Nice article to read.. Just thought I would share.. MODS PLEASE DELETE IN CASE THIS IS A DUPLICATE.
http://news.yahoo.com/theres-zombie-...013019842.html
There's a Zombie-like Security Flaw in Almost Every Android Phone
LikeDislike
Abby Ohlheiser 56 minutes ago
Technology & Electronics
.
View gallery
There's a Zombie-like Security Flaw in Almost Every Android Phone
Almost every Android phone has a big, gaping security weakness, according to the security startup who discovered the vulnerability. Essentially, according to BlueBox, almost every Android phone made in the past four years (or, since Android "Donut," version 1.6) is just a few steps away from becoming a virtual George Romero film, thanks to a weakness that can "turn any legitimate application into a malicious Trojan."
While news of a security vulnerability in Android might not exactly be surprising to users, the scope of the vulnerability does give one pause: "99 percent" of Android mobiles, or just under 900 million phones, are potentially vulnerable, according to the company. All hackers have to do to get in is modify an existing, legitimate app, which they're apparently able to do without breaking the application's security signature. Then, distribute the app and convince users to install it.
Google, who hasn't commented on the vulnerability yet, has known about the weakness since February, and they've already patched the Samsung Galaxy S4, according to CIO. And they've also made it impossible for the malicious apps to to install through Google Play. But the evil apps could still get onto a device via email, a third-party store, or basically any website. Here's the worst-case scenario for exploitation of the vulnerability, or what could potentially happen to an infected phone accessed via an application developed by a device manufacturer, which generally come with elevated access, according to BlueBox:
Installation of a Trojan application from the device manufacturer can grant the application full access to Android system and all applications (and their data) currently installed. The application then not only has the ability to read arbitrary application data on the device (email, SMS messages, documents, etc.), retrieve all stored account & service passwords, it can essentially take over the normal functioning of the phone and control any function thereof (make arbitrary phone calls, send arbitrary SMS messages, turn on the camera, and record calls). Finally, and most unsettling, is the potential for a hacker to take advantage of the always-on, always-connected, and always-moving (therefore hard-to-detect) nature of these “zombie” mobile devices to create a botnet.
The company recommends users of basically every Android phone double check the source of any apps they install, keep their devices updated, and take their own precautions to protect their data. But as TechCrunch notes, Android users really should be doing this anyway, as the devices tend to come with a " general low-level risk" from malware. That risk, however, is elevated for users who venture outside of the Google Play store for their apps.
So while the actual impact of the vulnerability is not known, neither is the timeline for fixing it. Manufacturers will have to release their own patches for the problem in order to fix it, something that happens notoriously slowly among Android devices.
Mr_Jay_jay said:
/snip
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As always, this really boils down to the same thing: don't be a fool in the most non-pejorative way possible. With the exception of the Syrian Electronic Army fiasco awhile back, secured and verified app vendors like Google Play (or Apple's App Store) continue to provide all the services most users will need without exposing the end-user to this kind of vulnerability. If you don't expose yourself, you're not at risk.
That said, this all relies on the notion of the end-user being at least somewhat vigilant, which can be quite dangerous.
Rirere said:
As always, this really boils down to the same thing: don't be a fool in the most non-pejorative way possible. With the exception of the Syrian Electronic Army fiasco awhile back, secured and verified app vendors like Google Play (or Apple's App Store) continue to provide all the services most users will need without exposing the end-user to this kind of vulnerability. If you don't expose yourself, you're not at risk.
That said, this all relies on the notion of the end-user being at least somewhat vigilant, which can be quite dangerous.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not every Android device has access to Play Store though, by-default. I have a tablet now that doesn't have access. If a normal user had such a device, they wouldn't likely go through the process needed to get Play Store, and would just deal with whatever marketplace app existed.
This exploit will likely only ever affect users that by default use devices that do not have Google support. Many of these are distributed among 3rd world nations and are typically a hot bed of illicit activities anyways. Of the first worlders that would be affected, it would be those using black market apps without knowing the risks involved in doing so. Most black market users are knowledgeable enough to know to check their sources and compare file sizes before installing apk's.
Also the notion that 99% of devices being affected has nothing with the OS being flawed (Google reportedly fixed the flaw in March), but rather the OEMs being slow in pushing out (or not pushing out at all) the patched hole.
Also I would be weary of a security outfit that has been around since 'mid-2012' and continues to pride themselves as a start-up mobile security firm.
espionage724 said:
Not every Android device has access to Play Store though, by-default. I have a tablet now that doesn't have access. If a normal user had such a device, they wouldn't likely go through the process needed to get Play Store, and would just deal with whatever marketplace app existed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Granted, but the Play Store reduces the attack surface by a considerable margin. Right now, I consider non-Google blessed Android to be something akin to stock Windows 7 with Defender and Firewall turned off-- you can do just about anything with it, but you're running at a risk by not deploying some vendor-based add-ons (in this case, choosing to use the unit available).
I do understand that many devices sell outside of the Google world, before anyone jumps on me, but it doesn't change how the vulnerabilities play out.
This boils down to:
If users install a virus then they get a virus!!! This affects all Android phones!!!!!!!! Oh Nos!
Sucks that this is being patched. Guess there will be no more modding games for me.
Related
http://digitizor.com/2011/07/21/android-malware/
Android has had its fair share of malware problems. Whenever malware are detected, Google reacts swiftly and remove them. However, according to security researcher Neil Daswani, around 8% of the apps on the Android market are leaking private user data.
Neil Daswani, who is also the CTO of security firm Dasient, says that they have studied around 10,000 Android apps and have found that 800 of them are leaking private information of the user to an unauthorized server. Neil Daswani is scheduled to present the full findings at the Black Hat Conference in Las Vegas which starts on July 30th.
The Dasient researchers also found out that 11 of the apps they have examined are sending unwanted SMS messages.
Google needs to take charge
This malware problem on Android has become too much. One of the main reason that we see malicious apps in the market is because of the lack of regulation in the apps that get into the Android Market.
Sure, the lack of regulation can be good. It means that developers can make their apps without worrying if Google will accept their apps or not. It fits into the pre-existing application distribution model where anyone can develop and publish their own apps.
