Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android Privacy IT Your Rights Online

Android Malware May Have Infected 5 Million Users 280

Posted by timothy
from the there-aren't-enough-whips-in-the-world dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Android Malware May Have Infected 5 Million Users

Comments Filter:
  • by frnic (98517)

    n/t

  • by gman003 (1693318) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @01:10AM (#38848051)

    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". Problem is, they didn't copy the gameplay - they're boring rail shooters. The copied stuff is the art - the textures, models, even some of the maps. And that's blatant copyright infringement. It's obvious even from the previews, if you've played the game enough. And since, at one point, people playing cs_italy were responsible for more bandwidth usage than actual people in Italy, I'm pretty sure I'm not the first to notice it.

    I figured Valve, being pretty savvy about this sort of thing, figured that suing them would give them too much publicity - Streisand Effect and all that, not worth the huge amount of publicity that anything Valve does. Now, I'm thinking that iApps7 was just ignoring the cease-and-desists, because when you're already distributing malware and committing actual, commercial copyright theft, you're probably not too afraid of lawyers.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 28, 2012 @01:40AM (#38848147)

      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.

  • by rsmith-mac (639075) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @01:10AM (#38848055)

    Although I seriously doubt Symantec's 5 million number is right, the fact that malware keep showing up on the market is disturbing. Actually, we're beyond disturbing, it's getting downright annoying. Google needs to do better than removing bad applications after the fact, and while this doesn't need to be a Jobsian walled garden, at a minimum Google needs to start reviewing all applications (and updates!) before posting them to make sure they're clean.

    Phones are appliances, and trying to handle malware the same way we handle it on computers (which is to say, after the fact) is not going to work.

    • by Nerdfest (867930) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @01:18AM (#38848077)

      What they could do is provide the same sort of "reviewed application" market that Apple does, but as an option (as I believe Apple should). I see that as the best of both worlds. If you want to lower the odds of malware, use that market. If you don't mind a little risk use something else, like the current Android market.

      • by Nerdfest (867930)

        I'd also like to add that my phone is no more an appliance than my home computer. Some phones are appliances because their functionality has been reduced to that. I'm still hoping for an updated version of the N900 (or something similar) to hit the market.

      • by hey! (33014) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @01:54AM (#38848197) Homepage Journal

        Consider the difference between the following questions:

        (1) Who can *you* trust?
        (2) Who can *everyone* trust?

        The problem with the Apple market, and with your idea too, is that it is predicated on having an answer to the second question other than "nobody".

        It seems clear to me that a better solution could be built around the first question. That entails letting the consumer decide who he trusts to review and approve apps, then giving him the tools to implement that trust. That'd involve some kind of network to distribute digitally signed approvals. You wouldn't have to have different app stores. You could use any store or combination of stores you wanted. What matters is whether you can find a certification for an app from an authority you trust.

        Consumers would subscribe to different authorities based on their concerns. Businesses might choose different kinds of reviewers to trust than gamers. Different functions in a business might choose different reviewers based on the kind of information they handle (e.g. whether the device running the app has sensitive or privacy related data). Evangelical Christians might choose review authorities that reject apps that promote pornography, and porn-hounds would choose authorities that reject apps promoting Christianity.

        • by Telvin_3d (855514) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @02:38AM (#38848327)

          That assumes that the average consumer can or should be able to make intelligent decisions about "who he trusts to review and approve apps". In reality it would be the malware company with the biggest marketing budget. The idea that a consumer should first spend weeks getting up to speed in the mapping or racing simulator communities before they can safely try out a couple apps is ridiculous. What you would get instead is friends recommending friends, and all that means is that every person who gets tricked they immediately recommend a few friends to download the same BS.

          Because the question in question is not "who can *everyone* trust?", the question is "who can everyone trust not to serve up malware". That is a much easier question to answer. And I think "big company with a lot of resources and a large vested interest in not serving me malware" is a pretty good answer to that question.

          • by hey! (33014) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @09:43AM (#38849473) Homepage Journal

            That assumes that the average consumer can or should be able to make intelligent decisions about "who he trusts to review and approve apps".

