Ask Slashdot: Android Security Practices? 173
Soft writes "Smartphone security recommendations seem to boil down to Windows-like practices: install an antivirus, run updates, and don't execute apps from untrusted sources. On my own computers, running Linux, I choose to only install (signed) packages from the distribution's or well-known repositories, or programs I can check and compile myself, or run them as a dedicated user — and I don't bother with an antivirus. What rules should I adopt on my soon-to-be-bought Android device? Can I use it purely with open-source apps and still make the most of it? Are Android's fine-grained permissions (accessing the network, contacts...) reliable? Can apps be trusted not to scan your files and keyboard for passwords and emails? What precautions do security-conscious Slashdotters take to keep control of their phones?"
Re:Install a firewall (Score:5, Insightful)
On a phone? Are you serious? Honestly I never thought you'd ever need a firewall on a phone. If we cannot trust the software running on our phones not to be able to do malicious things, something is seriously wrong with the software architecture on phones. I always thought that the Bitfrost security architecture from OLPC was a good idea. How come this style of capabilities is not in Android?
Nokia 1661 and loving it baby. As far as I can tell, I can't put software on it!
Re:Install a firewall (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't that it is a phone, but rather, it is a computer with phone functionality. Would you tote around a laptop w/ no firewall or AV?
Re:Install a firewall (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. When "signed apps" are little different than trojans to steal your PII and report on your activities, the definition of security moves away from one of "penetration and exploitation" towards "scope of trust and violation".
As to the original article.posting, with its naive POV regarding security? What does your posture do for you, when exploitation and abuse are built into signed apps - or signed apps consume and interpret code from untrusted, arbitrary sources? Flash, Acrobat and any AJAX capable browser are all wide-open to abuse, on any given 0-day.
Re:Install a firewall (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing reality - it's not a phone, it's a computer with phone software. I know that's exactly what the post you replied to said, but apparently it went right over your head.
Re:Permissions aren't 'fine grained' (Score:4, Insightful)
EVERY App? I doubt this, in fact as an App Developer I know this isn't true. Adding permissions to your app is something you opt in - if a developer is so lazy he opts in every single perimssion then I wouldn't trust that app.
I've decided against installing apps that require permissions I don't want, and have quite a few apps that I've trusted onto my phone.
Google is providing you the ability to, at least, get an idea as to what your getting into. Something like the iPhone doesn't give this, and I'm not sure if Blackberry does or not. Could it be improved? VERY. Is it better then nothing? VERY.
How is this broken? Because an App Developer has some crazy permissions? I'd call that working - you know what it's asking for and you choose not to install it. How is it better then Windows? Do you know if your Windows Stop Watch app is talking to your Contacts stored in Outlook or Thunderbird?
Re:Install a firewall (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the potential to access. Not the actual access. That won't scare users enough.
The software should display the data that would have been accessed with the widgets that is appropriate to the device, say a contact card or a filename and then threaten the user.
Are you sure you want to send this information to somewebsite.com over an unscrambled channel to someone in China?
It should be displayed like numerous bits of scrap data on the screen with a picture of a pipe and the pipe attached to a shady looking figure next to the planet earth on the other side of a cloud. The implication should be obvious.
Would that scare you?
Re:Install a firewall (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're missing my point. It's a phone.
They aren't missing it, they're ignoring it. What it is called isn't the issue, it's what it can do, and whether that is what the end-user wants (or not).