would be very happy with Apple products, but there are plenty of valid reasons to choose something else. It's based on need and personal priorities. No company can be 100% of the market. And I laugh at people who claim that Apple ever was 100% of any market only to see that percentage decline ever since Android; that's a completely false argument. Apple didn't start with 100% marketshare, they started with zero.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #61 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

Yup, just having some fun.  The post struck me as being very out of character from what I've seen, but it's one that I do happen to agree with.  1smile.gif

It would have been out of character for Apple ][, but Soli isn't in the 'bash Android users' brigade. I've learned quite a bit from him because he actually takes the time to answer questions even the times I was being a bit of a jerk.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #62 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

What amazes me is that I always assumed the official Google Play Store itself was free of malware (or very nearly, comparable to Apple). So you're safe if you avoid third-party sources.

But apparently that was never true!

Follow the money: malware writers are doing this because it works.

Search for "android botnet" for a fun time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

hit rate for use of third party app stores would not make it worth their time to write malware.

According to the most recent real data the rate of actual malware infection from Google Play apps is only .001% which is probably not far off from Apple's App Store.
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Google-says-less-than-.001-of-Android-malware-evades-Google-Play-security-to-cause-harm_id47960

.001 /100 * number of apps * number of Android or iOS users who download it ?   I'm thinking that is still a heck of a lot of people affected. right?  

 

regardless, as I said above.  If the hit rate was low it would not make it worth their time to write malware.  Writing malware is business.  No opportunity, no money, no interest. Obviously, that's not the case. All it would take would be 1 popular app that gets downloaded a heck of a lot of time to make it worth while.  I think we can agree 1 is many many magnitudes smaller than .001%.  Yet if marketed correctly to go viral is enough. 


Edited by snova - 4/8/14 at 3:48pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #63 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Well thieves will avoid the house with the sign. They'll attempt to break into the house without the sign before being scared off.

 

Unfortunately malware doesn't check for a security sign before attempting to circumvent a system.

post #64 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I can't agree with this comment at all.
  • There are numerous valid reasons why one would choose an Android-based device.
  • Stupidity (and intelligence) is rampant everywhere.

There are numerous valid reasons why one would also choose BlackBerry and Windows Mobile.  For that matter, flip phones too. 


Edited by snova - 4/8/14 at 3:50pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #65 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

There are numerous valid reasons why one would also choose BlackBerry and Windows Mobile.  For that matter, flip phones too. 

not sure why you can't agree with Stupidity (and intelligence) is rampant everywhere. We got Intelligence and lack there of  (stupidity). What not to agree with here?  The glass is full, empty, partially full or partially empty.   I guess you could have no glass at all. 

I do agree with "stupidity and intelligence are rampant everywhere" which is why I made those two bulleted statements to counter the OP's blanket statement suggesting Android users are stupid.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #66 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

There are numerous valid reasons why one would also choose BlackBerry and Windows Mobile.  For that matter, flip phones too. 

not sure why you can't agree with Stupidity (and intelligence) is rampant everywhere. We got Intelligence and lack there of  (stupidity). What not to agree with here?  The glass is full, empty, partially full or partially empty.   I guess you could have no glass at all. 

I do agree with "stupidity and intelligence are rampant everywhere" which is why I made those two bulleted statements to counter the OP's blanket statement suggesting Android users are stupid.

yep. misread it. sorry.

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #67 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


According to the most recent real data the rate of actual malware infection from Google Play apps is only .001% which is probably not far off from Apple's App Store.

First off, .001% of millions of apps means thousands are getting through the process. So, with thousands getting through the likely of a regular Google store shopper downloading malware approaches 100%. This doesn't even factor in the natural gullibility of an Android device purchaser.

The last part of your supposition has no relationship to the first part and flies in the face of all published reports. It's interesting that even the non-Apple store for jail-broken iPhones has only had one malware app get through the system. Your statement is so full of holes as to call into question your basic credibility.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #68 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


According to the most recent real data the rate of actual malware infection from Google Play apps is only .001% which is probably not far off from Apple's App Store.