            Not really. It assumes *some* consumers are able to make intelligent decisions and that there is benefit to addressing their needs and costs to sweeping them in with consumers who are less savvy. By that reasoning, there should be no *Consumer Reports* and we should rely upon the Consumer Products Safety Commission to make decisions for you.

            In reality it would be the malware company with the biggest marketing budget.

            This is probably depends on the *kind* of malware. Take privacy intrusion. Privacy intrusion for collecting marketing data would surely be a problem, because it's legal. But it goes on anyhow, you just don't see it and it's not running on your equipment. The point of entry to the surveillance network is the retailer. Privacy intrusion for purposes of identity theft would not be a problem *for the certification system* because the "big marketing budget" provides a trail back to the perpetrators.

            The idea that a consumer should first spend weeks getting up to speed in the mapping or racing simulator communities before they can safely try out a couple apps is ridiculous.

            I'll ignore the various shortcomings of the scenario you propose and cut to the chase: The real issue with the system I proposed is that it cannot overcome impatience, and it conflicts with the needs of marketing, which exploits impatience. There's an app that's gone viral, but it hasn't been certified yet by anyone you've heard of. It might take weeks for the stodgy certifiers everyone uses to get around to examining the thing, during which you'll have to live without this app you feel you can't live without. So you choose to grant an exception, or worse -- to trust a dodgy certifier. In fact, the system I proposes creates a new avenue for social engineering attack in which malware authors entice consumers to trust a malicious certifier because they want their free game *right now*.

            So why do I think it's a good idea? Because my standard of success is different than yours. You want a system that will protect foolish people from their choices. I want a system in which it is *possible* to make and enforce good decisions. While I think it is unfortunate that fools are exploited, I see no way of protecting them absolutely without posing unreasonable restrictions of freedom.

            Because the question in question is not "who can *everyone* trust?", the question is "who can everyone trust not to serve up malware".

            Well, if you can answer that, you make those agents the *default* trusted authorities. The problem I have with platform-vendor-chooses-who-everyone-has-to-trust solution is that everyone is not the same. A hospital securing its mobile devices used in health care delivery is different from a teenager who is messing with his game console. People feel differently about privacy too, and their stance may vary depending on device. That teenager might choose different universes of apps for his game console and phone.

            The problem with the current system is that it relies on people being able to draw inferences about developer intent from specific permissions an app requests. How insane is that? Even an expert who understands what a permission *does* can't reliably anticipate everything it can *accomplish*, much less the *intent* of the developer in asking for it.

        • by inglorion_on_the_net (1965514) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @03:48AM (#38848531) Homepage

          I've always thought that apt (apt-get, aptitude, Debian) has the right solution to this.

          You get your software from a repository, and only software that is approved by the maintainers of the repository gets in.

          Then, _you_ get to choose which repositories you trust.

          That way, you don't have to judge the quality of all software yourself. You can leave that to the people who maintain the repositories. They will build up reputation over time, and you can go with the ones that have a good enough reputation by your standards.

          A walled-garden app store like Apple's basically implements the first part of this. This is fine for a lot of people.

          To also cater to those who want more freedom, without opening the flood gates, all you have to do is allow them to shop at other app stores, as well.

          • by Gonoff (88518)

            The problem is that a lot of people (most?) would find apt-get horrendous. App stores are simple way to let someone else decide for you what you want.

            Even most Android users are probably quite content with one market place. You may have more than one. Most users here may well have installed things straight from an .APK file. This is not normal. We here should not take our attitudes and abilities as the norm.

      • The only problem I see with that is that it doesn't do much to solve the Dancing Bunnies problem within the Market. So long as loading unsigned applications is allowed it will always be an issue, but not allowing unreviewed applications at all in the Market is a much better solution. Otherwise people are going to grab their Counter Strike knock-offs whether they're reviewed or not, because after all they're coming from Google and Google can be trusted.

      • What they could do is provide the same sort of "reviewed application" market that Apple does, but as an option (as I believe Apple should).

