backtop


Print 61 comment(s) - last by Mitch101.. on Aug 29 at 11:45 AM

Nearly 80% of all malware threats are aimed at Android says U.S. government

There is no question that the number of malware targeting mobile platforms is on the rise. However, the risk to your personal security really depends on the device and operating system you use. There are huge number of malware threats overall, but the majority of those threats target the Android operating system. Other mobile devices such as BlackBerry, iOS, and Windows Phone devices pose a significantly smaller security threat than Android.

A memo published as a joint release from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice warns government workers about the severity of malware threats facing the Android platform. The memo says that a government study has found that 79% of mobile OS malware threats from 2012 were aimed at Android devices. The same study found that malware threats facing iOS accounted for only 0.7% of all threats.

The study found that Android was the "primary target for malware attacks" due in part to its large market share and open architecture. The memo also told government workers to update and patch their mobile devices frequently.


According to the report, Windows Mobile and BlackBerry operating systems each account for 0.3% of all threats. The three major classes of Android security threats identified were SMS Trojans, root kits, and fake Google Play domains.

While the government estimates that 79% of malware threats are aimed at Android users, third-party researchers point to a much higher number. Juniper Networks recently said that Android was responsible for 92% of all mobile malware [PDF].

Sources: TheNextWeb, Department of Justice [PDF]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Misleading article.
By retrospooty on 8/27/2013 10:27:21 AM , Rating: 3
What it fails to mention is that the hole is on really old 2.x devices... http://www.ibtimes.com/android-malware-44-percent-...

It also fails to scale to the fact that 80% of all smartphones sold now are Android.




RE: Misleading article.
By xti on 8/27/2013 10:36:59 AM , Rating: 1
great. now because of this we have to put up with Tony gloating...


RE: Misleading article.
By retrospooty on 8/27/2013 10:41:28 AM , Rating: 2
??? Its not a big deal... 79% of the malware is targeted at the top 80% market leader... It's also a good word to the wise. Dont buy an Android 2.x phone.

I agree with that logic even without the malware.


RE: Misleading article.
By Mitch101 on 8/27/2013 11:02:44 AM , Rating: 5
It is that bad or worse because they wont stop selling Android 2.x phones and they wont get patched.

The average consumer doesn't know Android versioning or know that most devices cant be upgraded to the latest. All they know is someone told them get an Android and they did why because it was probably cheap or free and all the carriers provided without asking for chunk of change. Look beyond AT&T/Verizon and your pay as you go plans where Android dominates the cheap smartphone they are all 2.x devices.

You would need to stop all the cheapo companies from selling them or providing them free of charge. All these devices will have a negative effect and perception of Android and cause the community nothing but negative sentiment. In the end because they wont pull 2.x devices it will drive people to Apple and Microsoft easily. They will be less willing to trust getting another Android.

If people still complain about Blue Screens that happened to them 10 years ago the same will happen to Android adopters who are on a budget.

Selling Android 2.x devices is like poisoning your own eco system.


RE: Misleading article.
By retrospooty on 8/27/2013 11:17:19 AM , Rating: 2
"In the end because they wont pull 2.x devices it will drive people to Apple and Microsoft easily. They will be less willing to trust getting another Android."

That comment makes sense, and I could easily see that being hte case, but it isnt. With every quarter that goes by, Android gains more ground. There are still alot of 2.x devices in use (44%) but that isnt what is selling today. Todays low end cheapo phones are at least running 4.0 and 4.1. Not alot of 2.x available, at least not in the US and Europe.


RE: Misleading article.
By Mitch101 on 8/27/2013 2:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
Marketshare is not the whole picture especially when there is new user smartphone growth.

