[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Phony Flash Player Plants Malware on Android Phones here

[KLanD]

Any idiot going to some unknown site to get something that is readily available directly from Adobe or Google Play deserves to get infected.

Same goes for any OS.

[42n81]

KLanD, on 12 May 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

Any idiot going to some unknown site to get something that is readily available directly from Adobe or Google Play deserves to get infected.

Same goes for any OS.

...and any OS that doesn't even TRY to protect its users from such basic infection schemes deserves the bad press it gets.

[AnonymousPC]

42n81, on 12 May 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

KLanD, on 12 May 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

Any idiot going to some unknown site to get something that is readily available directly from Adobe or Google Play deserves to get infected.

Same goes for any OS.

...and any OS that doesn't even TRY to protect its users from such basic infection schemes deserves the bad press it gets.

Google is trying with Bouncer, they just do not have a thorough process for acceptance like Apple does. This makes it such that Google doesn't really limit the developers or slow down release of the application as Apple does.

[ColinJones]

42n81, on 12 May 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

KLanD, on 12 May 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

Any idiot going to some unknown site to get something that is readily available directly from Adobe or Google Play deserves to get infected.

Same goes for any OS.

...and any OS that doesn't even TRY to protect its users from such basic infection schemes deserves the bad press it gets.

Ahh.. in swoop the iMorons. Although I suppose you can't blame their ignorance and naivity when we still have hacks like this mindlessly and uncritically publishing the marketing copy of the entities that have a direct commercial interest in people believing this stuff!

The FIRST fact that should be covered in these stories (aside from the point that the entire content is sourced from a company that wants sell you the 'cure' to the 'problem' it is telling you about) is - this NOT an issue to any Android phone as supplied by Google/handset manufacturer.

It is impossible to install this malware (accidentally or intentionally) unless you have expressly gone into Android's advanced settings, told it to disable protection against installing untrusted software and then confirmed the warning you get telling you this is potentially dangerous. Then going back to the untrusted site, downloading the mal ware and confirming you want to install it.

Even then, as always, you have to confirm what permission you want to grant it. All the malware described above, such as Angry Birds sending premium SMSs, the user had to go through that entire process. Then "Angry Birds" said to them, I want to be able to send SMSs..... and they STILL said OK!!!!!

Sorry, your comment is innane and ill-educated. As someone else commented, they deserve to be infected if they went through all this. But that in no way makes comment on protections Android provides. They are perfectly adequate - some people just can be protected from their own stupidity - that's what the Apple nanny-state was invented for. Go play within your rubber walls where you aren't ALLOWED to do what you want with your device.

[nonseq]

ColinJones, on 12 May 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

42n81, on 12 May 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

KLanD, on 12 May 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

Any idiot going to some unknown site to get something that is readily available directly from Adobe or Google Play deserves to get infected.

Same goes for any OS.

...and any OS that doesn't even TRY to protect its users from such basic infection schemes deserves the bad press it gets.

Ahh.. in swoop the iMorons. Although I suppose you can't blame their ignorance and naivity when we still have hacks like this mindlessly and uncritically publishing the marketing copy of the entities that have a direct commercial interest in people believing this stuff!

REST OF CONTENT SNIPPED.

Cute use of iMorons. I quit reading your comment at that point. There may have been something there worth reading but based on your schoolyard name calling I didn't waste my time. You probably didn't want to persuade anyway.

This post has been edited by nonseq: 12 May 2012 - 01:51 PM

[imaginarynumber]

nonseq, on 12 May 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

ColinJones, on 12 May 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

42n81, on 12 May 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

KLanD, on 12 May 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

Any idiot going to some unknown site to get something that is readily available directly from Adobe or Google Play deserves to get infected.

Same goes for any OS.

...and any OS that doesn't even TRY to protect its users from such basic infection schemes deserves the bad press it gets.

Ahh.. in swoop the iMorons. Although I suppose you can't blame their ignorance and naivity when we still have hacks like this mindlessly and uncritically publishing the marketing copy of the entities that have a direct commercial interest in people believing this stuff!

REST OF CONTENT SNIPPED.

Cute use of iMorons. I quit reading your comment at that point. There may have been something there worth reading but based on your schoolyard name calling I didn't waste my time. You probably didn't want to persuade anyway.