        The nice thing about the Android mindset, is that this can be done. Anyone who wants to can setup such a service. If there isn't such a service, then it's just a demonstration that there isn't sufficient demand for such a service - at least, there's not sufficient demand to cover the additional expense of such a marketplace. It's a very free-market approach.

      • In a way, you already have that. Appbrain accepts more risk than does google. As such, once you use appbrain, you have more risk. But the idea of a market with nothing but reviewed apps is a WONDERFUL opportunity for new companies. Right now, it is either all google's market or allows all else. But, if they would allow for other markets to be accepted that are considered more secured than Google's current market, then it would be possible to have multiple companies reviewing these apps. In particular, and
      • by jonbryce (703250)

        I think the default Android Market should be a "reviewed application" market. Android does allow you to side-load apps and use other App stores, so for that reason, it wouldn't be censorship in the same way that the Apple App Store is.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BasilBrush (643681)

      Walled garden is the way to go.
      Android users very satisfied: 47%
      iPhone users very satisfied: 75%

      http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/01/09/iphone-satisfaction-at-75-closest-competitor-at-47/ [loopinsight.com]

      • foxconn factory workers very satisfied: 100%, with no dissent! amazing.

        when interviewed, every last worker expressed their deepest appreciation for their bosses, and how much they love working together for harmonious success of the company, which they love and admire deeply.

        • by SuperKendall (25149) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @02:12AM (#38848243)

          foxconn factory workers very satisfied: 100%, with no dissent! amazing.

          Who makes your Android phone?

          Some company that cares even LESS for their workers. At least Apple is trying to help and improve things, but China has a very servile culture embedded that has been pushed on them for many generations. They have a factory culture that has been as it is for a long time now and change is not instant.

          So every dig you take at Apple and Foxconn labels you a dirty hypocrite if you use any electronics whatsoever, because even more people suffered for your device to be made...

          • by iserlohn (49556)

            HTC makes all of their premium Android phones in Taiwan. The workplace standards are of course much higher there compared to Mainland China. Samsung, on the other hand uses a number of factories, including ones in South Korea and China to make their flagship Galaxy SII phones.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by tlhIngan (30335)

              HTC makes all of their premium Android phones in Taiwan. The workplace standards are of course much higher there compared to Mainland China. Samsung, on the other hand uses a number of factories, including ones in South Korea and China to make their flagship Galaxy SII phones.

              I just checked my Galaxy Nexus. It says "Made in China", so I'm guessing it's probably a safe assumption it's made at Foxconn.

              And while HTC's premium flagship phones are made in Taiwan, I'd guess most of the rest of them are made in Fo

        • Foxconn is the world's largest maker of electronics components and makes products for every major computer company including Dell, HP, Microsoft, Nintendo, Samsung, and Sony. Why they're always intimately associated with Apple on tech forums is beyond me other than as anti-Apple flamebait.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by BasilBrush (643681)

          And your mobile phone was made where, hypocrite?

          • In particular in Taoyuan. HTC makes their products in Taiwan, which is not a large surprise since they are also headquartered there.

      • Adding a walled app garden wouldn't even begin to fix the quality control issues with Android. First you have the wild variety in smartphone quality. Sure, you get Android in more people's hands with cheaper phones, but the experience suffers and those people end up unsatisfied. Then you have the situation where a brand new phone can be released with an old OS. Looking over AT&T's Android lineup, it seems like almost 50% of their smartphones are stuck on 2.2, and will never see another upgrade. It also
        • by Belial6 (794905)
          Yeah, but how man iPhones are on 6.0? None? Is your problem that it takes a long time for the OS to make it to phones, or is your problem that the OS is announced too early?
          • It's more than announcing early. ICS was sold on an Android phone in October. Yet still most Android phones are sold on an older version. That shit doesn't happen on iPhone.

            • by Microlith (54737)

              That shit doesn't happen on iPhone.

              Of course not. But like many things related to iOS, choice is extremely limited.