However, this comes at a price - the malware problem. Yes, most of the problems with these malicious apps can be avoided if only users read the permission requirements of the apps. But, what percentage of the users actually read the permission requirements of all the apps they download?
I think that it is time that Google make approval of the apps a requirement before it gets into the Market. They do not need to do it like Apple, but a basic security check before an app gets on the market will be nice.
If nothing is done about and this problem is allowed to grow, it will end up killing the platform.
Ur a good man
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
Get an iPhone then.
Don't know if apple should approve or disaproove since that can slow down the release of new apps, but they need to check, that's for sure.
Yeah, just read permissions when installing applications. A lot of them will state access to personal data (such as contacts, browser history, etc.)
Such apps like MP3 downloaders contain ALOT of this malware.
if you're that paranoid.....LBE Privacy Guard + Droidwall = #winning
This article is very true in sense of lacking of control on big G part. My friend developed an app and he was able to get it into market almost instantly. I was very shocked to find that no scanning or checking was done.
Therefore, it's a risk that we take everyday to use these apps, specially, custom ROMs because who knows what it installed really. Users just need to be aware of their action, and don't use bank apps on rooted devices, or corporate email on rooted devices, or email yourself passwords to your online banking from your rooted devices. My thought is that, if it's out there then somebody can get it these days with all the technologies.
A little bit of common sense when installing apps can go a long way. You stifle the market too much when you cater to the lowest common denominator but then if you don't you get stuff like this.
+1 on Droidwall too, great app. Just don't turn it on and then forget about it before getting it set up properly, it's a pain figuring out why you can't use the internet on anything lol
xHausx said:
A little bit of common sense when installing apps can go a long way. You stifle the market too much when you cater to the lowest common denominator but then if you don't you get stuff like this.
+1 on Droidwall too, great app. Just don't turn it on and then forget about it before getting it set up properly, it's a pain figuring out why you can't use the internet on anything lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hahaha, was tryna to download a new app and wondering why it just stalled kept on saying, downloading..... downloading paused....blah blah!!! lol
turns out it was droidwall (even with market enabled) lol
Yea when a simple clock widget wants to read your contact, data and location but has no ads or settings, I avoided that one.
I prefer the risk of an open system to the purgatory that is a closed system ruled by a draconian company any day.
Oh look iOS does this too.
/troll
DoctorComrade said:
Oh look iOS does this too.
/troll
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hah, they're at almost 50%
Hi,
I made a new app: NFC Safe!
With NFC Safe you will be able to encrypt your private data with a NFC Tag (e.g. NFC Key Fob). You can add unlimited custom folder and entries. You will have only access to those entries with the specific NFC Tag! This is much more secure than protecting your data only with a password!
You can use any NFC Tag for this app! Your NFC Tag will be written with some data so it can only be used for this app.
NFC Safe | Windows Phone Apps+Games Store (United States)
Would be nice, if you test my app! My app is available for free!
With one of the next releases it will be also possible to encrypt/decrypt media files (images, audio, etc.)
Best Regards,
Sascha
I don't have any NFC tags on me right now nor would i really use this, but i have to say, this is a really cool idea!
While I understand if you're hesitant to post it, I'd want to review the app's source code before using it myself. Getting cryptography right, even when just using existing and well, implemented pieces, is vastly harder than getting it wrong. What algorithm do you use to encrypt the data? How about generating the key data? Are you using secure buffers? Initialization vectors? How are you detecting which key is correct for the data you're trying to access; is there a hash? What hash function? There are a lot of other important questions here, too.
With that said, the idea is fantastic. It would be especially great if you could support two-factor authentication (password + NFC tag, in this case) for extra-sensitive data, although password management in crypto has its own set of problems (what key derivation function, with what parameters? How are the password verifiers stored? Etc.)
Sorry for late reply!
xandros9 said:
I don't have any NFC tags on me right now nor would i really use this, but i have to say, this is a really cool idea!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then you should buy an NFC Tag! They are really cheap. For example you could buy a NFC keyfob, so you will have your NFC tag always in your pocket and as said, such a NFC Tag costs ca. 1 USD at ebay
GoodDayToDie said:
While I understand if you're hesitant to post it, I'd want to review the app's source code before using it myself. Getting cryptography right, even when just using existing and well, implemented pieces, is vastly harder than getting it wrong. What algorithm do you use to encrypt the data? How about generating the key data? Are you using secure buffers? Initialization vectors? How are you detecting which key is correct for the data you're trying to access; is there a hash? What hash function? There are a lot of other important questions here, too.
With that said, the idea is fantastic. It would be especially great if you could support two-factor authentication (password + NFC tag, in this case) for extra-sensitive data, although password management in crypto has its own set of problems (what key derivation function, with what parameters? How are the password verifiers stored? Etc.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi thanks for your feedback and your questions! I think you misunderstood my app. It's not a military app, where the highest security is important! My app doesn't need to encrypt the data, because the data is stored on your Windows Phone in the application data storage. Noone has access to this. If ever any person has access to those data, you and all other Windows Phone users have a very big problem!
So, my app is an app, not a Windows Application, where virus, NSA, etc. have access to your data There are a lot of apps which protect your personal data with a password. So if someone else has your phone (stolen, or a friend while you are not watching at it), he will be able to see your data, if the know your password (this is not impossible!) or guess your password! So my app protects your data with an NFC Tag. It's very comfortable to use and faster than typing a password and also more secure, because the third-person needs your phone AND your NFC Tag.
However, my app also encrypts the whole data, so even if someone have access to the application data storage, he will be unable to read your data. Windows Phone has a built in encryption mechanism, which can be used from an API. I'm using this encryption mechanism. This mechanism uses Triple-DES. It uses the user credentials and a randomly generated password (GUID with 36 chars/numbers and "-"-sign) to encrypt the data.
Hi! Welcome to XDA-Developers, where all of your assumptions about what cannot be accessed on the phone are wrong, or will be shortly!
OK, that's half a joke. But only half... as it turns out, the claim that "... Windows Phone in the application data storage. Noone has access to this." has been untrue for months. Check the Dev&Hacking forum, especially the Interop-unlock and SamWP8 Tools threads. We have the ability to access the entire WP8 file system. Currently that access is only via MTP (USB connection), but I and other people are working on extending it to homebrew apps as well.