Plenty of Android 2.3 devices being sold still especially when you look at pay as you go plans. Unless you agree to a 2 year plan there is no real discount so the cheap choice is nearly all Android 2.x devices with pay as you go.

http://www.shopstraighttalk.com
HUAWEI Ascend Y $99.99 Android 2.3
LG Optimus Quest $149.99 Android 2.3
LG Optimus Dynamic $79.99 Android 2.3
Motorola Defy™ XT $149.99 Android 2.3
LG Optimus Zip $179.99 Android 2.3
Samsung Galaxy Proclaim $99.99 Android 2.3
LG Optimus Black $249.99 Android 2.3
LG Optimus Q $49.99 Android 2.3
LG Optimus Q Reconditioned $19.99 Android 2.3

Samsung Galaxy Precedent $49.99 Android 2.2 - YES 2.2
It isnt until you go to $400 that you can get a Galaxy S3

Virgin Mobile has a few 2.3 devices (3 for my area)
AT&T GO has 3 Android 2.3 devices for sale have to spend $249 to get a 4.0 device
Cricket has 5 Android 2.3 devices
Boost Mobile I see 4 Android 2.x devices
Verizon Pay as you go doesnt appear to offer anything above 2.3 unless you bring it from somewhere else.
Samsung Illusion Android 2.3
LG Optimus Zone Android 2.3

Android Carriers are going to find themselves in a bad place unless it cleans this mess up. Its going to have to back support 2.3, 3.x, 4.x otherwise Android will suffer reputation loss. You cant just say you have to buy the latest and greatest at $200.00+ a pop plus 2 year agreement to have support. A lot of people don't even know they are buying into unsupported eco systems.

Microsoft still supports Windows XP till 2014 but they haven't sold a copy of XP since 2008 some six years later it still gets updated. I'll catch hell for that comment but its part of the reason I went with Windows Phone over Android is the quick loss of updates and support for plenty of Android devices Ive purchased some less than 6 months after purchase. Carriers are to blame too but Google is the main for letting it happen and not having a support plan. If you dont buy it day 1 there is no guarantee you will get 2 years of updates with Android so potentially your on your own after 2 years or less.


RE: Misleading article.
By retrospooty on 8/27/2013 3:12:34 PM , Rating: 1
Again, some odd budget services that offer rock bottom phones are not where the mainstream is at. Todays mid and low end Android phones run 4 and higher. What you are seeing is older undsold 2.x phones being sold in the "bargain bins" if the internet. Like I said, I wouldnt recomend 2.x to anyone even if malware didnt exist at all. It wasnt great 2 years ago and is a total POS by todays standards.

"Android Carriers are going to find themselves in a bad place unless it cleans this mess up"

The "mess" is fixed by 4.0 or higher. It's an open platform and a free market. Companies can sell what they want and people can buy what they want (or what they are tricked into buying). Like I said, Android's #'s grow every quarter, it isn't hurting anything.


RE: Misleading article.
By Mitch101 on 8/27/2013 8:23:04 PM , Rating: 3
AT&T and Verizon are odd budget services?

New York Times would disagree with you also.
It is already about 28 percent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/your-money/cellp...

Not everyone wants to pay $80.00 a month for phone service especially since the economy hasn't recovered yet.


RE: Misleading article.
By retrospooty on 8/27/2013 8:33:32 PM , Rating: 1
What part of low end outdated unsold bargain bin phone deals are you not understanding? You shop at a thrift store you get cheap crap.


RE: Misleading article.
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/27/2013 8:37:35 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently he isn't familiar with Virgin, Boost and all the little companies which sell the super cheap phones.


RE: Misleading article.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/2013 2:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AT&T and Verizon are odd budget services?


You're so full of it. I dare you to walk into any Verizon or AT&T store and find smartphones running Android 2x. That's ridiculous to claim!

Also what kind of Government employee is going to run any of those phones you listed? None, not a single one of them.

What are you trying to pull here? Come on, be serious!


RE: Misleading article.
By Mitch101 on 8/29/2013 11:45:14 AM , Rating: 2
Thier bread and butter is with Contracts they would rather lock you in 2 years than have to compete for your business monthly.

