These malware reports don't take into account a lot of things. First of all google has implemented multiple safeguards on android. One of them on the playstore is called bouncer which is a program able to detect malicious software. The second part is the steps that is required to install an app from an unknown source. Seriously it is a lot of stuff you have to do.
blah, blah, blah
"I can get free stuff, look at all the suckers locked into Apple's walled garden paying for their stuff"
So how many Android devices will be affected by "malware" according to Juniper's stats? One percent? 5%? 50%? Or is the problem really only Russia and China for the most part anyway and US/Western EU devices are highly unlikely to ever come in contact with any? What about Android owners who only use Google Play? Do only a few hundred malware cases emanate from there in a year or is it 10's of millions? Odd little story with scary percentages but not much in the way of real numbers.
So how many Android devices will be affected by "malware" according to Juniper's stats? One percent? 5%? 50%? Or is the problem really only Russia and China for the most part anyway and US/Western EU devices are highly unlikely to ever come in contact with any? What about Android owners who only use Google Play? Do only a few hundred malware cases emanate from there in a year or is it 10's of millions? Odd little story with scary percentages but not much in the way of real numbers.
My thoughts exactly. Without actual numbers, geography, and naming of specific malware and third-party app stores, this data is severely lacking in substance. It reads like it was written by an anti-virus company who wants to sell me their software.
The only part of the article that seemed to carry any weight in my mind was "Juniper also estimates that 77 percent of current Android threats could be eliminated if users were running the latest version of the platform."
To the best of my knowledge there isn't a current system to send out just security updates. I can understand not updating old hardware to the newest OS, but security patches should still be issued when needed. This system may not exist because there really hasn't been a major issue that needs addressing, but I'd prefer that Google, the Android manufacturers, and the cell phone companies be proactive about that instead of reactive.
So how many Android devices will be affected by "malware" according to Juniper's stats? One percent? 5%? 50%? Or is the problem really only Russia and China for the most part anyway and US/Western EU devices are highly unlikely to ever come in contact with any? What about Android owners who only use Google Play? Do only a few hundred malware cases emanate from there in a year or is it 10's of millions? Odd little story with scary percentages but not much in the way of real numbers.
What about the best selling Android tablet and the best selling Android handset maker using Amazon and Samsung Hub respectively?
How do they access these alternative to Play repositories?
My thoughts exactly. Without actual numbers, geography, and naming of specific malware and third-party app stores, this data is severely lacking in substance. It reads like it was written by an anti-virus company who wants to sell me their software.
The only part of the article that seemed to carry any weight in my mind was "Juniper also estimates that 77 percent of current Android threats could be eliminated if users were running the latest version of the platform."
To the best of my knowledge there isn't a current system to send out just security updates. I can understand not updating old hardware to the newest OS, but security patches should still be issued when needed. This system may not exist because there really hasn't been a major issue that needs addressing, but I'd prefer that Google, the Android manufacturers, and the cell phone companies be proactive about that instead of reactive.
For someone with "droid" in their username you sure aren't well informed about the differences between each version.
The ONLY secure version of Android is Jelly Bean. GB and earlier versions are terrible. Google attempted a fix with ICS, but it was a half-baked affair that meant nothing (think of locking your front door but leaving the key under the mat). You CANNOT fix an older version to plug these holes. They are an integral part of the core OS itself, and not something a patch could ever cure.
So how many Android devices will be affected by "malware" according to Juniper's stats? One percent? 5%? 50%? Or is the problem really only Russia and China for the most part anyway and US/Western EU devices are highly unlikely to ever come in contact with any? What about Android owners who only use Google Play? Do only a few hundred malware cases emanate from there in a year or is it 10's of millions? Odd little story with scary percentages but not much in the way of real numbers.
Irrelevant. You don't create malware "for fun" - you create it to steal information or generate revenue. The fact that these people continue to produce new versions of "viruses" for Android shows there's money to be made and/or data to be stolen. You don't invest that much in so many pieces of malware to get "a few hundred" users.
For someone with "droid" in their username you sure aren't well informed about the differences between each version.