Moving on... 3DES (even if used with a good mode of operation and a unique initialization vector, which I am guessing you probably didn't do) is obsolete and should not be used anymore. While it is considered adequate for existing code, it should not be used in new software, and cryptographers have been recommending a move to newer ciphers (such as AES) for years. As for using a GUID as a password, GUIDs are 128 bits (the dashes don't count, because they are always the same value in the same place, and each of the other 32 digits is hexadecimal only, meaning merely 4 bits of data), which is plenty if they are generated securely; however, most GUID generators do not use cryptographically secure random number generators. GUIDs are supposed to be unique (that's what the U stands for), but are not guaranteed to be unpredictable (which is one of the key requirements for an encryption key), and the way they are generated reflects this.
Oh, and good security is important in an awful lot more places than "a military app"! In fact, there's no such thing as "military-grade" encryption, really; there's only good encryption, and encryption which shouldn't be used for any purpose. For example, modern TLS (Transport Layer Security, the replacement for SSL or Secure Sockets Layer) cipher suites are intended to be secure even against governments and megacorporations (although there is of course suspicion as to whether the NSA have broken some of those cipher suites)... but TLS isn't just used on extremely sensitive stuff like top-secret documents and such, it's also used when browsing Facebook and Twitter, or accessing Gmail, or many other things of similarly minor sensitivity.
Thank you for explaining the intended use cases of the app, though. Do please be careful when making claims such as that something is "much more secure", though; you are liable to mislead people. TrueCrypt, a PC app that performs disk encryption and is intended to stand up to very powerful adversaries, uses only a password most of the time - but I would expect that, given a well-chosen password, it is more secure than this app. There are many critical components to security, and only the weakest link in the chain matters.
For what it's worth, if you are interested, I would be happy to help secure the app (on my own time, free of charge) as it sounds like something that I would quite like to use, if I could trust its security.
What exactly is your problem?!?!
I said, that noone has access to the Application Data Storage and this is true! There is no Virus available for Windows Phone and there is no App in the Store available which has access to another app's data storage! We are not talking about some special cases where the third-person already have STOLEN your device, because nothing in this world is safe! NOTHING! Everything can be hacked! Also I didnt know that all current Lumia devices were hacked. Other devices are not relevant (Nokia has a market share of more than 90%!).
The built-in encryption mechanism in Windows Phone is the same almost ANY Windows Phone app uses! Any banking app, Facebook, eBay, PayPal. The Wallet feature of Windows Phone uses it. If you have set up accounts (E-Mail, Microsoft Account, Office365, etc.) your passwords were encrypted with the SAME API my app uses. So if you think this API is totally unsafe, WHY THE HELL are you using Windows Phone? Also Windows Vista, 7, 8 and 8.1 uses THE SAME API for a lot of thinks. So please don't use Windows anymore!
I said, my app is more secure THAN AN APP which only uses a password and that is true. Also my app additionally encrypts the data and not only block the access to the data (which a lot of other apps only do!).
Please decrypt the attached file and tell me, how you did that and how long it took Thanks!
Whoa, whoa, calm down.
First of all, don't count on that "no app in the store..." business; There's *probably* no malicious app that can do so, but OEM apps can, if they have som reason to do so, access other app's install and data folders. I've written apps (using the Samsung OEM components, which are clumsy for the purpose but *do* work) to do it myself. It's not something you're likely to see in widespread use, but it's possible.
If you aren't bothering with the case of your phone being stolen, what's the point of the encryption anyhow? I mean, prevention of data loss in the event of device theft is one of *the* key use cases for data storage encryption! It's the rationale behind things like BitLocker (which is available on WP8, but only if the user has connected their phone to a company's Exchange server that pushes a policy requiring device encryption).
If you were honestly worried about market share, you probably wouldn't target WP at all; Nokia's fraction of the WP market share is lower than WP's fraction of the smartphone market share. Nonetheless, you are correct that, at this time, Nokia WP8 devices haven't been cracked. Nor have HTC's phones. I'm confident that this will change in time, though. You might have misunderstood my little joke at the start of my last post... but breaking into smartphone operating systems, getting past the lockdown policies that say "noone[sic] has access" (it's "nobody" or "no one", by the way) and taking those decisions into our own hands.
I guarantee you that the vast majority of WP apps don't use 3DES. I *know* full well that the Microsoft code doesn't; they had already deprecated that cipher years ago, when I interned there, long before even WP7 existed; its use was prohibited for new code. Just because you used the DPAPI (Data Protection API) doesn't mean you used it correctly (and by the way, that internship involved working on encryption in Windows, writing test tools for it). Please don't take this as some kind of personal insult; in my line of work (security engineer), I see a ton of misuse of cryptography. It is, as I said in my first post, hard to get right. That's why I offered to help.
I'm not going to bother taking the time to figure out what cipher you used on that file, and what its contents are supposed to look like enough to start doing any cryptanalysis, but I guarantee you it's not very good. There are repeated patterns, including long strings of null bytes, that are phenomenally unlikely to occur in a file that short after passing it through even a half-decent cipher (we're talking 1-in-several-billion chance here, no joke). Coming to this conclusion took all of a few seconds, by the way, using no tool more sophisticated than Notepad++. If I was pulling it off of a phone, I'd have a lot more idea of what type of plaintext to expect, and I could examine the decompilation of the app to see what ciphers were used, which would make things a lot easier. I'd say "for all I know, you just took the output of CryptGenRandom and put it in a file" but if you had, it wouldn't have had obvious patterns in it... in any case, it doesn't matter. I don't have to prove anything to you. I'm *trying* to help, and offer some good advice as well, but I can't force you to take it. There's no call for getting defensive, though. I wrote a file encryption utility myself one, in fact. It sucked, so then I wrote a program to break its encryption. Both experiences (but mostly the latter) taught me things.
A new version is available now, which includes image/photo encryption, OneDrive backup, bugfixes and other small improvments!
http://www.windowsphone.com/s?appid=0a8656d4-ed32-4bb5-baac-1317827e18d8
Hi,
I have a question:
My app is available in German and English since one year now! It was downloaded over 1000 times in Germany, but only 80 times in USA, UK, etc. I got 40 reviews (4-5 stars) in Germany and only one bad review in USA. So could someone explain what's wrong with my app? Is it not visible in the US Windows Phone store? Is my app very bad translated? Are there no Windows Phone users in the USA? Or maybe no one use NFC in the USA?