The stores are there to sell Contracts. Charging consumers $30.00 more a month than the same plan you can get with pay as you go? Every heard of the internet where a lot of people purchase mobile devices that are delivered usually within 1-2 days?

I guess you shop at BestBuy instead of NewEgg then.


RE: Misleading article.
By bodar on 8/27/2013 9:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
Good points. The Galaxy S2 technically runs 4.1.2 (I have the Epic Touch 4G and Sprint is pretty good about updates), but when I checked the version on Mobi PCS, it shows 2.3 Gingerbread. Yet the cheaper HTC One V runs 4.0. It's kinda crazy.


RE: Misleading article.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/27/2013 3:09:26 PM , Rating: 1
He's just pulling his usual bullcrap.

God Tony is one thing. Now we have Mitch, the Windows Phone - Android bashing Tony clone!

I just love all these goobers who, year after year, proclaim some major "eco poisoning" issue with Android that is going to destroy life as we know it.

And year after year, Android makes GIGANTIC gains in marketshare, user adoption, and popularity. It's not slowing down, it's certainly not collapsing. It's the Windows OS of the mobile world, nearly ubiquitous. For fuk's sake, it's surpassed iOS! Hello?

Just stop feeding the troll retro lol.


RE: Misleading article.
By retrospooty on 8/27/2013 4:58:22 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, its fragmented and prone to malware... No-one will buy it.

Oh, wait.


RE: Misleading article.
By KoolAidMan1 on 8/27/2013 7:16:57 PM , Rating: 3
Poors are buying it, sure


RE: Misleading article.
By retrospooty on 8/27/2013 8:10:42 PM , Rating: 1
That is kind of the strength of the platform... The lowest low end phones to the highest high end phones and everything in between.


RE: Misleading article.
By Mitch101 on 8/27/2013 8:07:19 PM , Rating: 3
Retro and Reclaimer
Android Wonder Douche powers activate!


RE: Misleading article.
By retrospooty on 8/27/2013 8:11:54 PM , Rating: 1
How original... WPlose


RE: Misleading article.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/13, Rating: 0
RE: Misleading article.
By Mitch101 on 8/29/2013 11:40:41 AM , Rating: 2
Really? I have commented several times on Ballmers retirement. I posted how he made nearly a Billion from announcing his retirement and how the timing is related to the market. I also think its time he stepped down and let fresh blood take the reigns and a new generation get started.

But I also have something called a life where I venture outside, workout, converse with the female species, drink beers with friends, and watch sports.


RE: Misleading article.
By Tony Swash on 8/27/2013 6:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its not a big deal... 79% of the malware is targeted at the top 80% market leader...


That makes sense, especially as the 0.7% found on iOS devices matches Apple's market share..... err... hang on...

It's not rocket science. If software is vetted and inspected and then only distributed through an approved channel almost all malware will be blocked. If you don't it won't. If you like the Google hands off anything goes approach then malware is part of the package, if you prefer Apple's curated model one of the benefits is protection from malware. Luckily there are viable different OS systems for mobile devices for people to choose from so everyone can make their own mind up as to which system's balance of pros and cons suits them. Pretending that all mobile platforms are the same when it comes to malware and it's massive concentration on the Android platform is just some sort of reflection of market share is just plain silly.

How Android fares over the next few years is going to be interesting. Google is not that interested in steering the Android platform as it is now not only beyond their control but as far as they are concerned it doesn't matter much anymore how the platform evolves, it's done it's job which was to stop iOS taking over the world and now Google is mobile platform agnostic. Google's main focus is on using, deploying and developing the Chrome platform (linked to Google+) as it's chosen mechanism to insert it's services horizontally across platforms and device systems.

This is a good take on the whole question.

http://stratechery.com/2013/in-chrome-versus-andro...

and this

http://stratechery.com/2013/understanding-google/


RE: Misleading article.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/27/2013 6:30:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That makes sense, especially as the 0.7% found on iOS devices matches Apple's market share..... err... hang on...


And Android's is a little over 1% in the US and other first-world nations. Go look it up.

quote:
If you like the Google hands off anything goes approach then malware is part of the package


Oh come on, they aren't entirely "hands off" and you know it. The Google Play app store isn't the Wild Wild West.

quote:
Pretending that all mobile platforms are the same when it comes to malware and it's massive concentration on the Android platform is just some sort of reflection of market share is just plain silly.


He wasn't doing that.

But apparently you don't get how percentages work. If one platform has a large percentage of more users, it's only logical it's going to have a higher percentage of infected machines.

quote:
How Android fares over the next few years is going to be interesting.


Tony, you were saying that years ago!


RE: Misleading article.
By retrospooty on 8/27/2013 6:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
"Tony, you were saying that years ago!"

Yes, he was wasnt he?

Considering that today's Android has resolved ALL of the issues of earlier builds and is now completely dominating the market, I'd say it really wont be too interesting. It will be this...

- All phones on all platforms keep getting better. (of course)
- Android keeps growing.
- IOS market share keeps shrinking, but still remains the most profitable.

In other words, no changes at all.


RE: Misleading article.
By Tony Swash on 8/27/2013 7:35:34 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
But apparently you don't get how percentages work. If one platform has a large percentage of more users, it's only logical it's going to have a higher percentage of infected machines.


Why doesn't malware share track the market share of all other mobile operating systems? Why isn't the iOS or Windows Phone share of malware the same as it's market share? Why don't malware authors target iOS more given that it has around 14% of the market but by the far the largest share of commercial activity? Why does iOS attract only 0.7% of malware but it has 14% of the market, and the richest 14% at that? There is more than market share mechanisms at play here.

quote:
Tony, you were saying that years ago!


I did and it has. Android's evolution - or rather lack of it - has been very interesting to watch. Andy Rubin's departure was an inflection point when it became obvious that Google was now shifting to Chrome and building (cross platform) services rather than developing big feature rich version releases of Android. The latter wasn't working that well for Google.

Google's core focus, strongly articulated under Page, is to sell more advertising by shifting the maximum amount of activity to the web (and away from third party apps) and inserting their services across all web activity on all platforms. The painfully slow roll out of Google OS updates, which Google does not and cannot control, and the resulting fragmentation, was crippling Google's ability to get it's horizontal service stack onto the maximum number of devices and to keep those services up to date. So it now seems to have switched emphasis to updating it's services, mostly across platforms independent of OS versions, rather than updating the core Android OS. Why bother with the latter if after all the hard work it takes years to roll out to large numbers of actual devices?

The other big post-Rubin change was that it dropped Rubin's misplaced ambition to beat iOS by keeping key features Android only. That doesn't deliver what Google needs which is to be everywhere. The point of Android was not to kill iOS (although Rubin stupidly thought it was) but rather to prevent an iOS monopoly which could be potentially used to turn off access for Google's services. That mission has been accomplished, iOS will never become a monopoly on mobile devices, so Androids job is finished for Google.

Chrome however has lots of potential, particularly in the drive to make everything web centric rather than app centric (unless of course the apps are Google's own ones). Google doesn't inherently welcome apps because all apps have the potential to generate user activity that is invisible to Google's data collection system and hence to devalue Google's user data based advertising products. Google wants everything on the web as much as possible. It tolerates apps to prevent an iOS or Windows Phone take over but apps make Google anxious, Google doesn't like any activity which denies access to it's data harvesting systems and thus which undermines the USP of it's core advertising business.


RE: Misleading article.
By retrospooty on 8/27/2013 8:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. Always a laugh with your odd take on what you think Google is doing. Oh well, Just a few months ago Android was an epic failure and Google was abandoning it according to you. Now it has accomplished its goal. It's an improvement... A less dark fantasy, but still a fantasy.

Meanwhile Android marches on kicking ass and taking names and just getting better and better putting more and more distance between itself and the next best OS (WP 8) and its main competitor IOS.

You van keep hoping though. That is a big part of human nature.


RE: Misleading article.
By retrospooty on 8/27/2013 6:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
I never said IOS wasn’t more secure. Clearly it is very secure, and more specifically, it was all along. That is not a surprise, its a closed platform vs an open one.

The things you guys are missing here...

1. This is really old Android 2.x devices
2. This a study that was done on infections through 2012 when alot more 2.x devices were in use
3. And most importantly 2.x is not on any new phones. Not even mid or low end.

No-one... I repeat, no-one is recommending anyone buys an Android 2.x phone. FFS, scrape together a few bucks and get a free on contract Jelly bean phone or just dont bother.


RE: Misleading article.
By amanojaku on 8/27/2013 10:46:18 AM , Rating: 1
None of this is new. In fact, Android malware rates are holding or decreasing as users switch to updated handsets. As stated constantly, it's the 2.x versions that are most vulnerable.

But it doesn't matter what the article says. Tony's always going to piss on Android, Google, Microsoft, <insert Apple competitor here>, etc... He purposely sets out to be a douchebag.


RE: Misleading article.
By Tony Swash on 8/27/2013 1:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
great. now because of this we have to put up with Tony gloating...


Why should I gloat - the reason the iPhone has less malware than Android is surely only because of security though obscurity ;)


RE: Misleading article.
By Mitch101 on 8/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: Misleading article.
By Stuka on 8/27/2013 10:45:28 AM , Rating: 2
I also don't like that the article and the memo completely miss the point, that it all comes down to what you click on, just like Windows. If you install every hentai wallpaper app from the Play store, you are exponentially more likely to get infected with something than if you only install Google apps and Adobe Reader and tend not to frequent adult sites that end in .ru, .cz, etc. Patching is only a placebo to a click-happy culture issue.


RE: Misleading article.
By retrospooty on 8/27/2013 10:50:31 AM , Rating: 2
Like Apple/Siri programming in logic to "dis" Google glass, they do it because they are afraid. You don't see them spending a whole lot of effort on BB or WP.

The link to IBtimes above explains what the article at thenextweb doesn't... That it's on Android 2.x. 4.0 or higher dont have the issue. IF there is any surprising issue today, its that these old 2.x phones arent being retired.


RE: Misleading article.
By bah12 on 8/27/2013 12:41:39 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly my kid wanted a wallpaper, and even off the Play store when your wallpaper app needs permissions to make calls, GPS, messaging...a HUGE red flag should go up that it probably isn't just a wallpaper app.

Common sense is still king. When was the last true virus really? I mean a true, didn't click on anything spread from computer to computer virus (simply being on the network is all that was required). Last I recall it has been years, almost all of the malware now requires some smuck to at least click on a spoofed link (most likely also either disable or click yes to more than one warning to run the program). To me that isn't a virus (or even malware since the moron user told it to run), rather an exploitation of the biggest security threat any OS faces...the one between the keyboard and chair.


RE: Misleading article.
By Flunk on 8/27/2013 11:30:09 AM , Rating: 2
They also missed that if you only ever download software from the Play store and use an updated web browser you're very very unlikely to actually download any malware on your Android.

That's what I suggest my less tech-savvy friends and relatives do and it seems to work out find. It's only when they start playing around with 3rd party app stores that it all goes pear-shaped.

I think the best idea is that if you're not comfortable flashing your device with a stock image to get rid of malware, don't root your device or download software from anywhere but Play.


LOL!
By JackBurton on 8/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: LOL!
By retrospooty on 8/27/2013 12:04:09 PM , Rating: 5
What? That 79% of the malware is targeted at the 80% market leader - and at that, only really old OS are affected - 2.x

It's a bit like saying, ahahahaha, the iPhone 4 doesnt support Siri.

Nice try though... In the real world Android has surpassed IOS in every important way. YOu can enjoy your little toy phone though. It is safe for you.


RE: LOL!
By ClownPuncher on 8/27/2013 12:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
I bet he puts it in his butt.


RE: LOL!
By retrospooty on 8/27/2013 12:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
That could explain how he gets all bent out of shape anytime anyone says anything that isn't complimentary about Apple. He feels a personal connection... WAY too personal for a phone LOL


RE: LOL!
By JackBurton on 8/27/2013 2:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
LOL! You mean ANYTIME an article is published on this site about Android or iOS (iPhone)? Give me a break. You act like the majority of DailyTech comments aren't a big Android circle jerk.

Again, your outlook on the topic is skewed.


RE: LOL!
By ClownPuncher on 8/27/2013 2:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
Android circlejerk? Everyone knows WP8 is better.


RE: LOL!
By retrospooty on 8/27/2013 3:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
Bleh... My dream OS would be this...

- The hardware choices, software flexibility of Android
- The App store and security of IOS
- The UI and multitasking of WebOS.

I cant think of a single thing that BBOS10 or WP8 offers that are better than anyting above.


RE: LOL!
By ClownPuncher on 8/27/2013 3:37:38 PM , Rating: 2
That's because your dream phone platform doesn't exist.

But, really? webOS? ;p


RE: LOL!
By retrospooty on 8/27/2013 4:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
I know... sigh...

But yes, WebOS. By far the best UI ever created bar none. IT completely smokes anything IOS, Android WP and BB have combined by a huge margin. It was super slick and made every action fun and seemless.

Palms problem was slow/fail prone hardware and lack of Apps. The UI was pure genius.


RE: LOL!
By ClownPuncher on 8/27/2013 5:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
It's still "alive", but will live on as an OSD for things like set top boxes and smart TV's.


RE: LOL!
By retrospooty on 8/27/2013 5:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
Ya, but with those things loses its best feature. The UI was only useful on a phone/tablet sized multitouch device where you could finger-flick your way to true bliss. LOL


RE: LOL!
By JackBurton on 8/27/2013 2:17:39 PM , Rating: 4
Nice try but that logic doesn't work here. The two OS leaders in the mobile phone market now are Android and iOS, so no, iOS does not fall into the theory of security through obscurity. Hell, take a look at the chart, iOS threat is a fraction higher than Blackberry and they control MUCH more of the market than Blackberry. Are you also going to make that excuse for the Symbian OS where they are virtually non-existent in the market but show a 19% threat. If you are going with your theory, why the heck would anyone waste their time writing malware for the Symbian OS, when iOS is so much larger of a target than Symbian?

Nice try, but those numbers don't add up. Quit making excuses for your phone's shortcomings. Android's strength AND weakness is its open platform. And the more variants and fragmented Android phones become, the worse the situation will get.

Enjoy your malware guys. Maybe the next version of Android (Coconut Cream Pie) will include anti-virus and malware protection. That should solve the problem. ;)

I can just hear Samsung's new commercial, "the next big thing is already here. Anti-virus for your phone." They can then walk up to the people waiting in line for the new iPhone and say, "does your phone have an anti-virus app built in?" And the Apple guy would just smile and say, "no." :)


RE: LOL!
By retrospooty on 8/27/2013 3:04:24 PM , Rating: 2
"Nice try but that logic doesn't work here. The two OS leaders in the mobile phone market now are Android and iOS, so no, iOS does not fall into the theory of security through obscurity"

Again, out of your odd fetish for a company, you are having an emotional reaction and argument no-one else is having. I never said IOS wasn’t more secure. Clearly it is very secure, and more specifically, it was all along. That is not a surprise, its a closed platform vs an open one. What I said was that 79% of the malware is targeted at the 80% market share leader. That is pretty well in line.

" Quit making excuses for your phone's shortcomings."

No-one was making any excuses. "my phone" runs Android 4.3. I wouldn't recommend Android 2.x to anyone, even if malware didnt exist at all, 2.z was simply cruddy, there is no debate about it. But todays phones dont run Android 2.x. They run a much better, faster, mature OS that kicks ass on anything else out there.

"Enjoy your malware guys. Maybe the next version of Android (Coconut Cream Pie) will include anti-virus and malware protection"
??? The last 4 major releases (4,4.1,4.2,4.3)aren't having this issue why would the next release have it?

With 80% of all smartphones running Android, and it being an open platform it is always going to be less secure. It's not a big issue. It's certainly not stopping the platforms adoption rates. Its growing every quarter.


RE: LOL!
By JackBurton on 8/27/2013 3:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
[i]"With 80% of all smartphones running Android, and it being an open platform it is always going to be less secure. It's not a big issue."[/i]

Did you just say that with a straight face?


RE: LOL!
By retrospooty on 8/27/2013 4:49:30 PM , Rating: 2
Uh... Yes.

What exactly is the catastrophic thing that has come from all of this supposed malware? It's being way over hyped and again (again) It's on super old Android 2.x devices. It's not like todays phones (or last years for that matter) are being sold with vulnerabilities.

I know you are desperate to make a mountain out of a mole-hill here, but regardless, its not stopping Androids adotion rates. They are still growing Jack, learn to deal with it.


RE: LOL!
By troysavary on 8/28/2013 5:32:59 AM , Rating: 2
I thought you Androis fans were saying for the last few years that the biggest advantage of Android was that you could root it and load stuff from third party stores. Now you are saying that people should only download from Google play if they don't want malware? Which is it, open or closed? You can't have both. If you only use Google curated apps, how does that make Android any different than iOs?


RE: LOL!
By retrospooty on 8/28/2013 7:30:41 AM , Rating: 2
Who said either of those things? If you are gonna root it, be smart. All anyone is saying on this issue is don't buy old 2.x phones.


RE: LOL!
By troysavary on 8/28/2013 10:48:37 AM , Rating: 2
I replied to the wrong guy. This was meant to be in response to reclaimer saying
quote:
China where unofficial third-party app stores have taken over, because they can't afford/don't want to pay for Google Play apps. So they're basically willingly installing apps that are high risk.


While he didn't explicitly say only to use Google Play, he did imply that only poor Chinese people who refuse to use Google Play get malware.

The other statement I made, if you had any reading comprehension, was not directed at this thread specifically, hence me mentioning the last few years. Every time the slow updates by carriers gets mentioned, some will inevitably say "Just root your phone and install a mod". So the solution to Android's weakness is also the source of it's malware?

I am by far not an Apple fan, but I find it funny that Android's biggest fanboys on this site are basically telling people to use their Android phones like an iPhone to prevent malware.


RE: LOL!
By retrospooty on 8/28/2013 11:15:55 AM , Rating: 2
"The other statement I made, if you had any reading comprehension...........I find it funny that Android's biggest fanboys on this site are basically telling people to use their Android phones like an iPhone to prevent malware"

I read it... And I think I "comprehend" what you are saying... Its not that complicated. Again, I am asking who said that? I am always on AT/DT and involved in many of these debates and I have never seen that argument made (here or elsewhere) so I am asking who is saying that.


RE: LOL!
By retrospooty on 8/28/2013 11:21:47 AM , Rating: 2
OK, I think I see what you are saying... "Just root it and install a mod" - OK, but that would be to install the latest OS for people whining that their old cheap low end phone didnt get an upgrade... The point would be to install Jelly Bean, not an old 2.x ROM FFS. And no-one would ever say that is one of the strong points of Android... Reclaimer was referring to Chinese hackjobs being the issue here. It's not on any recent version of Android and it's not happening in the US and Europe.


RE: LOL!
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/2013 2:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am by far not an Apple fan, but I find it funny that Android's biggest fanboys on this site are basically telling people to use their Android phones like an iPhone to prevent malware.


That's a straw man. Your entire post is a Red Herring. Nobody is "telling" anyone to do anything of the sort.

Google doesn't force me to use my phone the way they want me to, or how they think I should. Apple on the other hand, wants to impose it's will on it's customers to the n'th degree. I'm an adult, treat me like one. Especially when it's something I own that I paid for.

Perhaps you're unaware, but there's a huge contingent of people who jailbreak their iPhone's just to access basic functionality those of us on stock Android have enjoyed for years. Does that tell you anything?

You're trying REALLY hard to take things out of context and make up fictional stuff to make me and others some kind of enemy. Why?


RE: LOL!
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/2013 8:19:14 AM , Rating: 2
Who said that?

The same thing happens on the iPhone side of things. Jailbreaking your phone increases the risks of you installing malware and what-not.

And I don't recall anyone saying Android's "biggest advantage" is rooting. That doesn't even make sense! Androids "advantage" is you don't HAVE to root your phone most of the time.

quote:
If you only use Google curated apps, how does that make Android any different than iOs?


WOW! Was that a serious question?


RE: LOL!
By retrospooty on 8/28/2013 10:19:04 AM , Rating: 2
I know... WTF. Androids advantage is flexibility. It can be put on any device from extremely cheap low end , to smartwatches, to high end "Halo" phones to tablets - with any screen res, not limited to a few like IOS. On top of that it is customizeable. You can put in a custom launcher, widgets to suit your needs, and all sorts of other things to make the phone your own and be as efficient as it can be for you and your specific needs, not just the needs that some developers in an office somewhere decide you need. I dont recall anyone ever saying rooting and side loading apps are the big draw... Those things dont need to be done at all.


RE: LOL!
By Reclaimer77 on 8/27/2013 3:24:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Enjoy your malware guys.


Uhhh there is NO Android "malware" in the United States and other developed nations.

The only significant cases of malware are in developing nations like China where unofficial third-party app stores have taken over, because they can't afford/don't want to pay for Google Play apps. So they're basically willingly installing apps that are high risk.

I know you're too young to recall, but this is giving me some SERIOUS deja-vu. See there was once this OS that everyone used, we'll call it "Windows", and because of this it had the most security issues.

There was another group of computer users who, much like you, were annoying idiotic assholes. We'll call this group "Macintosh owners". They railed against Windows security issues, full of a false sense of superiority. They trolled the PC and their owners to their hearts content. They made bold claims and predictions, they actually believed they would win.

Some 20+ years later, well, we're still here using Windows. It didn't go anywhere did it?

Although I don't know why I'm wasting my time with a pathetic obnoxious little fanboi troll like you. Your OP was just embarrassingly immature and asinine, you must be proud.


RE: LOL!
By JackBurton on 8/27/2013 3:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
It sounds like can't read a pie chart correctly, so let me explain it to you.

Again, this is not a case of security through obscurity. If that is your theory, why is the Symbian OS which barely shows up in market share have a 19% threat level while iOS is less than 1% and controls a MUCH larger part of the market?

Your theory is obviously flawed, so why don't you go ahead pull another one of your "theories" out of your a$$.


RE: LOL!
By Reclaimer77 on 8/27/2013 3:53:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, this is not a case of security through obscurity.


Did I ever say it was?

This isn't a theory, it's history repeating itself. Tightly controlled proprietary platforms like Apple's have many advantages. But ultimately the open-source solution that caters to more peoples needs and wants wins out.

iOS will remain extremely profitable for Apple. However it will continue to be marginalized by the market until it's a niche product. Like EVERY OTHER thing they've ever ran.


RE: LOL!
By retrospooty on 8/27/2013 4:50:53 PM , Rating: 2
"Did I ever say it was?"

Literally zero people said it was.

The only thing said at all here is what the article missed. That it's happening on old Android 2.x devices. Not on any new phones.


"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki