Android/iOS Antivirus Questions
-
@MattSpeller said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@coliver said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
I'm not convinced it's necessary. Both iOS and Android have sandboxing features that prevent malicious code from running. Android, of course, lets the user run it anyway if they give that app permission. I think iOS has something similar but they have a pretty decent app store that prevents that type of thing, unlike Google.
I am an Android guy by the way.
I'm not convinced it's necessary either, but I believe I was infected and now I'm all paranoid.
One security research firm (I don't remember the name I'll have to look) went through the Google App store and downloaded as much malicious stuff as possible. They found that unless the application is given permission, which means a user has to allow it, then it really can't do anything on the system. If the user allows it then, obviously, the malicious code was able to execute and do it's thing.
-
@MattSpeller said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@Nic said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
On Android Webroot is great. iOS doesn't really allow any true AV so it's a moot point there.
Is it the same principle as the desktop version? More focus on what's running than on scans?
A lot of it is about anti-phishing (i.e. protecting you from going to a malicious website) and malicious apps (i.e. preventing you from installing something that is going to do something bad). The anti-phishing tech is the same as the desktop, but the reputation database for the Google Play store and other apps is unique to mobile.
-
@Nic Thank you
-
@coliver said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@MattSpeller said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@coliver said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
I'm not convinced it's necessary. Both iOS and Android have sandboxing features that prevent malicious code from running. Android, of course, lets the user run it anyway if they give that app permission. I think iOS has something similar but they have a pretty decent app store that prevents that type of thing, unlike Google.
I am an Android guy by the way.
I'm not convinced it's necessary either, but I believe I was infected and now I'm all paranoid.
One security research firm (I don't remember the name I'll have to look) went through the Google App store and downloaded as much malicious stuff as possible. They found that unless the application is given permission, which means a user has to allow it, then it really can't do anything on the system. If the user allows it then, obviously, the malicious code was able to execute and do it's thing.
That's exactly what creeps me out about Android - why does everything need permissions to stuff you wouldn't expect it to use. I fear the answer is "to slurp your data". Which is garbage. However the app won't run without it.
Example: "Samsung Briefing" which is a news aggregator - asks for permission to save to disk, phone, etc etc
-
@MattSpeller said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@coliver said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@MattSpeller said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@coliver said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
I'm not convinced it's necessary. Both iOS and Android have sandboxing features that prevent malicious code from running. Android, of course, lets the user run it anyway if they give that app permission. I think iOS has something similar but they have a pretty decent app store that prevents that type of thing, unlike Google.
I am an Android guy by the way.
I'm not convinced it's necessary either, but I believe I was infected and now I'm all paranoid.
One security research firm (I don't remember the name I'll have to look) went through the Google App store and downloaded as much malicious stuff as possible. They found that unless the application is given permission, which means a user has to allow it, then it really can't do anything on the system. If the user allows it then, obviously, the malicious code was able to execute and do it's thing.
That's exactly what creeps me out about Android - why does everything need permissions to stuff you wouldn't expect it to use. I fear the answer is "to slurp your data". Which is garbage. However the app won't run without it.
Example: "Samsung Briefing" which is a news aggregator - asks for permission to save to disk, phone, etc etc
The newest version of Android took a cue from iOS and now lets you be more judicial with app permissions. Haven't been able to play with it yet.
-
I use Webroot's mobile version on Android, no battery issues, phone runs fine with Webroot running. Since there is no good adblocker for Android, I feel better running something.
-
@coliver said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@MattSpeller said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@coliver said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
I'm not convinced it's necessary. Both iOS and Android have sandboxing features that prevent malicious code from running. Android, of course, lets the user run it anyway if they give that app permission. I think iOS has something similar but they have a pretty decent app store that prevents that type of thing, unlike Google.
I am an Android guy by the way.
I'm not convinced it's necessary either, but I believe I was infected and now I'm all paranoid.
One security research firm (I don't remember the name I'll have to look) went through the Google App store and downloaded as much malicious stuff as possible. They found that unless the application is given permission, which means a user has to allow it, then it really can't do anything on the system. If the user allows it then, obviously, the malicious code was able to execute and do it's thing.
Hi, have you met the users most of use have to deal with - they give the permissions no matter what.
-
@Dashrender said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@coliver said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@MattSpeller said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@coliver said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
I'm not convinced it's necessary. Both iOS and Android have sandboxing features that prevent malicious code from running. Android, of course, lets the user run it anyway if they give that app permission. I think iOS has something similar but they have a pretty decent app store that prevents that type of thing, unlike Google.