Best regards,
Sascha
Sorry, I don't tried your app yet but will try to answer your questions.
First, probably it's something wrong with your marketing, not the app Le me say: 1080 downloads per year - it's too small number (even 1000 in Germany). For example, my "marketplace entry ticket", "Lunar Lander Touch" app, very unpopular and underrated (but it's still one of my favorite games on WP, and good alcohol tester ), has 4078 for the year 2013.
As for NFC: I've tried to use it but stopped because of very uncomfortable WP implementation. That service should work flawlessly, without user interaction, stupid questions and dialogs, to be useful and popular. But unfortunately it's not (for the Windows Phones). Microsoft must add an option to disable NFC warnings.
P.S. I may recommend you to use "Snowden case" for advertizing
Thanks for your feedback!
Yes, I know that the download numbers are very bad, but I don't have an idea how to improve this. Because of my app is free and my private hobby I don't have money to buy ads, etc.
Improving my app had not effect. Thanks to DVLUP I "bought" ads for 50$ with AdDuplex, but this also had no effect.
It's really hard for individuals to get their apps famous and in a higher ranking in the Windows Phone Store without investing money
I understand... AdDuplex is really bad: I've tried once ($100 from DVLUP meeting plus I've bought another $100 coupon for $40) during a week - no results at all. Complained to AdDuplex support and manager gave me additional $300 for free, to spend within one day (sic! He-he, I wish to get $300 daily from my app!) - still no visible results, just a regular download fluctuations...
What you may try: advertise on more forums, prepare good pictures/screenshots; may be, video clip "howto" will be helpful. Embed RateMyApp Nokia's control (check NuGet) to your form. If you have XP on DVLUP, spend 'em for advertising campaign (these ones are extremely effective!).
P.S. I also thought about xda-based developers club, with "rate 5 stars my apps, and I'll rate yours" rule but I don't know how to implement it properly (but good customer rating is very important for the app distribution).
Thanks!
I already added RateMyApp. This was really helpfull to get more reviews. It's a pity that I had not implemented such a thing from the very first time my app was added to the Windows Phone Store :-/
I "bought" 1 week in App Social (DVLUP). Hope this helps. But it is also only in Germany.... I have enough users and reviews in Germany, I need them in USA, UK, etc. The problem with the DVLUP campaigns is, that you need at least 50 or 100 reviews (and 4,5 stars) as a requirement for the advertising. But you don't have so many reviews and that's the reason why you need the campaign to get more reviews, but you can't buy the campaign... A vicious circle!
I will do my best to get more downloads in other countries than Germany!
Hey, thanks for this app i find it realy useful.
Danke!
And here is the idea for the ad banner
Great idea
btw: Version 2.1 with new type "User Credentials" is available now!
Ok, I stopped developing, it's not worth. Sorry!
Hello.
I am here seeking for help and advice on how to approach the development of a security framework (via APP or via hacked Android ROM to be used by kids, that could be monitored by adults (parents or legal tutors).
The idea would be to develop a (white hat) hacked ROM, that would allow the kids to communicate with their friends, but also would allow their parents to supervise/monitor in real time what their children are doing, who are they communicating with and that way protect their children. The thing is not to spy on our kids, but to be able to check regularly if there is anything wrong going on with our kids (mobbing, insults or harassment). Kids aged (10-14) could be influenced by other kids, adults, or adults simulating being kids, and on some occasions they can be tricked to do things without their parents consent/knowledge that can lead to a tricky situation.
When I was a kid, we had the telephone (wired telephone, of course) on the middle of the hallway, so all our conversations were basically family-public. The truth is that there are not many secret things a 10yo kid could/should talk about, but nowadays, it could be a little bit worrying to lend a smartphone to a kid. I think it's just as letting a kid drive a car; he can do it right, or not be able to evaluate the whole consequences of driving a car.
Talking to other parents around me, they all found very interesting the idea of having a telephone that one could lend to their son, having the kid available all the time, and with the peace of mind that you could know what's going on. Of course the kid should be aware of this, and that the telephone comms are being supervised. I think it's no big deal. "Kid, it's very simple. The telephone is mine, and if you want to use it you have to use it under my terms".
Probably, all of us working for a company, have also our communications supervised, cannot make personal phonecalls with the company's telephones, probably cannot navigate to webs looking for personal content, and we asume those rules (because neither the company's phones nor the computers are ours but our company's). It's basically the same, switching the company-employee role to a father-son one.
So, let's get to the point (technically). I am a tech-geek, linux pro-user, have compiled a few ROMs just for personal use, but don't feel capable enough of starting a project of these magnitude alone. If there is anyone willing to help, opine, or whatever, will be very welcome.
First of all, APP or ROM? I basically think that the ROM is the way to go, but I'm asking just in case someone can convince me on the contrary. I will make a poll on this question.
APP An APP could be easily downloaded and installed but would require a rooted phone, and I don't see it clearly if an APP could resolve all the needed issues (access to communications for example) and could be fairly easily uninstalled too.
ROM On the other hand, a ROM would be trickier to uninstall (basically flashing another ROM) but wouldn't be as easy to install as an APP (though the installer model of cyanogenmod could be kind of a solution). There could be an universal (if possible) independent flashable module, over whatever android ROM, or an entire ROM solution.
Features that I want to develop in this ROM (by the way, I call it 'Vigilante ROM'):
Suitable for as many devices as possible
Web interface for parents available to see device-related information
Some hack-proof measures to avoid kids bypassing the ROM's security
Alerts triggered on some events (offensive words, whatever)
Position of the mobile -just in case-
Suitable for as many devices as possible
The first thing I though was what platform should be used for this ROM. To select Android over others (iOS, Blackberry, W7) was a no-brainer. Now, the question is should we use pure Android or make a CyanogenMod fork?
In my opinion, even though every phone maker has to supply their ROM sources publicly, they usually introduce so many modifications (HTC Sense, Samsung Touchwizz and so on) that it looks more difficult to develop a common security framework over each manufacturer's version of Android, rather than using a more standardized one like CyanogenMod.
