Also, the original title was [more] accurate to begin with. In your usual enthusiasm to bash Android — you apparently missed this gem in the current article:
“Weidman said that on iOS devices, a similar botnet could potentially be distributed as part of a “jailbreak” package.”
Nicu
8:51 am on December 7, 2011 164 days agoReply
That’s why Apple does not encourage jailbraking. Have you ever heard of a corrupted system being safe ? Nobody can protect users from their active stupidity.
Birra
12:10 pm on December 7, 2011 164 days agoReply
The rantings of a petulant child as @nicu so correctly pointed out. Yes if you are truly stupid you can jailbreak your iPhone and join the other petulant children. But most of us grow up and choose to throw away childish things. But toddle if you must.
rastard
8:17 pm on December 7, 2011 164 days agoReply
The irony here is rich. You resorting to ad hominem attacks… like a child would — while calling me a toddler.
Would it have been too much for you to simply admit that all smartphone platforms can be susceptible to botnets under specific conditions? That’s exactly what Researcher Weidman did…
Come on, Birra – name calling does not belong on this board – leave that for the Google board. Though you may find him irritating, it is clear Rastard is not stupid, or even childish. He is typically the only one who posts here who has a counterpoint to the pro-Apple sentiment which is typically expressed here, and does so reasonably well.
JPWatkins
8:40 pm on December 8, 2011 163 days agoReply
“. . . simply admit that all smartphone platforms can be susceptible to botnets under specific conditions? That’s exactly what Researcher Weidman did…”
Not really.
When the “specific condition” is a design decision of the product and it is “susceptible” out of the box,” it’s not the same as when the user has deliberately created the “specific condition” by removing designed in security measures so as to create the “susceptibility.”
Any inability to admit this basic fact would be on par with childish name calling.
rastard
5:45 am on December 9, 2011 162 days agoReply
and it is “susceptible” out of the box,”
1) Citation needed.
2) There’s little difference between an iPhone user casually choosing to jailbreak their phone without considering the potential repercussions of doing so, and an Android user casually choosing to install apps without considering the potential repercussions of doing so. The Android Market is replete with user reviews for each app, and also provides a clear statement of the permissions and access that each app had access to. Whether jailbreaking or choosing to install apps with broad/unnecessary permissions, users have deliberately chosen to make their phones vulnerable. Any inability to admit this basic fact would be on par with being a pretentious ass.
3) Every year, Macs and Safari seem to get hacked faster than all competing platforms at Pwn2own. Similarly, security researchers seem to regularly release reports calling out vulnerabilities in Apple produces which result in Apple bashers crawling out of the woodwork to claim that Macs aren’t secure. In response to those claims (and rightly so) people here immediately jump to Apple’s defense pointing out that these are merely proofs of concepts, research findings, and theoretical vulnerabilities, not real-world epidemics.
Yet when it’s Android and not Apple, these same proofs of concept, research findings, and theoretical vulnerabilities are all of a sudden real-world epidemics. Fanboy bias much? Any inability to admit this basic fact would be on par with being a… well… a fanboy.
JPWatkins
8:33 pm on December 9, 2011 162 days agoReply
Rastard,
As often is the case, I pity your post, which reeks of desperation.
1.) The only citation needed is reality and critical thinking skills.
2.) Although your whole world view seems to rest on this point, it made me laugh out loud and is truly unworthy of any response. If you really believe this, we are scratching our heads in wonder. But if you are just saying it, how can we in good conscience read anything you post in the future?