Unfortunately installing from Apple's App Store or any other pre-vetted area is not a guarantee that the software will be free from malware. Granted there are no reports of malware, yet, in BlackBerry's or MicroSoft's stores but Charlie Miller has demonstrated that you can sneak malware through the Apple system.

Owners will just have to get used to the fact that their phones are as vulnerable as their PC or Mac.

[KLanD]

42n81, on 12 May 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

KLanD, on 12 May 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

Any idiot going to some unknown site to get something that is readily available directly from Adobe or Google Play deserves to get infected.

Same goes for any OS.

...and any OS that doesn't even TRY to protect its users from such basic infection schemes deserves the bad press it gets.

You mean like iOS.. ?

[KLanD]

AnonymousPC, on 12 May 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

42n81, on 12 May 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

KLanD, on 12 May 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

Any idiot going to some unknown site to get something that is readily available directly from Adobe or Google Play deserves to get infected.

Same goes for any OS.

...and any OS that doesn't even TRY to protect its users from such basic infection schemes deserves the bad press it gets.

Google is trying with Bouncer, they just do not have a thorough process for acceptance like Apple does. This makes it such that Google doesn't really limit the developers or slow down release of the application as Apple does.

And even with that process malware still seems to get into the iOS app store.

[kristoffe]

@ColinJones... "innane and ill-educated" enter the trolls who think punishment is justified when people aren't savvy enough in computing. Infections should not occur and if people cared enough, they would post how to remove the infections and avoid them in comments instead of ridicule people they think they are more intelligent than... even if they can't spell 'inane', there's one(1) [n]. not two(2)... inane

[42n81]

KLanD, on 13 May 2012 - 03:53 AM, said:

42n81, on 12 May 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

KLanD, on 12 May 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

Any idiot going to some unknown site to get something that is readily available directly from Adobe or Google Play deserves to get infected.

Same goes for any OS.

...and any OS that doesn't even TRY to protect its users from such basic infection schemes deserves the bad press it gets.

You mean like iOS.. ?

Yes, in all parts of the English speaking world I have visited, any means, well, .....any.

OS designers and marketers have to make a series of decisions on how "locked down" or "open" their platform is, based on the infrastructure they have available and how they want to position their product in the marketplace.

Apple and Google simply made different choices on that level, and they both deserve the praise AND THE CRITICISM resulting from those choices.

This post has been edited by 42n81: 13 May 2012 - 05:48 AM

[42n81]

ColinJones, on 12 May 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

42n81, on 12 May 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

KLanD, on 12 May 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

Any idiot going to some unknown site to get something that is readily available directly from Adobe or Google Play deserves to get infected.

Same goes for any OS.

...and any OS that doesn't even TRY to protect its users from such basic infection schemes deserves the bad press it gets.

Ahh.. in swoop the iMorons. Although I suppose you can't blame their ignorance and naivity when we still have hacks like this mindlessly and uncritically publishing the marketing copy of the entities that have a direct commercial interest in people believing this stuff!

Let's just keep it hush-hush and not tell anyone. That way, MORE people will get infected, Google will quietly do nothing about the situation until it reaches critical mass among Android users and the mess explodes, leaving other OS makers to pick up the pieces.

Quote

It is impossible to install this malware (accidentally or intentionally) unless you have expressly gone into Android's advanced settings, told it to disable protection against installing untrusted software and then confirmed the warning you get telling you this is potentially dangerous. Then going back to the untrusted site, downloading the mal ware and confirming you want to install it.

Even then, as always, you have to confirm what permission you want to grant it. All the malware described above, such as Angry Birds sending premium SMSs, the user had to go through that entire process. Then "Angry Birds" said to them, I want to be able to send SMSs..... and they STILL said OK!!!!!

While the user may have to go through all those steps, the end result is the headlines won't mention that and popular sentiment is often solely based on headlines.

Google decided to leave the key to the front door in the lock and the windows open in order to attract those claustrophobic users who can't stand the walled garden approach. Google wanted to differentiate itself from Apple by offering "free" and "open" access to the far reaches of their handheld device for those whose lives just aren't complete otherwise.

The user is not the only one to bear the blame.

Quote

Sorry, your comment is innane and ill-educated. As someone else commented, they deserve to be infected if they went through all this. But that in no way makes comment on protections Android provides. They are perfectly adequate - some people just can be protected from their own stupidity - that's what the Apple nanny-state was invented for. Go play within your rubber walls where you aren't ALLOWED to do what you want with your device.