The ONLY secure version of Android is Jelly Bean. GB and earlier versions are terrible. Google attempted a fix with ICS, but it was a half-baked affair that meant nothing (think of locking your front door but leaving the key under the mat). You CANNOT fix an older version to plug these holes. They are an integral part of the core OS itself, and not something a patch could ever cure.
What security issues in GB and ICS are you referring to that cannot be fixed with a security update?
<p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"><span id="user_docs-internal-guid-4ef0fe0e-8180-60ac-502d-ea78fd0ac3fc"><span style="font-family:Arial;background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline;">These malware reports don't take into account a lot of things. First of all google has implemented multiple safeguards on android. One of them on the playstore is called bouncer which is a program able to detect malicious software. The second part is the steps that is required to install an app from an unknown source. Seriously it is a lot of stuff you have to do.</span>
</span></p>
If users refuse to follow those steps, their OS is no longer open..
I don't see why there couldn't be a security patch for ASLR, but I certainly don't expect you to take the time to go into the fine details (feel free if you want to though because I love learning). Surely if it were a major concern a patch could be made instead of implementing things differently in the next full OS update, right?
That said, lets say that the ASLR issue truly can't be fixed thru a software update. I still believe that a security patch system for anything that may come up that is patchable could be beneficial so I'm not sure what your original point is.
Either way, thanks for responding with an actual issue. I enjoyed reading about ASLR and ROP attacks (yes, I'm strange like that).
The last statement on poster is the biggest crap since I've heard Microsoft saying: "oh, you know, but this version is very safe, almost bulletproof...."
THe least malware on latest version is logical: few are using it, when it become mainstream version, guns will be pointed at it.
Whatever they do with it, it will never be safe unless completely rewritten and apps sandboxed. Oh, but then fandroid morons can't claim anymore how "closed" Apple is ?!?
The last statement on poster is the biggest crap since I've heard Microsoft saying: "oh, you know, but this version is very safe, almost bulletproof...."
THe least malware on latest version is logical: few are using it, when it become mainstream version, guns will be pointed at it.
Whatever they do with it, it will never be safe unless completely rewritten and apps sandboxed. Oh, but then fandroid morons can't claim anymore how "closed" Apple is ?!?
So you're saying that the malware and viruses go where the most users are?
Jokes aside, I think the more logical explanation is that security issues arise in all operating systems. Newer versions of the operating systems address these concerns and put in safeguards and are therefore not vulnerable to those exploits.
So you're saying that the malware and viruses go where the most users are?
Jokes aside, I think the more logical explanation is that security issues arise in all operating systems. Newer versions of the operating systems address these concerns and put in safeguards and are therefore not vulnerable to those exploits.
Malware and viruses go there where the holes are the bigger and victims are in plenty.
There are tradeoffs made between iOS and Android, however the consensus on this forum seems to be that malware on android is a HUGE problem. The truth is that a small number of android devices have malware, and most of them got it from third party stores. A story saying that malware on android increased by X% isn't really news unless you know what the base number is. If ONE virus came out that attacked unjailbroken iOS devices, the percentage increase in malware would likely be infinite... Even if only a single phone got infected.
As for why someone would want an open and uncontrolled platform... I do. I'm moving away from iOS because I'm sick of Apple's "our way or the highway" attitude. I don't have unlimited faith in apple, and I think that apple's primary reason for doing anything is to make more money for themselves. I also don't appreciate the sentiment heard around here that Apple deserves money for every application that runs on iOS. That iOS is the reason people are buying a device, and that all further purchases need to go through apple. My phone is MY device, I should have the right to do what I want with it. I should be able to rent a movie from an amazon application if I want to, and there should be no reason apple would get a percentage of the profits for my doing this. A controlled platform can work okay when conflict of interests don't exist, but apple clearly has those. They want to monetize my device forever, and want to lock me in to their hardware. With Android, I can change to another manufacturer at a later date and use their hardware with my existing software. Sure, I'd have to continue to use android, but honestly, after switching from iOS to android, the differences are relatively minor. Unless you're a zealot about it, you can't really say one interface sucks and the other is far superior. They do things slightly differently, and they both borrow from each other. As far as ease of use goes, it's a tough call. As long as the play store is preinstalled on the android phone, they're pretty equal.