3.) First, get the slightest smidgen of a basic education in critical reasoning. Then read the most basic information on electronic security. Finally, discard your obvious preexisting agenda and using your newly acquired skills, carefully read the facts around these accounts. You will discover that despite all the smoke and noise around theoretical and “proof of concept” hacks of OS X and iOS, the reality is, these platforms have never been exploited in any way (although third party software has sometimes produced vectors of exploitation.) Further, in actual “real world” computing, neither OS X nor iOS has never proven vulnerable to any exploit, (although OS X, users have occasionally succumbed to “social engineering” techniques.) One word in your assertion stands out, ” . . . Macs and Safari ***seem*** to get hacked faster than all competing platforms . . . ”
-
RE: your parting paragraph
You of course ignore the fact that I have not sensationalized or even posted anything about Android vulnerabilities. Yet you gleefully lash out at me. Nonetheless, there are many documented cases where both Android system vulnerabilities and the feral “system” of Android software distribution has caused serious harm to users “in the wild.” This is not “theoretical,” “research,” or “proof of concept.” It’s just a natural consequence of Google’s design and engineering decisions.
rastard
1:06 am on December 10, 2011 162 days agoReply
“and it is “susceptible” out of the box,”
1) I’ll say again, citation needed. I’d like to see one reference from this security researcher’s findings (or any other for that manner) that indicates that Android phones are susceptible to botnets right out of the box (i.e. without a user having installed an app).
“The only citation needed is reality and critical thinking skills”
Evaluation and analysis of evidence is actually foundational to Critical Thinking. Your unwillingness to provide any evidence makes it clear that you don’t know the first thing about critical thinking, else you wouldn’t have offered up such a recursive response. You can hide behind all of the long-winded smokescreens and grandiose assertions about your superior intellect that you want, but all those do is reveal you to be a coward without the cognitive ability or critical reasoning skills to actually engage in a reasoned discussion.
2) Your basic reading comprehension apparently is lacking as well, because my point 3 above already stated that the theoretical security risks identified by researchers don’t actually manifest in real-world epidemics.
3) “You of course ignore the fact that I have not sensationalized or even posted anything about Android vulnerabilities”.
In your post just prior, you claimed that Android is “susceptible” [to botnets] out of the box”. That’s a post about Android vulnerabilities. Any inability to admit this basic fact would be on par with being a liar…
JPWatkins
9:10 pm on December 9, 2011 162 days agoReply
People who read more than just blog headlines and who also have basic critical reasoning skills may find this recent academic article on smartphone malware of interest.
- http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~afelt/mobilemalware.pdf
-
The authors state in their introduction, “Our survey encompasses all known iOS, Symbian, and Android malware that spread between January 2009 and June 2011. We collected information about 46 pieces of malware in this time period: 4 for iOS, 24 for Symbian, and 18 for Android.”
-
And in the conclusion, “We also observed that none of the malware in our data set was approved by the Apple App Store, which indicates that human review may be an effective preventative measure for malware.”
-
[That's *zero* malware in the wild on unbroken iOS devices and 18 (and rapidly rising) on any Android device.]
Nicu
9:47 pm on December 9, 2011 162 days agoReply
Scientific data and discoveries never had any influence on religious people (regarding their object of cult).
rastard
2:19 am on December 10, 2011 162 days agoReply
Wow. I never thought I’d see the day where you would acknowledge that you were disregarding data and evidence because of your cultist affection to Apple. That’s really great!
Recognition is the first step to recovery…
Nicu
5:13 am on December 10, 2011 161 days agoReply
You got is, smart boy !
JPWatkins
10:23 pm on December 9, 2011 162 days agoReply
Very true.
I can’t tell for sure if Rastard is religious about Android. It could be he “makes a religion” of something else, but I not sure what—contrariness, conflict, trolling, or maybe just a desire to “win,” “be right,” or be a “lone, rugged, individualist voice, alone on the frontier.” Or maybe it’s just what you say. I don’t know.
rastard
2:29 am on December 10, 2011 162 days agoReply
Here’s a question perhaps you can answer. Have you ever posted *anything* here critical of Apple, or complimentary of Android in any way?
rastard 8:00 am on December 7, 2011 164 days ago Reply
Err – back in 2009, researchers already presented a similar Botnet proof of concept — using iPhones: (http://mulliner.org/collin/academic/publications/ibots_malware10_mulliner_seifert.pdf)
Also, the original title was [more] accurate to begin with. In your usual enthusiasm to bash Android — you apparently missed this gem in the current article:
“Weidman said that on iOS devices, a similar botnet could potentially be distributed as part of a “jailbreak” package.”
