Risk
6/24/2010
12:06 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Google Remotely Deletes Two Apps From Android Phones

The security researcher who created the apps had misrepresented what the apps did, Google says.

Demonstrating that its approach to mobile security isn't as far from Apple's as some suggest, Google on Wednesday said that it had exercised its ability to delete two apps from Android users' phones.

In a blog post, Android security lead Rich Cannings said that Google had recently become aware that two apps in the Android Market did not fully disclose their function.




Image Gallery: Top 10 Google Videos
(click for larger image and for full photo gallery)

"These applications intentionally misrepresented their purpose in order to encourage user downloads, but they were not designed to be used maliciously, and did not have permission to access private data — or system resources beyond permission.INTERNET," explained Cannings.

"permission.INTERNET" is an Android programming setting that allows applications to open a network socket to communicate over the Internet.

Cannings said that because the applications were essentially useless, most users uninstalled them after discovering they didn't do anything.

The security researcher who created the apps voluntarily removed them from the Android Market and Google decided to remove copies of the apps that remained on Android phones.

"The remote application removal feature is one of many security controls Android possesses to help protect users from malicious applications," explains Cannings. "In case of an emergency, a dangerous application could be removed from active circulation in a rapid and scalable manner to prevent further exposure to users."

A Google spokesperson said that a few hundred Android phone users were affected.

Remote deletion of apps or content from users' devices without specific permission doesn't always go over well. Last year, Amazon decided to delete copies of George Orwell's "Animal Farm" and "1984" from Kindle devices because it discovered it did not have permission to sell the versions in question. Community outrage and a lawsuit followed.

Last year, Google told the FCC that it removes about 1% of apps submitted to the the Android Market for failure to comply with rules.

Cannings concludes by noting that Android's varied security mechanisms -- remote deletion, sandboxing and permissions, over-the-air updating, a central Market, developer registration requirements, and user-submitted ratings and flagging -- collectively help make Android's open environment secure.

Cannings' post arrived the same day as a report that questioned the security of the Android ecosystem.

Google in turn challenged the report's conclusions, and CNET decided to amend an article on the report that failed to sufficiently question the report's findings about alleged Android insecurity.

Update: Added Google spokesperson's comment about affected users.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
Partner Perspectives
What's This?
In a digital world inundated with advanced security threats, Intel Security seeks to transform how we live and work to keep our information secure. Through hardware and software development, Intel Security delivers robust solutions that integrate security into every layer of every digital device. In combining the security expertise of McAfee with the innovation, performance, and trust of Intel, this vision becomes a reality.

As we rely on technology to enhance our everyday and business life, we must too consider the security of the intellectual property and confidential data that is housed on these devices. As we increase the number of devices we use, we increase the number of gateways and opportunity for security threats. Intel Security takes the “security connected” approach to ensure that every device is secure, and that all security solutions are seamlessly integrated.
Featured Writers
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading's October Tech Digest
Fast data analysis can stymie attacks and strengthen enterprise security. Does your team have the data smarts?
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-0334
Published: 2014-10-31
Bundler before 1.7, when multiple top-level source lines are used, allows remote attackers to install arbitrary gems by creating a gem with the same name as another gem in a different source.

CVE-2014-2334
Published: 2014-10-31
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-2336.

CVE-2014-2335
Published: 2014-10-31
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface in Fortinet FortiManager before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-2336.

CVE-2014-2336
Published: 2014-10-31
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface in Fortinet FortiManager before 5.0.7 and FortiAnalyzer before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-2334 and CVE-2014-2335.

CVE-2014-3366
Published: 2014-10-31
SQL injection vulnerability in the administrative web interface in Cisco Unified Communications Manager allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary SQL commands via a crafted response, aka Bug ID CSCup88089.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Follow Dark Reading editors into the field as they talk with noted experts from the security world.