Phil
I agree you should stick with Android so that your choices aren't limited so that you can do as you please. I myself prefer Apple's walled garden approach and will stay with iOS and iPhone as it just works for me.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa
This is the primary reason I won't even look at the Android devices.
Look damn you, look...... mooooohhhwaaahaaaahaaaa!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung
These malware reports don't take into account a lot of things. First of all google has implemented multiple safeguards on android. One of them on the playstore is called bouncer which is a program able to detect malicious software. The second part is the steps that is required to install an app from an unknown source. Seriously it is a lot of stuff you have to do.
blah, blah, blah
"I can get free stuff, look at all the suckers locked into Apple's walled garden paying for their stuff"
Mindless click.
= $$$ for malware
/s
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
So how many Android devices will be affected by "malware" according to Juniper's stats? One percent? 5%? 50%? Or is the problem really only Russia and China for the most part anyway and US/Western EU devices are highly unlikely to ever come in contact with any? What about Android owners who only use Google Play? Do only a few hundred malware cases emanate from there in a year or is it 10's of millions? Odd little story with scary percentages but not much in the way of real numbers.
My thoughts exactly. Without actual numbers, geography, and naming of specific malware and third-party app stores, this data is severely lacking in substance. It reads like it was written by an anti-virus company who wants to sell me their software.
The only part of the article that seemed to carry any weight in my mind was "Juniper also estimates that 77 percent of current Android threats could be eliminated if users were running the latest version of the platform."
To the best of my knowledge there isn't a current system to send out just security updates. I can understand not updating old hardware to the newest OS, but security patches should still be issued when needed. This system may not exist because there really hasn't been a major issue that needs addressing, but I'd prefer that Google, the Android manufacturers, and the cell phone companies be proactive about that instead of reactive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
So how many Android devices will be affected by "malware" according to Juniper's stats? One percent? 5%? 50%? Or is the problem really only Russia and China for the most part anyway and US/Western EU devices are highly unlikely to ever come in contact with any? What about Android owners who only use Google Play? Do only a few hundred malware cases emanate from there in a year or is it 10's of millions? Odd little story with scary percentages but not much in the way of real numbers.
What about the best selling Android tablet and the best selling Android handset maker using Amazon and Samsung Hub respectively?
How do they access these alternative to Play repositories?
Does that not open them to anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW
My thoughts exactly. Without actual numbers, geography, and naming of specific malware and third-party app stores, this data is severely lacking in substance. It reads like it was written by an anti-virus company who wants to sell me their software.
The only part of the article that seemed to carry any weight in my mind was "Juniper also estimates that 77 percent of current Android threats could be eliminated if users were running the latest version of the platform."
To the best of my knowledge there isn't a current system to send out just security updates. I can understand not updating old hardware to the newest OS, but security patches should still be issued when needed. This system may not exist because there really hasn't been a major issue that needs addressing, but I'd prefer that Google, the Android manufacturers, and the cell phone companies be proactive about that instead of reactive.
For someone with "droid" in their username you sure aren't well informed about the differences between each version.
The ONLY secure version of Android is Jelly Bean. GB and earlier versions are terrible. Google attempted a fix with ICS, but it was a half-baked affair that meant nothing (think of locking your front door but leaving the key under the mat). You CANNOT fix an older version to plug these holes. They are an integral part of the core OS itself, and not something a patch could ever cure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
So how many Android devices will be affected by "malware" according to Juniper's stats? One percent? 5%? 50%? Or is the problem really only Russia and China for the most part anyway and US/Western EU devices are highly unlikely to ever come in contact with any? What about Android owners who only use Google Play? Do only a few hundred malware cases emanate from there in a year or is it 10's of millions? Odd little story with scary percentages but not much in the way of real numbers.
Irrelevant. You don't create malware "for fun" - you create it to steal information or generate revenue. The fact that these people continue to produce new versions of "viruses" for Android shows there's money to be made and/or data to be stolen. You don't invest that much in so many pieces of malware to get "a few hundred" users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
For someone with "droid" in their username you sure aren't well informed about the differences between each version.
The ONLY secure version of Android is Jelly Bean. GB and earlier versions are terrible. Google attempted a fix with ICS, but it was a half-baked affair that meant nothing (think of locking your front door but leaving the key under the mat). You CANNOT fix an older version to plug these holes. They are an integral part of the core OS itself, and not something a patch could ever cure.
