How to Check if Your Android App is Stealing Info

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

ap3x

Distinguished
May 17, 2009
348
0
18,930
Lol, it is about time there was a new post on Toms Hardware that was not a negative towards the IPhone. There have been a number of these reports that speaks to rootkits and other things on the Android or Droid platform that is never mentioned. Since when is it ok to have to worry about malware or root kits on a cell phone. That is BS. Android is a great OS for a phone but not everthing on every device should be open. There needs to be some rules and some set of controls for communication devices. This is why you will probably never see alot of Android devices in the Enterprise space unless the company does not have a security policy for their smartphones. That is not to say that it will never get there but right now it is not there. IPhone is just now getting there since Apple provides utilities to manage the security and be able to remote wipe the devices from a administrative console. This is why Blackberry is still dominant in the enterprise space.
 

ap3x

Distinguished
May 17, 2009
348
0
18,930
[citation][nom]milktea[/nom]I don't care if sending those data is legit or not. I would never allow a wallpaper to send any data. If the developer really needs to improve the content of their product, they should do so explictly and not hiding it from the user.Most newer applications now would ask you for permission before sending any data. And all developers should follow this standard of practice. Otherwise, I would consider them as non-legit.[/citation]


You are correct however the problem is that you assume that all developers are following the common standard so you install a application and never realize that it is sending date because it never prompted you to.

Another poster is absolutely correct, the walled garden vs open garden argument is really stupid. There is benifits to both. Personally since I use my phone for business I could never use an Android device due to security concerns. Also, it is a freaken phone for Christ sakes, if any device you have needs to be reliable and risk free it would have to be your phone since it is the device you go to first for emergency purposes, is used to tether your ass to your job, as well as many other things. Now with smart phones you also have financial information on there. Another article on Toms hardware speaks to Cell phones replacing credit cards. +1 for walled garden for that one alone. There is a place for both aproaches. The open garden needs to provide more security, the walled garden needs to allow more flexibility. At the end of the day, walled or not, it is still a garden and these phones are doing wayyyyyy more than they ever have before. So what is the point of having the debate, buy the phone that fits your needs and enjoy it.
 
G

Guest

Guest
The wall garden versus fully open debate is completely mute point. The most "open" walled garden approach I can surmise has 2 basic functions. First is to prevent sloppy programmers from mucking up the OS; which I consider to be a benign and laudable effort. Second is to minimize malicious intent by attempting to ensure that everyone plays by the same rules; no spyware or other abuse of trust. The 2nd is a lot like posting a security team at a ball-park or having bouncers in front of a night-club. It's an imperfect solution that creates exclusion.

In the case of Apple, they also use the gate-keeper role to weed out rule abusers, to prevent rights infringement, and to provide a minimum threshold of family friendliness.

Which may or may not be fine and dandy but is actually besides the point here people. The truth about gate keepers or security in general is that security really only keeps the honest people honest. The trully depraved and malicious individuals will always find a way around security. This is true in meatspace and it remains true in cyberspace. No amount of effort by any company or government can with-hold the on-slaught of criminal elements that have decided to target you.
 

ap3x

Distinguished
May 17, 2009
348
0
18,930
[citation][nom]Nosecurity[/nom]The wall garden versus fully open debate is completely mute point. The most "open" walled garden approach I can surmise has 2 basic functions. First is to prevent sloppy programmers from mucking up the OS; which I consider to be a benign and laudable effort. Second is to minimize malicious intent by attempting to ensure that everyone plays by the same rules; no spyware or other abuse of trust. The 2nd is a lot like posting a security team at a ball-park or having bouncers in front of a night-club. It's an imperfect solution that creates exclusion.In the case of Apple, they also use the gate-keeper role to weed out rule abusers, to prevent rights infringement, and to provide a minimum threshold of family friendliness.Which may or may not be fine and dandy but is actually besides the point here people. The truth about gate keepers or security in general is that security really only keeps the honest people honest. The trully depraved and malicious individuals will always find a way around security. This is true in meatspace and it remains true in cyberspace. No amount of effort by any company or government can with-hold the on-slaught of criminal elements that have decided to target you.[/citation]


True for the most part, however the purpose of having a level of security is not so guarantee protection, it is to provide enough resistance to make the attacker look for an easier target.
 
G

Guest

Guest
"The Wall Street Journal" recently published an article on this, titled "Your Apps Are Watching You":

"An examination of 101 popular smartphone "apps"—games and other software applications for iPhone and Android phones—showed that 56 transmitted the phone's unique device ID to other companies without users' awareness or consent. Forty-seven apps transmitted the phone's location in some way. Five sent age, gender and other personal details to outsiders."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704694004576020083703574602.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.