CyanogenMod already works with a wide number of devices (and a wider one if you count the unofficial supported devices), I think CyanogenMod should be the base of this ROM. If all the 'things' needed could be flash on top of any Android device, would be even better, but technically I need help with this one.
I understand that basically there should be an internal proxy setup, so that all the communications go through this internal proxy, and based on the kind of communication, we could log whatever we need. For example:
Visited URLs
Whatsapp or other messaging apps should be decrypted
Incoming/Outgoing calls/SMS
Social network activity
I know the Whatsapp protocol because I'm familiar with a project called WhatAPI. The key point to be able to intercept whatsapp messaging is a key generated and exchanged during the app install (although there are ways to later ask the Whatsapp server to renegotiate this keyword) and that's used later to encrypt all the messages between the phone and the whatsapp server.
Web interface for parents available to see device-related information
Behind every kid with a smartphone there should be a responsible adult supervising the kid -even if it's remotely-. In my idea, logs of messaging activity, incoming/outgoing calls/SMS and even the position should be available to the supervisor through a web interface.
Some hack-proof measures to avoid kids bypassing the ROM's security
That's an easy one. CRC checks on some keyfiles would guarantee that the device is not being 'counter-hacked'. Some kids are also very techie, and we should make some defences against kids trying to hack (counter-hack?) the phone.
Alerts triggered on some events (offensive words, whatever)
It could be interesting if somehow the supervisor could receive a notification whenever the kid sends/receives and offensive word, or tries to enter some special tagged website.
Like many other developers, I also received the 30-days deadline warning email from Google Play team about the potential "misuse" of accessibility service in Greenify.
As the very first developer who introduced this trick of "misusing" accessibility to achieve UI automation years ago, I'm very proud that many more creative tool apps followed this approach to enable fantastic functionality beyond the imagination of the creator of Android, without root. It's a miracle bred from the openness and flexibility of Android.
Unfortunately, the supervisor of the dominant app market is now declaring its right of final interpretation, to judge the proper use of Android API and claim that this whole idea is unacceptable. At this point, I feel I have to say something.
Why accessibility service?
As we all know, root is the ultimate playground of super users in the Android community. But it also has its inconvenience and grey side, so I decided to make Greenify work for users with non-root device. I had been experimenting with many approaches for this purpose in almost the whole year 2013. Finally I found the magic of UI automation driven by accessibility service. With this approach, many more users now enjoy the improved battery life and smoothness brought by Greenify.
I know that accessibility service is not a perfect solution, considering the overall UI performance degradation involved (explained below). So I never gave up seeking alternative approaches ever since, (many of which might also be considered API "misusing" in strict speaking) but still no better approach found. If Android could provide any alternative solution, I would never prefer accessibility service in the first place.
The Good
Accessibility service is so powerful, that I have to admit it's some kind of Pandora's box.
With accessibility, developers could not only help people with disabled abilities, but also greatly benefit the general users with wonderful use cases, including:
• Remote assistant via touch interaction, without root. (seems like no such apps yet?)
• Automate the tedious operations inside not-well-designed apps, even possibly driven by Tasker or IFTTT, without root.
• Programatically trigger global actions (e.g. Back, Home).
• Overlay the whole screen including the notification shade on Android O.
• ……
I even wrote a small app with accessibility service to "fix" the bottom navigation bar of my wife's Moto X Style, whose touch screen is not reading touches any more in bottommost rows of pixels.
The Bad
With such power, accessibility service is also becoming the trending target of malware, endangering average users world-wide. A typical malware could deceive user to enable its accessibility service and then perform many dangerous actions without user consent, including gaining other sensitive privileges.
Together with screen overlay, this could even hide from average user's observation, effectively making it a seductive approach, thus highly dangerous in the wild.
The Ugly
The dangers above may not be a thread to advanced users, but the overall UI lag caused by accessibility service could be a real hurt.
Android delivers accessibility events to active accessibility service in two phases. Events are first generated in the current interacting app and immediately sent to system process, then dispatched to separate accessibility services, each in its own process.
If no accessibility services enabled, both phases are shutdown, thus no performance affection at all. If at least one accessibility service is enabled, the first phase is turned on, in full power, no matter which types of events are interested (declared by accessibility service). The second phase is taking that into consideration and only delivers the interested events to each accessibility service.
The performance lag comes mostly out of the first phase because some types of accessibility events are so heavy, considering how frequently they are triggered. For example, TYPE_WINDOW_CONTENT_CHANGED is generated and sent every tiny bit of UI content changes and TYPE_VIEW_SCROLLED is generated and sent every pixel your finger is moved across during scrolling, even if no accessibility services are interested in them.
Sounds crazy? Unfortunately that's the current situation. Although Android O took a step to address that, the situation is still not changed fundamentally. Maybe in Google's view, accessibility service is not intended for general users, so performance optimization is never in the priority.
How is Greenify doing
Performance is always Greenify's priority since it’s one of the purposes defining Greenify. So I took all the possibilities to improve that in the past years, even greatly pulled-back by Android system itself.
First of all, Greenify declares no interest of events at all at most of the time and only declares minimal interest of events (all are trivial to generate) and specific target (system settings app) required during the short period of on-going hibernation operation. This is implemented by dynamic registration, cutting the cost of the second phase to almost zero.
Due to the inefficient implementation in Android system, the first phase is still the bottleneck of UI performance. After a long time of trial and failure, I finally managed to eliminate that cost, in a tricky way. With necessary permission granted via ADB, Greenify only enables its accessibility service during the hibernation operation and disable it immediately afterwards. That means, if no other accessibility service enabled, you will have no performance problem of accessibility service at all while still enjoy the power of Greenify.
With above optimization, Greenify limited the events it could receive to the minimal, thus also effectively keeps the privacy of users in safety. I'm planning to bring this optimization to broader users who has little knowledge about ADB, and even to other apps with accessibility service hopefully.
My Concern
Accessibility service is a yard full of potential creativity and magic. It should never be a Pandora's Box if Android itself implement it with caution in the first place. I understand the complexity and historical reasons that lead to the current situation, but feel sorry and sad about how Google deals with this situation, by banishing popular tool apps. Will that make Android users more secure? I highly doubt.
