Android Malware May Have Infected 5 Million Users 280
bonch writes "A massive Android malware campaign may be responsible for duping as many as 5 million users into downloading the Android.Counterclan infection from the Google Android Market. The trojan collects the user's personal information, modifies the home page, and displays unwanted advertisements. It is packaged in 13 different applications, some of which have been on the store for at least a month. Several of the malicious apps are still available on the Android Market as of 3 P.M. ET. Symantec has posted the full list of infected applications."
Re:Those Counter-Strike "Clones" (Score:5, Funny)
I've always thought it was odd that those games that literally copied Counter-Strike were allowed on the Google Market.
I know, you're about to say "copying gameplay, while unethical, is completely legal".
Apparently, it's only red double decker buses on a black and white picture that can be not made similar.
Re:Google Needs To Get Their Ass In Gear (Score:4, Funny)
Re:May have? (Score:4, Funny)
"In other news, security research firm says they've found alarming evidence of their own relevance.
Details at 11"
That's 5:00 you non-binary-reading troglodytes. I suspect next I'll hear a story about how useful rats are at guarding cheese.
Re:Google Needs To Get Their Ass In Gear (Score:0, Funny)
Re:May have? (Score:5, Funny)
And of course NONE of the anti-virus or malware scanners caught even One instance of this in the wild.
SYMANTIC advertising their own uselessness.
Re:No risk for me (Score:4, Funny)
Can your mom differentiate between a good URL and a bad URL?
She can. Why shouldn't she? It's not like there are no bad URLs outside apps. It should be as much common sense as knowledge of mail frauds and con tricks.
Delegating vetting of apps behaviour to end users is a fundamentally bad idea. It's a task that requires skills and experience, and you can't assume them in a consumer product. This is stuff that should be done by professionals in the supply chain.
May be, though I, like many others, prefer choice. But why does that invalidate a need for better permission system? AFAIK, iOS basically permits applications to do whatever they want with internet, relying on vetting to weed out abuse - and it's not guaranteed to work. There already was a handful of examples, like Dolphin browser quietly sending every URL you visit to their server "to check compatibility with Webzine"
You seem to be opposed to it only on "iOS approach good, Android approach bad" basis. I don't see anything wrong with requiring basic knowledge from smartphone users. Is "Don't install games that want to send paid messages on your phone" so much harder than "Don't put metallic tableware in the microwave"?