I am an Android guy by the way.
I'm not convinced it's necessary either, but I believe I was infected and now I'm all paranoid.
One security research firm (I don't remember the name I'll have to look) went through the Google App store and downloaded as much malicious stuff as possible. They found that unless the application is given permission, which means a user has to allow it, then it really can't do anything on the system. If the user allows it then, obviously, the malicious code was able to execute and do it's thing.
Hi, have you met the users most of use have to deal with - they give the permissions no matter what.
lulz IT will fix it
And in other news today and IT admin was taken to jail after beating a man to death with a smart phone. Police are initially calling it justified homicide however it may yet go to court.
-
@MattSpeller said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@coliver said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@MattSpeller said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@coliver said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
I'm not convinced it's necessary. Both iOS and Android have sandboxing features that prevent malicious code from running. Android, of course, lets the user run it anyway if they give that app permission. I think iOS has something similar but they have a pretty decent app store that prevents that type of thing, unlike Google.
I am an Android guy by the way.
I'm not convinced it's necessary either, but I believe I was infected and now I'm all paranoid.
One security research firm (I don't remember the name I'll have to look) went through the Google App store and downloaded as much malicious stuff as possible. They found that unless the application is given permission, which means a user has to allow it, then it really can't do anything on the system. If the user allows it then, obviously, the malicious code was able to execute and do it's thing.
That's exactly what creeps me out about Android - why does everything need permissions to stuff you wouldn't expect it to use. I fear the answer is "to slurp your data". Which is garbage. However the app won't run without it.
Example: "Samsung Briefing" which is a news aggregator - asks for permission to save to disk, phone, etc etc
That example makes full sense - it's queuing up, so it needs to write to disk, and read - why it needs phone - yeah to slurp your data.
-
@coliver said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@MattSpeller said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@coliver said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@MattSpeller said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@coliver said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
I'm not convinced it's necessary. Both iOS and Android have sandboxing features that prevent malicious code from running. Android, of course, lets the user run it anyway if they give that app permission. I think iOS has something similar but they have a pretty decent app store that prevents that type of thing, unlike Google.
I am an Android guy by the way.
I'm not convinced it's necessary either, but I believe I was infected and now I'm all paranoid.
One security research firm (I don't remember the name I'll have to look) went through the Google App store and downloaded as much malicious stuff as possible. They found that unless the application is given permission, which means a user has to allow it, then it really can't do anything on the system. If the user allows it then, obviously, the malicious code was able to execute and do it's thing.
That's exactly what creeps me out about Android - why does everything need permissions to stuff you wouldn't expect it to use. I fear the answer is "to slurp your data". Which is garbage. However the app won't run without it.
Example: "Samsung Briefing" which is a news aggregator - asks for permission to save to disk, phone, etc etc
The newest version of Android took a cue from iOS and now lets you be more judicial with app permissions. Haven't been able to play with it yet.
in what way? I don't see a way to prevent, for example, Skype from using my camera but allowing it access to the network and microphone.
-
@Dashrender said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@coliver said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@MattSpeller said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@coliver said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@MattSpeller said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
@coliver said in Android/iOS Antivirus Questions:
I'm not convinced it's necessary. Both iOS and Android have sandboxing features that prevent malicious code from running. Android, of course, lets the user run it anyway if they give that app permission. I think iOS has something similar but they have a pretty decent app store that prevents that type of thing, unlike Google.
I am an Android guy by the way.
I'm not convinced it's necessary either, but I believe I was infected and now I'm all paranoid.
One security research firm (I don't remember the name I'll have to look) went through the Google App store and downloaded as much malicious stuff as possible. They found that unless the application is given permission, which means a user has to allow it, then it really can't do anything on the system. If the user allows it then, obviously, the malicious code was able to execute and do it's thing.
That's exactly what creeps me out about Android - why does everything need permissions to stuff you wouldn't expect it to use. I fear the answer is "to slurp your data". Which is garbage. However the app won't run without it.
Example: "Samsung Briefing" which is a news aggregator - asks for permission to save to disk, phone, etc etc
The newest version of Android took a cue from iOS and now lets you be more judicial with app permissions. Haven't been able to play with it yet.
in what way? I don't see a way to prevent, for example, Skype from using my camera but allowing it access to the network and microphone.
Do you have Nougat? I could have sworn that was one of the selling points. Where you give permissions like that on an as needed basis. So you could very well prevent skype from accessing the camera but allow it to access the microphone. It may not work as expected but...