      • by Solandri (704621)
        That's if you want to prioritize satisfaction over all else. Paradoxically reduced choice can lead to greater satisfaction [ted.com] even if it leads to lower productivity. While customers may be seeking to maximize satisfaction for personal use, I daresay most businesses would choose to maximize productivity, or bang for the buck. While libertarians (both the right wing and left wing types) would choose to maximize choice.
        • That's if you want to prioritize satisfaction over all else. Paradoxically reduced choice can lead to greater satisfaction

          Absolutely.

          even if it leads to lower productivity.

          Who says it leads to lower productivity? That's certainly not part of the message of the Paradox of Choice.

          While libertarians (both the right wing and left wing types) would choose to maximize choice.

          That's because they are foolish.

      • Walled garden is the way to go.
        Android users very satisfied: 47%
        iPhone users very satisfied: 75%

        Nokia and RIM had walled garden. What's the stats with those?

        Besides, even if Google copied the Apple App Store tomorrow, it would still have Android on a wide variety of devices, both low end devices and high end devices, so that rating would still be unlikely to change. The same goes for the iPhone. If Apple were to suddenly target the low end of the Market, I doubt any of the customers with the lower end devices vs. the high end would be as satisfied.

      • by Microlith (54737)

        Walled garden is the way to go.

        False. The walled garden is about trapping users and forcing them to a sole source.

        What Google needs to do is start vetting and being more stringent about what gets into the store. Taking away people's ability to side load (which is what the Walled Garden is about) does nothing to further this.

        • by toriver (11308)

          There are already Marketplace-vetting services out there, perhaps they need to make themselves more visible to encourage people to use them.

          Or if Google removed the Market restriction against apps that act as competing marketplaces.

      • by Noughmad (1044096)

        Walled garden is the way to go.
        Android users very satisfied: 47%
        iPhone users very satisfied: 75%

        Stockholm Syndrome. Yes, it really works.

    • by stephanruby (542433) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @02:05AM (#38848219)

      Although I seriously doubt Symantec's 5 million number is right, the fact that malware keep showing up on the market is disturbing.

      To be fair, this does not look like Malware at all.

      For instance, I'm looking at the game called 'Balloon Game' by Ogre Games, which they say is malware. By downloading the application, you're agreeing to the fact that it can read your phone state and phone identity, you're agreeing that it can use the internet, and you're agreeing that it can install shortcuts on your home screen.

      The application wants to know my unique IMEI number? or my Mac address? Whoop di doo. I really don't care about that. And yes, it has access to the internet, so it can serve me ads, send info about me, and possibly (according to Symantec) update its own code in real time.

      But even if it can update its own code in real time, it can't change its permissions in real-time (it doesn't have the permissions for that), so it's still sandboxed in the permissions I gave it originally. So what's the problem here? What other "sensitive" information is it leaking out? Does this application go against anything in the Google's Market Terms of Services in any way? No, it doesn't. Only Apple has inane Terms of Services about not being able to load code dynamically from the internet.

      • by Skythe (921438)
        Perhaps Symantec are flagging it as malware because it is using permissions that the app clearly does not need, and it is just some rookie developer that has permission code copied in from some other site?
        • by fluffy99 (870997) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @03:10AM (#38848451)

          Perhaps Symantec are flagging it as malware because it is using permissions that the app clearly does not need, and it is just some rookie developer that has permission code copied in from some other site?

          You could try clicking the link in the article and see why. http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2012-012709-4046-99&tabid=2 [symantec.com]

          Or just be lazy like the rest of the slashdot heard.

        • by stephanruby (542433) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @03:11AM (#38848461)

          No, it's flagging it as "Malware" because it wants to you do the following [symantec.com] as their solution for removing the so-called "Malware". Note how they conveniently left the simplest instructions for uninstalling the application all the way at the bottom of the page (where almost no one will see it).

        • by thegarbz (1787294)

          Perhaps Symantec are flagging it as malware because it is using permissions that the app clearly does not need, and it is just some rookie developer that has permission code copied in from some other site?

          If you think that then Disney must really be in the shit [android.com] How about a game that reads your contact list?

          • by anonymov (1768712)

            Permissions ...

            receive WAP
            Allows application to receive and process WAP messages. Malicious applications may monitor your messages or delete them without showing them to you. ...

            read contact data
            Allows an application to read all of the contact (address) data stored on your device. Malicious applications can use this to send your data to other people. ...

            intercept outgoing calls
            Allows application to process outgoing calls and change the number to be dialed. Malicious applications may monitor, redirect, or prevent outgoing calls. ...

            modify global system settings
            Allows an application to modify the system's settings data. Malicious applications can corrupt your system's configuration. ...

            mount and unmount filesystems
            Allows the application to mount and unmount filesystems for removable storage.

            Description

            ENJOY THIS SPECIAL FREE VERSION WITH NEW LEVELS NOT FOUND IN THE FULL GAME!

            ENJOY THIS SPECIAL FREE VERSION WITH EXCLUSIVE NEW LEVELS NOT FOUND IN THE FULL GAME!

            Whereâ(TM)s My Water is the hit app that everyone is playing. In this FREE version, enjoy more than 20 new puzzles not found in the full game.

            What the fuck. Is it really Disney? Because nothing says "I'm not a fraud!" like ALL-CAPS SPECIAL FREE EXCLUSIVE VERSION coupled with I-own-your-phone permissions.

            • by thegarbz (1787294)

              It's had multimillion downloads, and is published by the same publisher as actual Disney titles. It's a worry.

      • by fluffy99 (870997) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @03:08AM (#38848443)

        To be fair, this does not look like Malware at all.

        Hijacking your browser homepage, adding shortcuts to the desktop,stealing the imei and imsi (sufficient info to clone your sim card) ,copying your contacts,etc certainly counts as a trojan. Did you bother to read the symantec description?

        Sure a smart user might notice the excessive permissions but the average user just hits okay and doesnt even read the list.

        • by hankwang (413283) *
          "imei and imsi (sufficient info to clone your sim card)" - bzzt. For cloning, you need the secret cryptographic key as well, stored in the SIM, and which you can't even get with a smart card reader.
  • Reaction (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Overly Critical Guy (663429) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @01:12AM (#38848057)

    For years, the Windows platform was mocked relentlessly as a cesspool for malware. It's interesting to see what happens when there is a lack of quality control from the platform vendor, which turned Windows into a complete mess of contradictory interfaces (even within Microsoft's own software), convoluted configuration settings, and a third-party market devoted to cleaning up viruses and spyware. Android seriously risks going down that path, if it's not there already. There has to be more control on the part of Google.

    Pushing back on that is a small contingent of techies who want to turn the smartphone into a PC. They like to cite the freedom to install anything they want, but the truth is that mainstream users wouldn't do so even if they knew how. Google needs to cater to the needs of the majority and not latch onto populist concepts sound good to tech crowds (e.g., "openness") but mean nothing to everyone else who just uses these things as tools rather than hobbies--especially when Google seems to have trouble following fundamental tenets of open source like source code access.

    Those 37 million iPhone sales over December reversed the 2011 Android surge. The in-fighting among Android vendors risks more forks like Kindle Fire, customized interfaces, and abandoned phones that no longer receive updates mere months after their release. Google, turn the ship around before it's too late! The carriers won't help you.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by stephanruby (542433)

      You've all been fooled. Before you forward the Symantec scareware to all your friends, please study what the symantec announcement says a little more closely.

      I've taken a look at the 'Balloon Game' by Ogre Games for instance. It's not malware. It's not doing anything that it hasn't requested in the permissions already. And even if it can update itself (as Symantec claims it can do), if you read Symantec owns report, Symantec doesn't think it can do anything (outside of the permissions it has already been gr

      • It's not malware. It's not doing anything that it hasn't requested in the permissions already.

        Why, who wouldn't want to give permission to change your home page, collect your personal data, and display ads?

        • No, I meant the home screen, not the home page. On Android, you have a home screen, which an app can add its shortcut to (assuming it's not full, if it's full, it's out of luck, and the shortcut doesn't get made). And yes, there are plenty of people who don't want ads and who don't want to be tracked.

          On the Android Market, those people will usually have to pay to buy a version without the ads (and/or install a custom rom with the ads sdks disabled). There are still free apps with no tracking and no advertis

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 28, 2012 @01:25AM (#38848097)

    Apart from being somewhat annoyed about the greater difficulty of managing my smartphone when compared to my Linux boxes, I've been having a hard time selecting apps for it.

    Android market is not exactly friendly (is there a way to get larger fonts?) and I'd like to have a search by permissions. Recently, I wanted a mere notepad app -- no frills, no cloud, no nothing, just the note, but there's an "excellent" notepad app which requires you to join an online service. WTF!!!

    After finding 2 suitable apps, I would still need a bigger keys soft keyboard... again looking at permissions to avoid leaking unnecessary things.

    No wonder guys end up getting viruses... we need better ways to control our exposure. Then again Google's business depends on offering us what we want and thus they need to know that. But am I giving my data only to Google? I wonder where my accounts and their details end up going...

    • by Nerdfest (867930)

      You can install apps on your phone from the browser on you Linux box using the Android Market web site.

      • You miss the point.
        He wants to be able to make a simple search based on permissions. That is actually a valid one. For example, the idea that Sony's remote controller for a blu-ray player requires permission to read my personal info and to read-write is a good sign that you do not want it. It is simply a data gathering app. IOW, Sony did not learn their lessons from their last attempt to do this to Windows.

        The font is minor, just an annoyance. the permissions based search is ALL about security.

        And he
    • by purpledinoz (573045) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @06:47AM (#38848989)
      Root your phone and use Droid Firewall. All apps by default have no network permissions. Once it's setup, it works really well.
  • by gearloos (816828) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @01:37AM (#38848137)
    Well, combine this with Googles recent news of privacy policy changes and Android's shine really is fading fast. I hate Apple, not for the products, I love Macs. It's the overused domination attitude I just can't deal with. So, that said, what's left? Win phone? Omg no. Maybe RIM and Nokia still have a niche after all... Just something to consider.
  • The amazing part is that iApps7 games are still on the market (as of this writing, 10PM PST).

    It's obvious from the comments that they are total crap though. Anyone literate enough to read the comments wouldn't touch this stuff.

  • It may have infected five million users!

    Then again, it may have not.

  • If you upload an app to the market place that needs access to the users bookmarks I think that a more in depth review process is in order.

    At the very lest the user should be see an alert that says something like "This app seems to want a lot on your phone and hasn't been verified by Google...only use it if you really want to "....

  • by rhook (943951) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @04:40AM (#38848691)

    Look at this list of infected apps.

    iApps7 Inc Counter Elite Force Arcade & Action
    iApps7 Inc Counter Strike Ground Force Arcade & Action
    iApps7 Inc CounterStrike Hit Enemy Arcade & Action
    iApps7 Inc Heart Live Wallpaper Entertainment
    iApps7 Inc Hit Counter Terrorist Arcade & Action
    iApps7 Inc Stripper Touch girl Entertainment
    Ogre Games Balloon Game Sports Games
    Ogre Games Deal & Be Millionaire Sports Games
    Ogre Games Wild Man Arcade & Action
    redmicapps Pretty women lingerie puzzle Photography
    redmicapps Sexy Girls Photo Game Lifestyle
    redmicapps Sexy Girls Puzzle Brain & Puzzle
    redmicapps Sexy Women Puzzle Brain & Puzzle

    These are all Facebook type games that idiots play.

    • Look at this list of infected apps.

      iApps7 Inc Counter Elite Force Arcade & Action
      iApps7 Inc Counter Strike Ground Force Arcade & Action
      iApps7 Inc CounterStrike Hit Enemy Arcade & Action
      iApps7 Inc Heart Live Wallpaper Entertainment
      iApps7 Inc Hit Counter Terrorist Arcade & Action
      iApps7 Inc Stripper Touch girl Entertainment
      Ogre Games Balloon Game Sports Games
      Ogre Games Deal & Be Millionaire Sports Games
      Ogre Games Wild Man Arcade & Action
      redmicapps Pretty women lingerie puzzle Photography
      redmicapps Sexy Girls Photo Game Lifestyle
      redmicapps Sexy Girls Puzzle Brain & