Vulnerabilities / Threats
1/11/2010
05:12 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

About 1% Of Google Android Apps Bad

Google's Android Market has less oversight than Apple's iTunes App Store, and users are expected to police the store shelves.

A warning issued last month by First Tech Credit Union that the Droid09 app in the Android Market was malware isn't that uncommon.

Unlike Apple, which errs on the side of caution when reviewing apps for its App Store, Google considers the Android Market to be an "open distribution channel" and has said that there is no pre-approval process for Android apps and minimal automated scanning to ensure compliance with Google's security model.

In the Android Market, it's up to users to find and report bad apps.

"Once an application has been uploaded by the developer and made available for users of Android-powered handsets, the Android Market community is relied on to flag applications that do not abide by our policies," Google explained to the FCC last August.

Applications that have been flagged several times -- Google has not disclosed how many times -- are reviewed by Google staff for policy compliance and, if necessary, removed within three days.

Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant at Sophos, contends that Google's "anything goes" approach, "combined with the current buzz around new phones running Android such as the Motorola Droid and the Google Nexus One, may make the [Android] platform more attractive to cybercriminals in future."

The publication and subsequent removal of apps from Google's Android Market for terms of service violations turns out to be a relatively common occurrence.

A Google spokesperson declined to provide current information about the number of applications that have been removed from the Android Market.

Google's spokesperson said the company doesn't share app download numbers as a matter of policy and was unable to provide current information about the number of apps removed from the Android Market.

But Google answered this question in part last August in its response to the FCC's inquiry into why Google Voice wasn't approved. Back then, when the Android Market had about 6,000 apps, Google said, "Approximately 1% of all applications that have been uploaded to Android Market and subsequently made available to consumers subsequently have been taken down by Google."

If that percentage remains unchanged -- which Google wouldn't confirm -- that means about 220 out of the 22,000 or so apps in the Android Market have been removed for policy violations, only some of which have to do with security.

Typical policy violations have to do with the inclusion of adult content or the unauthorized use of copyrighted material.

However, even if only a few of removed apps are actually malicious, it doesn't take many bad apps to raise security questions. Consider that according to F-Secure, the developer account associated with the Droid09 app, 09Droid, had published almost 40 variants of his or her application, each one targeting a different bank.

Apple told the FCC last summer that it rejects 20% of the apps and updates it receives as originally submitted and that 95% of apps are approved within 14 days.

Several iPhone developers have recently noted that Apple's approval process has become faster, but Apple has not released updated figures to quantify what some developers have been observing.

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-2014-3409
Published: 2014-10-25
The Ethernet Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) handling feature in Cisco IOS 12.2(33)SRE9a and earlier and IOS XE 3.13S and earlier allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via malformed CFM packets, aka Bug ID CSCuq93406.

CVE-2014-4620
Published: 2014-10-25
The EMC NetWorker Module for MEDITECH (aka NMMEDI) 3.0 build 87 through 90, when EMC RecoverPoint and Plink are used, stores cleartext RecoverPoint Appliance credentials in nsrmedisv.raw log files, which allows local users to obtain sensitive information by reading these files.

CVE-2014-4623
Published: 2014-10-25
EMC Avamar 6.0.x, 6.1.x, and 7.0.x in Avamar Data Store (ADS) GEN4(S) and Avamar Virtual Edition (AVE), when Password Hardening before 2.0.0.4 is enabled, uses UNIX DES crypt for password hashing, which makes it easier for context-dependent attackers to obtain cleartext passwords via a brute-force a...

CVE-2014-4624
Published: 2014-10-25
EMC Avamar Data Store (ADS) and Avamar Virtual Edition (AVE) 6.x and 7.0.x through 7.0.2-43 do not require authentication for Java API calls, which allows remote attackers to discover grid MCUser and GSAN passwords via a crafted call.

CVE-2014-6151
Published: 2014-10-25
CRLF injection vulnerability in IBM Tivoli Integrated Portal (TIP) 2.2.x allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary HTTP headers and conduct HTTP response splitting attacks via unspecified vectors.

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.