First off, .001% of millions of apps means thousands are getting through the process. So, with thousands getting through the likely of a regular Google store shopper downloading malware approaches 100%. This doesn't even factor in the natural gullibility of an Android device purchaser.

The last part of your supposition has no relationship to the first part and flies in the face of all published reports. It's interesting that even the non-Apple store for jail-broken iPhones has only had one malware app get through the system. Your statement is so full of holes as to call into question your basic credibility.

to be fair.  The .001% figure is Google's estimate of malware that they missed. Not Gatorguys.    Kind of an interesting estimate and makes me wonder what dark place they pulled it out of.  If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, is it counted? 

then again, same can be said for Mac OS X.  All it takes is 1, like the "Flashback".  If I was in the malware business, I would definately pick the market with the best opportunity for success.  Windows and Android would be at the top of the list. 


Edited by snova - 4/8/14 at 4:02pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #69 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post


First off, .001% of millions of apps means thousands are getting through the process. So, with thousands getting through the likely of a regular Google store shopper downloading malware approaches 100%. This doesn't even factor in the natural gullibility of an Android device purchaser.
 

 

Umm..  0.001% means 0.001% chance regardless of the number of apps - not "approaches 100%".  That's why it's a percentage.

post #70 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post


First off, .001% of millions of apps means thousands are getting through the process. So, with thousands getting through the likely of a regular Google store shopper downloading malware approaches 100%. This doesn't even factor in the natural gullibility of an Android device purchaser.
 

 

Umm..  0.001% means 0.001% chance regardless of the number of apps - not "approaches 100%".  That's why it's a percentage.

is that what percentage means. I could have sworn it meant parts per hundred.  So if I have an app store with 1 malware app in it (say as popular as Facebook or flappy bird) in terms of downloads per day, the chance it will infect someone is once every how often? 


Edited by snova - 4/8/14 at 4:12pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #71 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post
 

is that what percentage means. I could have sworn it meant parts per hundred.  So if I have an app store with 1 app in it, the chance it will infect someone is once every how often? 

 

To answer your question, the chance someone is in infected depends on whether it can circumvent the system.  Just because the single app contains malware does not mean it will bypass security protocols.

 

However, the situation Macky the Mack presented is different than yours.  He's saying there are thousands of malware containing apps in the play store based on 0,001% of some x millions of apps.  And because there are thousands of these apps in the store, the likelihood of them being downloaded nears 100% because there are "thousands" of them.  It's thousands out of millions of apps, so the chance of encountering a malware app is still 0.001% even though there are "thousands" of malware containing apps in the store.

 

edit: And no, it's not parts per hundred.  It's parts per population (or sample size).

post #72 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post
 

is that what percentage means. I could have sworn it meant parts per hundred.  So if I have an app store with 1 app in it, the chance it will infect someone is once every how often? 

 

To answer your question, the chance someone is in infected depends on whether it can circumvent the system.  Just because the single app contains malware does not mean it will bypass security protocols.

 

However, the situation Macky the Mack presented is different than yours.  He's saying there are thousands of malware containing apps in the play store based on 0,001% of some x millions of apps.  And because there are thousands of these apps in the store, the likelihood of them being downloaded nears 100% because there are "thousands" of them.  It's thousands out of millions of apps, so the chance of encountering a malware app is still 0.001% even though there are "thousands" of malware containing apps in the store.

 

edit: And no, it's not parts per hundred.  It's parts per population (or sample size).

Percent sign[edit]

Main article: percent sign

The word "percent" is derived from the Latin per centum meaning "by the hundred".[2] The percent sign evolved by gradual contraction of the Italian term per cento, meaning "for a hundred". The "per" was often abbreviated as "p." and eventually disappeared entirely. The "cento" was contracted to two circles separated by a horizontal line from which the modern "%" is derived.[3]

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #73 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post

edit: And no, it's not parts per hundred.  It's parts per population (or sample size).

Percent does indeed mean per hundred. Cent is 100 as in century, so per 'cent' means per hundred.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #74 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post
 

Percent sign[edit]

Main article: percent sign

The word "percent" is derived from the Latin per centum meaning "by the hundred".[2] The percent sign evolved by gradual contraction of the Italian term per cento, meaning "for a hundred". The "per" was often abbreviated as "p." and eventually disappeared entirely. The "cento" was contracted to two circles separated by a horizontal line from which the modern "%" is derived.[3]

 

Yes I retract my statement. I thought about it some more and by definition it's parts per hundred.  

post #75 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post

Yes I retract my statement. I thought about it some more and by definition it's parts per hundred.  

It's actually self defining. lol.gif
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #76 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


It's actually self defining. lol.gif

 

Yes, it's self defining but is only because someone defined it that way, ;)

post #77 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

First off, .001% of millions of apps means thousands are getting through the process. So, with thousands getting through the likely of a regular Google store shopper downloading malware approaches 100%. This doesn't even factor in the natural gullibility of an Android device purchaser.

It's not .001 percent of apps may cause harm, it's .001 percent of app installations. 1 in every 100,000 downloads is unlikely to see the average user ever affected and certainly not 100% of them. If you're curious and want to know how apps originating outside of Google Play affect the rate of harm it does rise. . . to .12%. Double the figures if you think Google is lying and it's still a tiny amount.
http://qz.com/131436/contrary-to-what-youve-heard-android-is-almost-impenetrable-to-malware/

As for only a single instance of an iPhone app with malware I'm not going to get into that and distract from what we were already discussing, but a 5 minute search found more than a single instance just at Cydia (there are other unofficial app sources for iPhones too), some very recently.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #78 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It's not .001 percent of apps may cause harm, it's .001 percent of app installations

sorry, but this still does not make much sense. Why does it matter how many times an app is downloaded.  If you download the same app w/o malware present 100,000 times you expect to get a malware in one of those times? If you download an app with malware present just once, you don't expect to be infected?  What kind of funny math is this? 

 

 Wouldn't these percentage numbers be based on if the malware was linked to popular downloaded or not and if it was ever detected to be counted correctly? Sorry, but sounds like someone is trying way too hard to come up with a convoluted equation out of a dark place trying to come up with a equation that could yield a favorable result.    Meanwhile, someone is getting rich writing malware for mobile devices.

 

as I said before. All it takes is 1 popular app with undetected malware, downloaded a billion times to throw this .001% figure out the window. 


Edited by snova - 4/8/14 at 5:06pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #79 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

sorry, but this still does not make much sense. Why does it matter how many times an app is downloaded.  If you download the same app w/o malware present 100,000 times you expect to get a malware in one of those times? If you download an app with malware present just once, you don't expect to be infected?  What kind of funny math is this? 

 Wouldn't these percentage numbers be based on if the malware was linked to popular downloaded or not and if it was ever detected to be counted correctly? Sorry, but sounds like someone is trying way to hard to come up with a convoluted equation out of a dark place trying to come up with a meaningful equation.   Meanwhile, someone is getting rich writing malware for mobile devices.

I'm sorry but I've no idea what you're saying so I don't really have a response other than a suggestion for you to read the article I previously linked. Perhaps that might help answer your questions. From your tone I don't think you've actually read it yet.
http://qz.com/131436/contrary-to-what-youve-heard-android-is-almost-impenetrable-to-malware/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #80 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

sorry, but this still does not make much sense. Why does it matter how many times an app is downloaded.  If you download the same app w/o malware present 100,000 times you expect to get a malware in one of those times? If you download an app with malware present just once, you don't expect to be infected?  What kind of funny math is this? 

 Wouldn't these percentage numbers be based on if the malware was linked to popular downloaded or not and if it was ever detected to be counted correctly? Sorry, but sounds like someone is trying way to hard to come up with a convoluted equation out of a dark place trying to come up with a meaningful equation.   Meanwhile, someone is getting rich writing malware for mobile devices.

I'm sorry but I've no idea what you're saying so I don't really have a response other than a suggestion for you to read the article I previously linked. Perhaps that might help answer your questions. From your tone I don't think you've actually read it yet.
http://qz.com/131436/contrary-to-what-youve-heard-android-is-almost-impenetrable-to-malware/

ok. will do. thanks.

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Mobile malware authors 'almost exclusively' focused on Android in 2013, says Symantec