Nicu 8:51 am on December 7, 2011 164 days ago Reply
That’s why Apple does not encourage jailbraking. Have you ever heard of a corrupted system being safe ? Nobody can protect users from their active stupidity.
Birra 12:10 pm on December 7, 2011 164 days ago Reply
The rantings of a petulant child as @nicu so correctly pointed out. Yes if you are truly stupid you can jailbreak your iPhone and join the other petulant children. But most of us grow up and choose to throw away childish things. But toddle if you must.
rastard 8:17 pm on December 7, 2011 164 days ago Reply
The irony here is rich. You resorting to ad hominem attacks… like a child would — while calling me a toddler.
Would it have been too much for you to simply admit that all smartphone platforms can be susceptible to botnets under specific conditions? That’s exactly what Researcher Weidman did…
SB 10:08 pm on December 7, 2011 164 days ago Reply
Come on, Birra – name calling does not belong on this board – leave that for the Google board. Though you may find him irritating, it is clear Rastard is not stupid, or even childish. He is typically the only one who posts here who has a counterpoint to the pro-Apple sentiment which is typically expressed here, and does so reasonably well.
JPWatkins 8:40 pm on December 8, 2011 163 days ago Reply
“. . . simply admit that all smartphone platforms can be susceptible to botnets under specific conditions? That’s exactly what Researcher Weidman did…”
Not really.
When the “specific condition” is a design decision of the product and it is “susceptible” out of the box,” it’s not the same as when the user has deliberately created the “specific condition” by removing designed in security measures so as to create the “susceptibility.”
Any inability to admit this basic fact would be on par with childish name calling.
rastard 5:45 am on December 9, 2011 162 days ago Reply
and it is “susceptible” out of the box,”
1) Citation needed.
2) There’s little difference between an iPhone user casually choosing to jailbreak their phone without considering the potential repercussions of doing so, and an Android user casually choosing to install apps without considering the potential repercussions of doing so. The Android Market is replete with user reviews for each app, and also provides a clear statement of the permissions and access that each app had access to. Whether jailbreaking or choosing to install apps with broad/unnecessary permissions, users have deliberately chosen to make their phones vulnerable. Any inability to admit this basic fact would be on par with being a pretentious ass.
3) Every year, Macs and Safari seem to get hacked faster than all competing platforms at Pwn2own. Similarly, security researchers seem to regularly release reports calling out vulnerabilities in Apple produces which result in Apple bashers crawling out of the woodwork to claim that Macs aren’t secure. In response to those claims (and rightly so) people here immediately jump to Apple’s defense pointing out that these are merely proofs of concepts, research findings, and theoretical vulnerabilities, not real-world epidemics.
Yet when it’s Android and not Apple, these same proofs of concept, research findings, and theoretical vulnerabilities are all of a sudden real-world epidemics. Fanboy bias much? Any inability to admit this basic fact would be on par with being a… well… a fanboy.
JPWatkins 8:33 pm on December 9, 2011 162 days ago Reply
Rastard,
As often is the case, I pity your post, which reeks of desperation.
1.) The only citation needed is reality and critical thinking skills.
2.) Although your whole world view seems to rest on this point, it made me laugh out loud and is truly unworthy of any response. If you really believe this, we are scratching our heads in wonder. But if you are just saying it, how can we in good conscience read anything you post in the future?
3.) First, get the slightest smidgen of a basic education in critical reasoning. Then read the most basic information on electronic security. Finally, discard your obvious preexisting agenda and using your newly acquired skills, carefully read the facts around these accounts. You will discover that despite all the smoke and noise around theoretical and “proof of concept” hacks of OS X and iOS, the reality is, these platforms have never been exploited in any way (although third party software has sometimes produced vectors of exploitation.) Further, in actual “real world” computing, neither OS X nor iOS has never proven vulnerable to any exploit, (although OS X, users have occasionally succumbed to “social engineering” techniques.) One word in your assertion stands out, ” . . . Macs and Safari ***seem*** to get hacked faster than all competing platforms . . . ”
-
RE: your parting paragraph
You of course ignore the fact that I have not sensationalized or even posted anything about Android vulnerabilities. Yet you gleefully lash out at me. Nonetheless, there are many documented cases where both Android system vulnerabilities and the feral “system” of Android software distribution has caused serious harm to users “in the wild.” This is not “theoretical,” “research,” or “proof of concept.” It’s just a natural consequence of Google’s design and engineering decisions.
rastard 1:06 am on December 10, 2011 162 days ago Reply
“and it is “susceptible” out of the box,”
1) I’ll say again, citation needed. I’d like to see one reference from this security researcher’s findings (or any other for that manner) that indicates that Android phones are susceptible to botnets right out of the box (i.e. without a user having installed an app).
“The only citation needed is reality and critical thinking skills”
Evaluation and analysis of evidence is actually foundational to Critical Thinking. Your unwillingness to provide any evidence makes it clear that you don’t know the first thing about critical thinking, else you wouldn’t have offered up such a recursive response. You can hide behind all of the long-winded smokescreens and grandiose assertions about your superior intellect that you want, but all those do is reveal you to be a coward without the cognitive ability or critical reasoning skills to actually engage in a reasoned discussion.
2) Your basic reading comprehension apparently is lacking as well, because my point 3 above already stated that the theoretical security risks identified by researchers don’t actually manifest in real-world epidemics.
3) “You of course ignore the fact that I have not sensationalized or even posted anything about Android vulnerabilities”.
In your post just prior, you claimed that Android is “susceptible” [to botnets] out of the box”. That’s a post about Android vulnerabilities. Any inability to admit this basic fact would be on par with being a liar…
JPWatkins 9:10 pm on December 9, 2011 162 days ago Reply
People who read more than just blog headlines and who also have basic critical reasoning skills may find this recent academic article on smartphone malware of interest.
-
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~afelt/mobilemalware.pdf
-
The authors state in their introduction, “Our survey encompasses all known iOS, Symbian, and Android malware that spread between January 2009 and June 2011. We collected information about 46 pieces of malware in this time period: 4 for iOS, 24 for Symbian, and 18 for Android.”
-
And in the conclusion, “We also observed that none of the malware in our data set was approved by the Apple App Store, which indicates that human review may be an effective preventative measure for malware.”
-
[That's *zero* malware in the wild on unbroken iOS devices and 18 (and rapidly rising) on any Android device.]
Nicu 9:47 pm on December 9, 2011 162 days ago Reply
Scientific data and discoveries never had any influence on religious people (regarding their object of cult).
rastard 2:19 am on December 10, 2011 162 days ago Reply
Wow. I never thought I’d see the day where you would acknowledge that you were disregarding data and evidence because of your cultist affection to Apple. That’s really great!
Recognition is the first step to recovery…
Nicu 5:13 am on December 10, 2011 161 days ago Reply
You got is, smart boy !
JPWatkins 10:23 pm on December 9, 2011 162 days ago Reply
Very true.
I can’t tell for sure if Rastard is religious about Android. It could be he “makes a religion” of something else, but I not sure what—contrariness, conflict, trolling, or maybe just a desire to “win,” “be right,” or be a “lone, rugged, individualist voice, alone on the frontier.” Or maybe it’s just what you say. I don’t know.
rastard 2:29 am on December 10, 2011 162 days ago Reply
Here’s a question perhaps you can answer. Have you ever posted *anything* here critical of Apple, or complimentary of Android in any way?