What security issues in GB and ICS are you referring to that cannot be fixed with a security update?
If users refuse to follow those steps, their OS is no longer open..
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck
Stupidity accounts for 100% of malware installs.
-kpluck
Or just using the Google Play store...
http://bgr.com/2012/07/11/android-dropdialer-malware-google-play/
One of many many many such examples. I can't image the number of remote deletes Google has had to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW
What security issues in GB and ICS are you referring to that cannot be fixed with a security update?
ASLR for starters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
ASLR for starters.
I don't see why there couldn't be a security patch for ASLR, but I certainly don't expect you to take the time to go into the fine details (feel free if you want to though because I love learning). Surely if it were a major concern a patch could be made instead of implementing things differently in the next full OS update, right?
That said, lets say that the ASLR issue truly can't be fixed thru a software update. I still believe that a security patch system for anything that may come up that is patchable could be beneficial so I'm not sure what your original point is.
Either way, thanks for responding with an actual issue. I enjoyed reading about ASLR and ROP attacks (yes, I'm strange like that).
The last statement on poster is the biggest crap since I've heard Microsoft saying: "oh, you know, but this version is very safe, almost bulletproof...."
THe least malware on latest version is logical: few are using it, when it become mainstream version, guns will be pointed at it.
Whatever they do with it, it will never be safe unless completely rewritten and apps sandboxed. Oh, but then fandroid morons can't claim anymore how "closed" Apple is ?!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by poksi
The last statement on poster is the biggest crap since I've heard Microsoft saying: "oh, you know, but this version is very safe, almost bulletproof...."
THe least malware on latest version is logical: few are using it, when it become mainstream version, guns will be pointed at it.
Whatever they do with it, it will never be safe unless completely rewritten and apps sandboxed. Oh, but then fandroid morons can't claim anymore how "closed" Apple is ?!?
So you're saying that the malware and viruses go where the most users are?
Jokes aside, I think the more logical explanation is that security issues arise in all operating systems. Newer versions of the operating systems address these concerns and put in safeguards and are therefore not vulnerable to those exploits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW
So you're saying that the malware and viruses go where the most users are?
Jokes aside, I think the more logical explanation is that security issues arise in all operating systems. Newer versions of the operating systems address these concerns and put in safeguards and are therefore not vulnerable to those exploits.
Malware and viruses go there where the holes are the bigger and victims are in plenty.
Are you familiar with sandboxing?
Android IS malware
Quote:
Originally Posted by philgar
There are tradeoffs made between iOS and Android, however the consensus on this forum seems to be that malware on android is a HUGE problem. The truth is that a small number of android devices have malware, and most of them got it from third party stores. A story saying that malware on android increased by X% isn't really news unless you know what the base number is. If ONE virus came out that attacked unjailbroken iOS devices, the percentage increase in malware would likely be infinite... Even if only a single phone got infected.
As for why someone would want an open and uncontrolled platform... I do. I'm moving away from iOS because I'm sick of Apple's "our way or the highway" attitude. I don't have unlimited faith in apple, and I think that apple's primary reason for doing anything is to make more money for themselves. I also don't appreciate the sentiment heard around here that Apple deserves money for every application that runs on iOS. That iOS is the reason people are buying a device, and that all further purchases need to go through apple. My phone is MY device, I should have the right to do what I want with it. I should be able to rent a movie from an amazon application if I want to, and there should be no reason apple would get a percentage of the profits for my doing this. A controlled platform can work okay when conflict of interests don't exist, but apple clearly has those. They want to monetize my device forever, and want to lock me in to their hardware. With Android, I can change to another manufacturer at a later date and use their hardware with my existing software. Sure, I'd have to continue to use android, but honestly, after switching from iOS to android, the differences are relatively minor. Unless you're a zealot about it, you can't really say one interface sucks and the other is far superior. They do things slightly differently, and they both borrow from each other. As far as ease of use goes, it's a tough call. As long as the play store is preinstalled on the android phone, they're pretty equal.
Phil
I agree you should stick with Android so that your choices aren't limited so that you can do as you please. I myself prefer Apple's walled garden approach and will stay with iOS and iPhone as it just works for me.