Judging by the overwhelming popular demand for devices running iOS, it appears many people find that not being allowed to do what YOU would like to do on THEIR phones is a perfectly acceptable tradeoff.

This post has been edited by 42n81: 13 May 2012 - 06:37 AM

[KLanD]

42n81, on 13 May 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

Let's just keep it hush-hush and not tell anyone. That way, MORE people will get infected, Google will quietly do nothing about the situation until it reaches critical mass among Android users and the mess explodes, leaving other OS makers to pick up the pieces.

Why would Google do anything? People who are getting infected are purposely circumventing all of Google's safe guards 'at their own risk'. It's like saying Apple should be making efforts to prevent malware on jailbroken iOS devices. It'll never reach "critical mass" or "explode" because the issue is limited to the 'hacker' community.

42n81, on 13 May 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

While the user may have to go through all those steps, the end result is the headlines won't mention that and popular sentiment is often solely based on headlines.

Google decided to leave the key to the front door in the lock and the windows open in order to attract those claustrophobic users who can't stand the walled garden approach. Google wanted to differentiate itself from Apple by offering "free" and "open" access to the far reaches of their handheld device for those whose lives just aren't complete otherwise.

The user is not the only one to bear the blame.

I agree with the first statement, but it is also the duty of a journalist to make the issue clear. If it is never mentioned that this is a non issue for 99% of Android users, the journalist has failed in their job of being non-biased and reporting the facts.

Yes, Google gave users the keys to the front door, but they also tell the user, if you leave our safe-house, you're on your own. Most users don't even know where the key is and don't care, cause everything they'll ever need is already in the safe-house, but others like to live on the edge and go into the wild. At least Google gave people the choice of environments.

[42n81]

KLanD, on 13 May 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

42n81, on 13 May 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

Let's just keep it hush-hush and not tell anyone. That way, MORE people will get infected, Google will quietly do nothing about the situation until it reaches critical mass among Android users and the mess explodes, leaving other OS makers to pick up the pieces.

Why would Google do anything? People who are getting infected are purposely circumventing all of Google's safe guards 'at their own risk'.

Why would Google do anything? Avoiding bad press is the first reason I can think of.

Android fans will be very forgiving of Google and likely knowing how to avoid infection will discount the headlines. The general public, not so much.

Quote

It's like saying Apple should be making efforts to prevent malware on jailbroken iOS devices. It'll never reach "critical mass" or "explode" because the issue is limited to the 'hacker' community.

With the difference that Apple clearly states that they assume no responsibility for and do not warrant any jailbroken device.

Google on the other hand, fully supports circumventing of all the safeguards they put in place, and have made that ability a selling feature of devices using Android.

[KLanD]

42n81, on 13 May 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

KLanD, on 13 May 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

42n81, on 13 May 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

Let's just keep it hush-hush and not tell anyone. That way, MORE people will get infected, Google will quietly do nothing about the situation until it reaches critical mass among Android users and the mess explodes, leaving other OS makers to pick up the pieces.

Why would Google do anything? People who are getting infected are purposely circumventing all of Google's safe guards 'at their own risk'.

Why would Google do anything? Avoiding bad press is the first reason I can think of.

Android fans will be very forgiving of Google and likely knowing how to avoid infection will discount the headlines. The general public, not so much.

Quote

It's like saying Apple should be making efforts to prevent malware on jailbroken iOS devices. It'll never reach "critical mass" or "explode" because the issue is limited to the 'hacker' community.

With the difference that Apple clearly states that they assume no responsibility for and do not warrant any jailbroken device.

Google on the other hand, fully supports circumventing of all the safeguards they put in place, and have made that ability a selling feature of devices using Android.

They support the desire to do whatever you want with your device and know that some people are going to hack their device no matter what you say or what measures you put in to prevent them, but they also clearly state that it's at your own risk.

[ColinJones]

kristoffe, on 13 May 2012 - 04:46 AM, said:

@ColinJones... "innane and ill-educated" enter the trolls who think punishment is justified when people aren't savvy enough in computing. Infections should not occur and if people cared enough, they would post how to remove the infections and avoid them in comments instead of ridicule people they think they are more intelligent than... even if they can't spell 'inane', there's one(1) [n]. not two(2)... inane

... ohhh, did you find a typo, kristoffe? Well done!