I don't know if Google Play team represents the atitude of Android team at Google. If so, it will then be the breaking day for all Android developers, when Google starts to use its power to judge the "proper use" of Android API, even if it's not used by malware.
Will it come a day that the use of screen overlay besides showing information will be banned?
Will it come a day that the use of content provider not for providing data will be banned?
Will it come a day that the use of internal APIs will be banned?
oasisfeng said:
Like many other developers, I also received the 30-days deadline warning email from Google Play team about the potential "misuse" of accessibility service in Greenify.
As the very first developer who introduced this trick of "misusing" accessibility to achieve UI automation years ago, I'm very proud that many more creative tool apps followed this approach to enable fantastic functionality beyond the imagination of the creator of Android, without root. It's a miracle bred from the openness and flexibility of Android.
Unfortunately, the supervisor of the dominant app market is now declaring its right of final interpretation, to judge the proper use of Android API and claim that this whole idea is unacceptable. At this point, I feel I have to say something.
Why accessibility service?
As we all know, root is the ultimate playground of super users in the Android community. But it also has its inconvenience and grey side, so I decided to make Greenify work for users with non-root device. I had been experimenting with many approaches for this purpose in almost the whole year 2013. Finally I found the magic of UI automation driven by accessibility service. With this approach, many more users now enjoy the improved battery life and smoothness brought by Greenify.
I know that accessibility service is not a perfect solution, considering the overall UI performance degradation involved (explained below). So I never gave up seeking alternative approaches ever since, (many of which might also be considered API "misusing" in strict speaking) but still no better approach found. If Android could provide any alternative solution, I would never prefer accessibility service in the first place.
The Good
Accessibility service is so powerful, that I have to admit it's some kind of Pandora's box.
With accessibility, developers could not only help people with disabled abilities, but also greatly benefit the general users with wonderful use cases, including:
• Remote assistant via touch interaction, without root. (seems like no such apps yet?)
• Automate the tedious operations inside not-well-designed apps, even possibly driven by Tasker or IFTTT, without root.
• Programatically trigger global actions (e.g. Back, Home).
• Overlay the whole screen including the notification shade on Android O.
• ……
I even wrote a small app with accessibility service to "fix" the bottom navigation bar of my wife's Moto X Style, whose touch screen is not reading touches any more in bottommost rows of pixels.
The Bad
With such power, accessibility service is also becoming the trending target of malware, endangering average users world-wide. A typical malware could deceive user to enable its accessibility service and then perform many dangerous actions without user consent, including gaining other sensitive privileges.
Together with screen overlay, this could even hide from average user's observation, effectively making it a seductive approach, thus highly dangerous in the wild.
The Ugly
The dangers above may not be a thread to advanced users, but the overall UI lag caused by accessibility service could be a real hurt.
Android delivers accessibility events to active accessibility service in two phases. Events are first generated in the current interacting app and immediately sent to system process, then dispatched to separate accessibility services, each in its own process.
If no accessibility services enabled, both phases are shutdown, thus no performance affection at all. If at least one accessibility service is enabled, the first phase is turned on, in full power, no matter which types of events are interested (declared by accessibility service). The second phase is taking that into consideration and only delivers the interested events to each accessibility service.
The performance lag comes mostly out of the first phase because some types of accessibility events are so heavy, considering how frequently they are triggered. For example, TYPE_WINDOW_CONTENT_CHANGED is generated and sent every tiny bit of UI content changes and TYPE_VIEW_SCROLLED is generated and sent every pixel your finger is moved across during scrolling, even if no accessibility services are interested in them.
Sounds crazy? Unfortunately that's the current situation. Although Android O took a step to address that, the situation is still not changed fundamentally. Maybe in Google's view, accessibility service is not intended for general users, so performance optimization is never in the priority.
How is Greenify doing
Performance is always Greenify's priority since it’s one of the purposes defining Greenify. So I took all the possibilities to improve that in the past years, even greatly pulled-back by Android system itself.
First of all, Greenify declares no interest of events at all at most of the time and only declares minimal interest of events (all are trivial to generate) and specific target (system settings app) required during the short period of on-going hibernation operation. This is implemented by dynamic registration, cutting the cost of the second phase to almost zero.
Due to the inefficient implementation in Android system, the first phase is still the bottleneck of UI performance. After a long time of trial and failure, I finally managed to eliminate that cost, in a tricky way. With necessary permission granted via ADB, Greenify only enables its accessibility service during the hibernation operation and disable it immediately afterwards. That means, if no other accessibility service enabled, you will have no performance problem of accessibility service at all while still enjoy the power of Greenify.
With above optimization, Greenify limited the events it could receive to the minimal, thus also effectively keeps the privacy of users in safety. I'm planning to bring this optimization to broader users who has little knowledge about ADB, and even to other apps with accessibility service hopefully.
My Concern
Accessibility service is a yard full of potential creativity and magic. It should never be a Pandora's Box if Android itself implement it with caution in the first place. I understand the complexity and historical reasons that lead to the current situation, but feel sorry and sad about how Google deals with this situation, by banishing popular tool apps. Will that make Android users more secure? I highly doubt.
I don't know if Google Play team represents the atitude of Android team at Google. If so, it will then be the breaking day for all Android developers, when Google starts to use its power to judge the "proper use" of Android API, even if it's not used by malware.
Will it come a day that the use of screen overlay besides showing information will be banned?
Will it come a day that the use of content provider not for providing data will be banned?
Will it come a day that the use of internal APIs will be banned?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well thanks for all you've done for the Android community!
Perhaps you and many other devs should just pull away from Google and switch to a different market like FDroid.
Google has done this sort of thing in the past, like with SCR Pro (screen recording software with internal audio support) because it changed SELinux Policy. If Google loses their cut money, maybe they would rethink that decision. Personally if I was Google, I'd just add a "Potential Security Issue" or a "Modifies Critical Security Settings" indicator to apps on the Play Store that use the Accessibility Services or change SELinux Policy, or other security related settings. Give the users the option of what they choose or not choose to run on their phones! They already have some sort of a system in place that already does this with the "Play Protect" system. Slowly but surely, Android is becoming more like iOS with less freedom.
Interesting update to original article on XDA
https://www.xda-developers.com/google-threatening-removal-accessibility-services-play-store/
"Update: LastPass has just responded to this news and states that there will be “no immediate impact” for their Android apps. Whether or not this means that other applications will be given leniency remains to be seen."
Accessibility Service options
If I may ask -- what are you going to do? Are you going to pre-emptively unpublish the app before the 30 day limit is up? Are you going to try to reach out to Google and ask them to clarify whether there is any changes / clarifications? (LastPass implies they have gotten some kind of assurance, but they don't directly state that). Or, are you going to try to get as compliant as possible (put the appropriate language in the appropriate places), and hope for the best?
As far as I'm concerned your app is one of the few mission critical apps in the android ecosystem. So I can only hope that this can be resolved amicably.
I think this change is aimed solely at Substratum, as I have heard (not confirmed) than in Android 8.1 without root/unlocking and only using accessibility services, OMS can be exploited for theming. So Google is using a shotgun to kill all apps using this service rather than narrow their focus.
@oasisfeng
An insightful, deliberate and extremely well written post! ?
Sent from my SM-G955W ??
I think its time of the developers make a big migration of the apps to the XDA store to save the lagacy of the -7.0
Sent from my Asus ZenFone 3 Deluxe using XDA Labs
divineBliss said:
Interesting update to original article on XDA
https://www.xda-developers.com/google-threatening-removal-accessibility-services-play-store/
"Update: LastPass has just responded to this news and states that there will be “no immediate impact” for their Android apps. Whether or not this means that other applications will be given leniency remains to be seen."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LastPass and Chrome enjoyed a cozy relationship in the past. That said I'm almost surprised at the news given Google could easily incorporate similar functionality into Android. Maybe Google and LogMeIn have something going on the side (new rumor...lol).
As much as i like to sympathize with developers using Accessibility to improve functionality of Android, I can't.
Because in last couple of months i have seen many crappy apps (cleaners n all) also start asking for same permission, and average user don't really understand or even care to read what impact or access they are giving and more than 95% of Android user falls in this category. We at XDA or other nerdy site don't like this fact but it's bare truth.
And from Google perspective, They can't monitor each and every App for eternity that which one is using this permission for good and which one isn't. So hammer of Banning all of it seems only solution for now on their part. especially considering Accessibility service was never meant to use for improving "Device Functionality" (Button Mapper, Battery Saver) it was always meant for "helping hand" in case normal functionally can't be used, not as "Replacement".
Also in my personal option, i think this ban is more due to App developers are trying to bypass each and every thing device manufacturers put (Bexby & Assistant Button) than apps trying to help with routine task (LastPass, Greenify).
Though they may not say explicitly OEM are not happy with their excursive feature are ruined by apps using accessibility as bypass and they (including Google in this case) can force Play Store to make restriction on this. (whether it's is Good practice or not is entire different topic so don't dwell into that debate in replies)
So in conclusion, Till Google come up with better solution (and i think they will, People working there are not fools they understand good that this access can do for Android as whole) , banning seems fair to me because security & stability of 95% users comes above 5% demanding modification & features.
Nerdy will always find a way but it's extremely difficultly to help understand average user why their phone suddenly start behaving abnormally
and that's what Google & OEM face daily.
jineshpatel30 said:
As much as i like to sympathize with developers using Accessibility to improve functionality of Android, I can't.
Because in last couple of months i have seen many crappy apps (cleaners n all) also start asking for same permission, and average user don't really understand or even care to read what impact or access they are giving and more than 95% of Android user falls in this category. We at XDA or other nerdy site don't like this fact but it's bare truth.
And from Google perspective, They can't monitor each and every App for eternity that which one is using this permission for good and which one isn't. So hammer of Banning all of it seems only solution for now on their part. especially considering Accessibility service was never meant to use for improving "Device Functionality" (Button Mapper, Battery Saver) it was always meant for "helping hand" in case normal functionally can't be used, not as "Replacement".
Also in my personal option, i think this ban is more due to App developers are trying to bypass each and every thing device manufacturers put (Bexby & Assistant Button) than apps trying to help with routine task (LastPass, Greenify).
Though they may not say explicitly OEM are not happy with their excursive feature are ruined by apps using accessibility as bypass and they (including Google in this case) can force Play Store to make restriction on this. (whether it's is Good practice or not is entire different topic so don't dwell into that debate in replies)
So in conclusion, Till Google come up with better solution (and i think they will, People working there are not fools they understand good that this access can do for Android as whole) , banning seems fair to me because security & stability of 95% users comes above 5% demanding modification & features.
Nerdy will always find a way but it's extremely difficultly to help understand average user why their phone suddenly start behaving abnormally
and that's what Google & OEM face daily.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually Google has fairly simple way to provide a solution, for example, Play services API to provide similar functionality with refined security and proper restriction. The new SMS verification API is a good example for app to avoid requesting SMS permission. Fairly speaking, SMS too was not designed for verification purpose.
They did nothing for a long time, but rush to ban all these apps in just 30 days. I think they just don't care that much about advanced user like the old days when Android was competing with iOS fiercely.
I’m the developer of Battery Overlay Percent. Not one of the big apps out there but it does got 500,000 downloads and about 30,000 active users.
I use accessibility services for hiding overlay when user pull status bar or on later release to resolve overlay breaking permission.
I’m quite sad with Google closing down on legitimate use cases. Personally from an open source OS we now live in a world of 2 pretty closed mobile environments.
And who’s collecting most data? Play Services of course.
Hope there will be a shift from this centerlized dark state we’re in.
oasisfeng said:
Actually Google has fairly simple way to provide a solution, for example, Play services API to provide similar functionality with refined security and proper restriction. The new SMS verification API is a good example for app to avoid requesting SMS permission. Fairly speaking, SMS too was not designed for verification purpose.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought something similar and i still think they will implement it but not before 30day timeline.
They did nothing for a long time, but rush to ban all these apps in just 30 days. I think they just don't care that much about advanced user like the old days when Android was competing with iOS fiercely.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True that. When you have 90% of market you don't need to expand it any more you just need to control it.
I don't mean to sound like I'm supporting them, but this what people do in general, when they have control on almost entire market.
Luckily for now (and unlike with ios) Android can still and probaly can always exist without the Google Play Store and Google Play Services and thats still a big win over ios! And as much as I hate this news, this is something I think will ultimately lead advanced users and advanced developers to become less dependant upon Google Play Store and Google Play Services.... and for users/devs like us, thats actually a good thing!
Maybe now Google Play Store will finally get some real competition!! Google has certainly with their actions have now got a significant chunk of users and devs properly motivated to look or create healthy alternatives for app licensing and license management on Android, thats for sure and to also kick it off with a healthly sample of some of the most prized apps android has ever seen, yikes!! Greenify is amazing but Tasker too; bigger yikes!!!
cantenna said:
Luckily for now (and unlike with ios) Android can still and probaly can always exist without the Google Play Store and Google Play Services and thats still a big win over ios! And as much as I hate this news, this is something I think will ultimately lead advanced users and advanced developers to become less dependant upon Google Play Store and Google Play Services.... and for users/devs like us, thats actually a good thing!
Maybe now Google Play Store will finally get some real competition!! Google has certainly with their actions have now got a significant chunk of users and devs properly motivated to look or create healthy alternatives for app licensing and license management on Android, thats for sure and to also kick it off with a healthly sample of some of the most prized apps android has ever seen, yikes!! Greenify is amazing but Tasker too; bigger yikes!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly.
We need to stand our ground.
I have a feeling that alternate app stores are about to see a huge boost in users. Google is going to sorely regret their decisions.
betatest3 said:
Exactly.
We need to stand our ground.
I have a feeling that alternate app stores are about to see a huge boost in users. Google is going to sorely regret their decisions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I admire your optimistic attitude - But... Alphabet is a Juggernaut and if it suits them - They'd probably just buy any potential problem ?
Sent from my SM-G955W ??
shaggyskunk said:
I admire your optimistic attitude - But... Alphabet is a Juggernaut and if it suits them - They'd probably just buy any potential problem ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not to mention the relatively small number of individuals that will be adversely impacted when all is said and done. Bigger players (eg: LastPass) will likely receive some form of dispensation. Niche tools like Greenify might take a hit but that is not where the revenue stream resides. Google ain't catering to the Android enthusiast community.
shaggyskunk said:
I admire your optimistic attitude - But... Alphabet is a Juggernaut and if it suits them - They'd probably just buy any potential problem ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I dont think they'll be buying the amazon app store any time soon.
but to the point of the other user you quoted, you'll likely see the accessibility needing market move to another app store.
cantenna said:
I dont think they'll be buying the amazon app store any time soon.
but to the point of the other user you quoted, you'll likely see the accessibility needing market move to another app store.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure. There are a handful of reputable alternative app stores that cater to small communities that dare to venture off the beaten path. Niche market; don't think Google is worried. Nor is it likely Amazon will cater to Android enthusiasts.
If Alphabet/Google is serious about reining in potential abuses look for further adjustments in the successor to Android 8.
Can you on XDA Dev put an parallel market on the XDA Labs with PayPal account with less taxes (good for all) to maintaining and update webpage to conventional user going fu*k up the Google to the apps then will not survive on the Google rules on the market?
Put and good design market to the conventional use on XDA please.
Sent from my Asus ZenFone 3 Deluxe using XDA Labs
---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 PM ----------
If you on XDA Labs put a inner market in the app with an Market safe with PayPal the developers can update the Apps on the Market with no acessibility but make an link to be updated on the XDA Labs with a plugin or a new full version, we can free more people with xposed solutions to defeat Google Policy
Sent from my Asus ZenFone 3 Deluxe using XDA Labs
---------- Post added at 05:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------
Dev can update your apps and redirect to the external link in XDA Labs without violated google policy.
Sent from my Asus ZenFone 3 Deluxe using XDA Labs
---------- Post added at 05:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------
XDA Labs have power with an safe and free market scanning and checking malicious new apps to be so respected and Xposed so popular then I believed on the futere ASUS and Samsung make the ZenFone Deluxes and Galaxy S with Xposed on stock on the most expansive "and free" devices, absolutely. Please think renew the XDA webpage and XDA Labs to defeat the enemies of the freedom on coding.
Sent from my Asus ZenFone 3 Deluxe using XDA Labs
---------- Post added at 05:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------
Its time of the XDA webpage be more like Facebook on design and XDA Labs more like market on the safe and design to receive more redirected links to update and pay by apps on the XDA Labs with PayPal an Google Account if I like. Well if that happen we really will see if Google support free coding on open source.
Sent from my Asus ZenFone 3 Deluxe using XDA Labs
Interesting/digestible read; nothing new if you have been keeping up with the news on this topic.
https://www.howtogeek.com/333365/android-apps-using-accessibility-services-could-disappear/
First of all: I do not intend to sound needy.
If I do anything wrong, please be civil and let me know.
Also, I could not directly link to the Wikipedia articles due to the 10-post-requirement.
—————————————————————————————
I have observed that mobile phone manufacturers tend to do adverse changes for the sake of change. (No rant, just an observation.)
Also, the reason why dark themes are getting popular in 2019, despite of their ever-existing technical advantages, is because it is trendy. If the actual practicality mattered to manufacturers, it would have been done more than half[Wikipedia: Buzzword] a decade ago.
Back to topic:
——————————————————————————————————
Google is notorious for removing [Wikipedia: Draft:Android_removed_features]a lot[/URL] of [Wikipedia: Draft:List_of_features_removed_from_YouTube]functionality[/URL].
Unfortunately, [ developer,android,com/about/versions/pie/android-9.0-changes-all#privacy-changes-all (unable to parse URL due to sub-10 posts) ]an adverse change in Android 9[/URL] effectively disables anti-theft software entirely.
Yes, I get it, [ URL : Wikipedia: Buzzword]“It's for privacy![/URL]. As much as disabling the Internet altogether.
They should have given users the option to manually grant specific apps access to the microphone, instead of deprecating a big load of software that relied on these features.
How can I manually grant microphone access to selected applications?
I don't mind rooting my phone.
Google recommends people not to root their devices, yet they encourage people to root their devices with these restrictions.