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 3

post #81 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. 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.
It's estimated that there were 1.2 billion (smart phones) users of mobile apps at the end of 2012 (1). It's also estimated that the annual growth rate is 29% (1). That suggests that there are approximately 1.548 billion phones at the end of 2013.

It is also estimated that the average smartphone user has downloaded and installed 26 apps (2). (Mashable suggests that number is 25.)

These numbers imply that there are approximately 40.248 billion installed apps world wide. If only .001% of installations are malware, there there must be 402,480 malware apps installed (40.248 billion X .00001) worldwide. Dividing by 26, that suggests there are only 15,480 affected users (on average)

Why are we worrying about 15.5 thousand users out of 1.5 billion?

Or, put another way, perhaps the infection rate is misleading...

Footnoted links:
(1) http://mobithinking.com/mobile-marketing-tools/latest-mobile-stats/e#appusers
(2) http://www.phonearena.com/news/The-average-global-smartphone-user-has-downloaded-26-apps_id47160
post #82 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post
 
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.

That cleared things up.

 

"Google’s security mechanisms have improved Android’s malware defenses and provided Ludwig a platform for collecting and analyzing data from over 1.5 billion app installs."

 

"The research presented by Ludwig includes the classification of the types of threats that are represented in a sample of the 1,200 potentially harmful apps"

 

"Google obtained convincing evidence that the rate of “potentially harmful apps” installed is stable at about 1,200 per million app installs, or about 0.12%."

 

"Verify Apps tracks each incident when a potentially hazardous app is flagged, when the user is warned, and when the user chooses to ignore the warning and installs the appWarnings are an effective deterrent to malwareOnly 0.12% of users chose to ignore the warnings and install potentially hazardous apps."

 

 

so let me try to summarize and tell me if I miss understood:

 

so our sample size is 1.5 B downloads (3% sample window of the 50B Google Play downloads as of last year) and analyzed those downloads for 1200 known malware apps.  This resulted in a 0.12% hit rate ( 1.8 million infections) and then after warning users about these known detected malware installs, the guys who took no action resulted in remaining 0.001% infection rate.   

 

Did I understand this correctly? Or do you have a different read on this?

"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 #83 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

It's estimated that there were 1.2 billion (smart phones) users of mobile apps at the end of 2012 (1). It's also estimated that the annual growth rate is 29% (1). That suggests that there are approximately 1.548 billion phones at the end of 2013.

It is also estimated that the average smartphone user has downloaded and installed 26 apps (2). (Mashable suggests that number is 25.)

These numbers imply that there are approximately 40.248 billion installed apps world wide. If only .001% of installations are malware, there there must be 402,480 malware apps installed (40.248 billion X .00001) worldwide. Dividing by 26, that suggests there are only 15,480 affected users (on average)

Why are we worrying about 15.5 thousand users out of 1.5 billion?

Or, put another way, perhaps the infection rate is misleading...

Footnoted links:
(1) http://mobithinking.com/mobile-marketing-tools/latest-mobile-stats/e#appusers
(2) http://www.phonearena.com/news/The-average-global-smartphone-user-has-downloaded-26-apps_id47160
You were doing kinda OK until you got to the "divide by 26" part. Why are you assume all 26 apps downloaded by 15K users were harmful so that no one else was affected? I ignored that you included all 1.5 billion phones in use as Android. But for the most part I'd agree that relatively few smartphone users have encountered malware.

I suspect you are another who didn't bother with reading the article I linked which explains how the claims were arrived at.

EDIT: This is where I first pointed out your error to you.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/8/14 at 7:03pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #84 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You were doing kinda OK until you got to the "divide by 26" part. Why are you assume all 26 apps downloaded by 15K users were harmful so that no one else was affected? I ignored that you included all 1.5 billion phones in use as Android. But for the most part I'd agree that relatively few smartphone users have encountered malware.

I suspect you are another who didn't bother with reading the article I linked which explains how the claims were arrived at.
If the average user has 26 apps, then one way of measuring the rate of infection across a user base is to divide by the number of infected apps. Nowhere do I assume all 26 apps were harmful. Just the opposite—only a fractional app for each user for purposes of averaging.

Nowhere did I presume to say that I was addressing only Android installations. I simply applied the quoted infection rate across the entire user base. Doing so only marginally increases the incidence of Android malware installs when iPhones are removed. Consider my numbers a best case.

I noted another user is quoting an infection rate of .12% and indicating that the .001% is the number of unresolved malware installations. If the .12% is correct, then my numbers increase by 120 times for the number of infections worldwide across all smartphones and perhaps 25% more across Android phones only (factoring out the iPhone).

Those are significant numbers not because of the number if unresolved infections but because if the number of days smartphones are infected before the malware is removed from an infected phone. The longer that period, the greater the potential damage (with the greatest damage coming int the first few days of infection).
post #85 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

That cleared things up.

so let me try to summarize and tell me if I miss understood:

so our sample size is 1.5 B downloads (3% sample window of the 50B Google Play downloads as of last year) and analyzed those downloads for 1200 known malware apps.  This resulted in a 0.12% hit rate ( 1.8 million infections) and then after warning users about these known detected malware installs, the guys who took no action resulted in remaining 0.001% infection rate.   

Did I understand this correctly? Or do you have a different read on this?

You're close SNova. The surveyed app installs didn't come from just Google Play. It included unofficial sources "out in the wild" (where malware rates would be naturally be higher than in the official Google Play store) but installed on Google Android smartphones.



The security paper and pertinent data was also given to attending security researchers for peer review. There have been no published disagreements with the data Google submitted AFAIK which should be a clear indication that Google's figures aren't being dismissed out of hand by security professionals.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/8/14 at 6:23pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #86 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

If the average user has 26 apps, then one way of measuring the rate of infection across a user base is to divide by the number if infected apps.

Nowhere did I presume to say that I was addressing only Android installations. I simply applied the quoted infection rate across the entire user base. Doing so only marginally increases the incidence of Android malware installs.

I noted another user is quoting an infection rate of .12% and indicating that the .001% is the number of unresolved malware installations. If the .12% is correct, then my numbers increase by 120 times for the number of infections worldwide across all smartphones and perhaps 25% more across Android phones only (factoring out the iPhone).

Those are significant numbers not because of the number if unresolved infections but because if the number of days smartphones are infected before the malware is removed from an infected phone. The longer that period, the greater the potential damage (with the greatest damage coming int the first few days of infection).

You're still taking 26 app infections and throwing them in a single users phone. You really should read the article I linked. Not sure why you're resisting doing so.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #87 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You're still taking 26 app infections and throwing them in a single users phone. You really should read the article I linked. Not sure why you're resisting doing so.
I did not say there were 26 app infections per user. I stated that again the second time. I said it was a fractional number per user.

But, since you are hung up on the number 26, let me clarify it once and for all.

The number 26 is the total average number of app installations per smartphone user having downloaded apps. That is 26 downloaded apps per phone, only a few of which, on average are infected.

Got it? 26 apps per phone and less that .3 infected per the average user.

I am not being difficult. I am trying to explain to you that your thought that I said there were 26 infected apps per phone is flat wrong.

"You're still taking 26 app infections and throwing them in a single users phone."

Those are your words. I never said that.
post #88 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

I did not say there were 26 app infections per user. I stated that again the second time. I said it was a fractional number per user.

But, since you are hung up on the number 26, let me clarify it once and for all.

The number 26 is the total average number of app installations per smartphone user having downloaded apps. That is 26 downloaded apps per phone, only a few of which, on average are infected.

Got it? 26 apps per phone and less that .3 infected per the average user.

I am not being difficult. I am trying to explain to you that your thought that I said there were 26 infected apps per phone is flat wrong.

"You're still taking 26 app infections and throwing them in a single users phone."

Those are your words. I never said that.

Here's your figures, and I quote:
"These numbers imply that there are approximately 40.248 billion installed apps world wide. If only .001% of installations are malware, there there must be 402,480 malware apps installed (40.248 billion X .00001) worldwide. Dividing by 26, that suggests there are only 15,480 affected users (on average)"

If you determined there must be 402,480 malware installations (for the sake of this argument I won't bother questioning that figure) why couldn't the distribution be only one in each of 402,480 smartphones and therefore affecting up to 402,480 individual users?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #89 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Here's your figures, and I quote:
"These numbers imply that there are approximately 40.248 billion installed apps world wide. If only .001% of installations are malware, there there must be 402,480 malware apps installed (40.248 billion X .00001) worldwide. Dividing by 26, that suggests there are only 15,480 affected users (on average)"

If you determined there must be 402,480 malware installations (for the sake of this argument I won't bother questioning that figure) why couldn't the distribution be only one in each of 402,480 smartphones and therefore affecting up to 402,480 individual users?
You really need to go back and read my entire post and NOT post out of context.

I'm go into quote the entire original post. I will bold the crucial contextual part that you are ignoring.

"It's estimated that there were 1.2 billion (smart phones) users of mobile apps at the end of 2012 (1). It's also estimated that the annual growth rate is 29% (1). That suggests that there are approximately 1.548 billion phones at the end of 2013.

It is also estimated that the average smartphone user has downloaded and installed 26 apps (2). (Mashable suggests that number is 25.)

These numbers imply that there are approximately 40.248 billion installed apps world wide. If only .001% of installations are malware, there there must be 402,480 malware apps installed (40.248 billion X .00001) worldwide. Dividing by 26, that suggests there are only 15,480 affected users (on average)

Why are we worrying about 15.5 thousand users out of 1.5 billion?

Or, put another way, perhaps the infection rate is misleading...

Footnoted links:
(1) http://mobithinking.com/mobile-marketing-tools/latest-mobile-stats/e#appusers
(2) http://www.phonearena.com/news/The-average-global-smartphone-user-has-downloaded-26-apps_id47160"

I even provided a link, which you also did not bother to read.

Please note: the bold paragraph end says "installed" not "affected" apps.

Now, your responses have become increasingly insulting despite the fact that I have been polite and adamant in restating what I said and in correcting what you attributed to me. I do not appreciate it. At all. But, I will not stoop to the internet LCD and insult you back.

However, I will point out that, if you continue to stand on your assertion that I said there were 26 infected apps per phone, you will have seriously damaged your reputation on this site by trying to intimidate and insult others, particularly when you were obviously wrong.

The ball is in your court sir.

I will add that, per my later post, if there were .12% of app installations with malware (not the .001% you originally suggested) then the number is considerably larger. The upper bound would be one infected app per user. The lower bound would be the needed number of user who have completely loaded malware.

Of course, I also pointed out that another user indicated that .001% is the number of unresolved malware installations. The actual number will lie between 400k or so and 15 k. Neither number is particularly large.

The real concern, as I noted, is the number of malware installations period as those oh unfixed for one or more days.
Edited by macaholic_1948 - 4/8/14 at 6:49pm
post #90 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

You really need to go back and read my entire post and NOT post out of context.

I'm go into quote the entire original post. I will bold the crucial contextual part that you are ignoring.

"It's estimated that there were 1.2 billion (smart phones) users of mobile apps at the end of 2012 (1). It's also estimated that the annual growth rate is 29% (1). That suggests that there are approximately 1.548 billion phones at the end of 2013.

It is also estimated that the average smartphone user has downloaded and installed 26 apps (2). (Mashable suggests that number is 25.)

These numbers imply that there are approximately 40.248 billion installed apps world wide. If only .001% of installations are malware, there there must be 402,480 malware apps installed (40.248 billion X .00001) worldwide. Dividing by 26, that suggests there are only 15,480 affected users (on average)

Why are we worrying about 15.5 thousand users out of 1.5 billion?

Or, put another way, perhaps the infection rate is misleading...

Footnoted links:
(1) http://mobithinking.com/mobile-marketing-tools/latest-mobile-stats/e#appusers
(2) http://www.phonearena.com/news/The-average-global-smartphone-user-has-downloaded-26-apps_id47160"

I even provided a link, which you also did not bother to read.

Please note: the bold paragraph end says "installed" not "affected" apps.

Now, your responses have become increasingly insulting despite the fact that I have been polite and adamant in restating what I said and in correcting what you attributed to me. I do not appreciate it. At all. But, I will not stoop to the internet LCD and insult you back.

However, I will point out that, if you continue to stand on your assertion that I said there were 26 infected apps per phone, you will have seriously damaged your reputation on this site by trying to intimidate and insult others, particularly when you were obviously wrong.

The ball is in your court sir.

How did you get from a possible 402,480 thousand individual infections (your number) which logically could be distributed among 402,480 smartphones and come up with 15,450 affected smartphone owners? By distributing 26 of those infected apps to each of 15,480 smartphones. You're not thinking clearly.

EDIT: I see from the added after-the-fact comment in your last post that you may finally be understanding where you made a wrong turn.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/8/14 at 6:57pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #91 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

How did you get from a possible 402,480 thousand individual infections (your number) which logically could be distributed among 402,480 smartphones and come up with 15,450 affected smartphone owners? By distributing 26 of those infected apps to each of 15,480 smartphones. You're not thinking clearly.
As I have subsequently pointed out, it's a lower bound (see edit to my previous post). I understand that part of your confusion.

Your response is still not adequate for the insult levels either.
post #92 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

How did you get from a possible 402,480 thousand individual infections (your number) which logically could be distributed among 402,480 smartphones and come up with 15,450 affected smartphone owners? By distributing 26 of those infected apps to each of 15,480 smartphones. You're not thinking clearly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

As I have subsequently pointed out, it's a lower bound (see edit to my previous post). I understand that part of your confusion.

Your response is still not adequate for the insult levels either.

Insults??? I very patiently and considerately explained where you made your error. It just took several attempts before you recognized your mistake. There were no insults involved on my part and that's not how I play here.

Go back to post #83. There's no insult in a mistake. We've all made 'em.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/8/14 at 7:10pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #93 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Insults??? I very patiently and considerately explained where you made your error. It just took several attempts before you recognized your mistake. There were no insults involved on my part. That's not how I play here.

Go back to post #83 and start from there.
Telling some what they did or did not do (e.g., "You really should read the article I linked.") and the instructing them on what to do is insulting.

"You're not thinking clearly." Is personal and insulting.
post #94 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

Telling some what they did or did not do (e.g., "You really should read the article I linked.") and the instructing them on what to do is insulting.
When you did just that same thing in post #89 I didn't consider it an insult. I took it as your assumption I must have missed some point you had made since I had not yet come around to your way of thinking.

Quote: "You really need to go back and read my entire post and NOT post out of context. I will bold the crucial contextual part that you are ignoring. . . I even provided a link, which you also did not bother to read."

Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

"You're not thinking clearly." Is personal and insulting.
You weren't thinking clearly as you've essentially admitted. That's not insulting your person, that's pointing out an erroneous thought. To your credit you figured out where you went wrong and modified your claim. That's just what I'd expect from myself. I don't take offense when I'm shown to be incorrect. I usually say "thank you" for pointing it out as a matter of fact.

So there's no need for you to take it personal at this point. You simply made an easy mistake just as I (and everyone else) have every once in awhile. My apologies if you've taken offense by having it pointed out. It's certainly never my intent.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/8/14 at 7:40pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #95 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You weren't thinking clearly as you've essentially admitted. That's not insulting your person, that's pointing out an erroneous thought. To your credit you figured out where you went wrong and modified your claim. That's just what I'd expect from myself. I don't take offense when I'm shown to be incorrect. I usually say "thank you" for pointing it out as a matter of fact.

So there's no need for you to take it personal at this point. You simply made an easy mistake just as I (and everyone else) have every once in awhile. My apologies if you've taken offense by having it pointed out. It's certainly never my intent.
I don't take offense at being told there is an error when it is done politely. Obviously, you have failed to note your first couple of posts failed to clearly frame the problem.
post #96 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

I don't take offense at being told there is an error when it is done politely. Obviously, you have failed to note your first couple of posts failed to clearly frame the problem.

Then I'll accept some blame for not explaining the details of the mistake more effectively. Again my apologies.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #97 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Then I'll accept some blame for not explaining the details of the mistake more effectively. Again my apologies.
Sorry. I don't think they are quite the same. Thanks for the apology.
post #98 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post
I noted another user is quoting an infection rate of .12% and indicating that the .001% is the number of unresolved malware installations. If the .12% is correct, then my numbers increase by 120 times for the number of infections worldwide across all smartphones and perhaps 25% more across Android phones only (factoring out the iPhone).
 

macaholic_1948,

as Gatorguy pointed out the .12% infection rate represents only the hit rate from 1200 known apps from outside of the Google Play store.  What we don't know is how many infected apps have been found in the Google Play store at any point in time.  Something I think which is not in Google's interest to reveal. Of course there is this whole realm of unidentified apps existance in App stores (any app store for that matter Android, iOS, Windows, Mac); no idea how we would determine this.  We can only speculate and I don't see how this article will help that debate. 

 

In short, I really don't know what to do with that 0.001% number or why anyone would even attempt to dispute it as does not have much usefulness.  If I understand it correctly,  It represents a number which is a subset, of a subset of a subset and is composed of the following:

a set of 1200 known "bad" apps that have been identified by Google which can only found outside of the Google Play store, searched for in a <3% sample of total Android app downloads for which users refuse to delete after being warned by Google. This yields our 0.001% figure.

 

if I have somehow misstated the summary of the data representing the 0.001% Google figure , please correct me. I'm trying my best to be objective.


Edited by snova - 4/8/14 at 9:23pm
"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 #99 of 114
Arguing that
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

macaholic_1948,
as Gatorguy pointed out the .12% infection rate represents only the hit rate from 1200 known apps from external to the Google Play store.  What we don't know is how many infected apps have been found in the Google Play store at any point in time.  Something I think which is not in Google interest to reveal. Of course there is this whole realm of unidentified apps existance in App stores (any app store for that matter Android, iOS, Windows, Mac); no idea how we would determine this.  We can only speculate and I don't see how this article will help that debate. 

In short, I really don't know what to do with that 0.001% number or why anyone would even attempt to dispute it as does not have much usefulness.  If I understand it correctly,  It represents a number which is a subset, of a subset of a subset and is composed of the following:
<3% of the total Android downloads, which can only found outside of the Google Play store from a set of 1200 known "bad" apps that have been identified by Google, for which users refuse to delete after being warned by Google. This yields our 0.001% figure.
Arguing an average or an estimate is wrong using a number that, itself, is inexact and comes from a different data set when there are no exact numbers known from an independent source?
post #100 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

Arguing that
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

macaholic_1948,
as Gatorguy pointed out the .12% infection rate represents only the hit rate from 1200 known apps from external to the Google Play store.  What we don't know is how many infected apps have been found in the Google Play store at any point in time.  Something I think which is not in Google interest to reveal. Of course there is this whole realm of unidentified apps existance in App stores (any app store for that matter Android, iOS, Windows, Mac); no idea how we would determine this.  We can only speculate and I don't see how this article will help that debate. 

In short, I really don't know what to do with that 0.001% number or why anyone would even attempt to dispute it as does not have much usefulness.  If I understand it correctly,  It represents a number which is a subset, of a subset of a subset and is composed of the following:
<3% of the total Android downloads, which can only found outside of the Google Play store from a set of 1200 known "bad" apps that have been identified by Google, for which users refuse to delete after being warned by Google. This yields our 0.001% figure.
Arguing an average or an estimate is wrong using a number that, itself, is inexact and comes from a different data set when there are no exact numbers known from an independent source?

perhaps... I think more importantly, I don't think this number tells us anything that has much value. At least not that I can figure out why it would be useful. I would think most consumers buying Android or iOS phones don't jailbreak or use third party stores other than OEM.

 

I guess it's nice of Google to scan third party stores downloads and tell users who hack their phones when Google thinks they have downloaded a sneaky app that is on Google's known blacklist. Better than not at all I guess for people that jailbreak; but for people who run their phone stock I am not sure I see any benefit unless Google starts blacklisting apps from their own store; something which was not discussed in this article nor applies to the 0.001 figure.


Edited by snova - 4/8/14 at 9:44pm
"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 #101 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

Telling some what they did or did not do (e.g., "You really should read the article I linked.") and the instructing them on what to do is insulting.

I have to admit,  I did not read the link at first and as a result Gatorguy rightly so told me to stop asking him annoying questions and just RTF Article.  It stung a little, but he was right. Reading it answered most of my questions and cleared things up.  

 

Gatorguy, 

my apologies to you.


Edited by snova - 4/8/14 at 9:45pm
"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 #102 of 114
I would be scared to do on-line banking with Android devices
post #103 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

Yet people are willing to pay four bucks for an app that changes a check mark, making it one of the top downloads.

If malware isn't the issue perhaps it's Android's poor performance which leads people to think they must have malware.
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 #104 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Yet people are willing to pay four bucks for an app that changes a check mark, making it one of the top downloads.

If malware isn't the issue perhaps it's Android's poor performance which leads people to think they must have malware.

That's a good point. If viruses are such a non-issue then why would enough Android users be willing to pay $4 for an antivirus app to get into the best selling paid apps, much less one from an untested app from an unknown vendor?

"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 #105 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post
 

This is just fucking Gold:

 

http://www.neowin.net/news/the-1-paid-app-in-the-google-playstore-virus-shield-is-a-complete-scam

 

Wow. I mean, wow. 

 

The fact that the maker was called 'Deviant Solutions' didn't set off any alarm bells either!

post #106 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

That's a good point. If viruses are such a non-issue then why would enough Android users be willing to pay $4 for an antivirus app to get into the best selling paid apps, much less one from an untested app from an unknown vendor?

Why are vitamins so popular?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #107 of 114
Perhaps the Virus shield developer really wanted to name it "The Most Useless App Ever". ..
But the the name was already taken. 1biggrin.gif

The is the epitome of truth in advertising. Gotta love it lol.gif
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.chris_economou.themostuselessappever
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #108 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


That's a good point. If viruses are such a non-issue then why would enough Android users be willing to pay $4 for an antivirus app to get into the best selling paid apps, much less one from an untested app from an unknown vendor?

This assumes that if viruses were a non-issue people would actually know that viruses are a non-issue. I think you overestimate how technically informed users are. If users were well-informed, they would stop wasting money on third-party antivirus software for Windows, and companies like McAfee would go under in no time. Windows viruses have been a non-issue since at least 7, and the rare malware that manages to leak through can be handled by Microsoft's free and resource-efficient Security Essentials software, which has actually been integrated into Windows 8. As another example, people continue to download third-party task managers despite them usually being counterproductive (http://www.howtogeek.com/127388/htg-explains-why-you-shouldnt-use-a-task-killer-on-android/).


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 4/9/14 at 6:39am
post #109 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Yet people are willing to pay four bucks for an app that changes a check mark, making it one of the top downloads.

If malware isn't the issue perhaps it's Android's poor performance which leads people to think they must have malware.

It's really no different from people who buy guns for 'protection'. Most have never been attacked, and odds are that they'll never be, but that doesn't stop them from spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars for the illusion that they're protected. If there's a perceived threat people will safeguard themselves from it regardless of how slim the odds. A perfect example is a anti virus app for iOS that I'm sure people have installed.

http://www.intego.com/mac-virus-barrier-ios
"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 #110 of 114
And three good rebuttals!

"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 #111 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
It's really no different from people who buy guns for 'protection'. Most have never been attacked, and odds are that they'll never be, but that doesn't stop them from spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars for the illusion that they're protected. If there's a perceived threat people will safeguard themselves from it regardless of how slim the odds. A perfect example is a anti virus app for iOS that I'm sure people have installed.

http://www.intego.com/mac-virus-barrier-ios

muscle cars used as commuter cars in the city

8+MP cameras from tiny sensors in smartphones

3/4 ton 4x4 Luxury Pickup trucks w/ leather interiors but w/ unprotected cargo beds (unscratched) riding on low profile tires

 

same kind of customers?

"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 #112 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Aiming for a target is not the same as hitting it.

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." — Arthur Schopenhauer"
post #113 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." — Arthur Schopenhauer"

I like that!

I've had my own, sloppily worded variation of that. "A brilliant mind can understand a concept that others can't understand, but a genius can explain that concept to others so that instantly understood." I think I'll start using Schopenhauer's quote from now on.

"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 #114 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." — Arthur Schopenhauer"

I like that!

I've had my own, sloppily worded variation of that. "A brilliant mind can understand a concept that others can't understand, but a genius can explain that concept to others so that instantly understood." I think I'll start using Schopenhauer's quote from now on.

I like yours as well! This Arthur Schopenhauer fella has a lot of them, many are lame though:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/arthur_schopenhauer.html

But on that page there are a couple that can be used on this site:

"The wise have always said the same things, and fools, who are the majority have always done just the opposite."
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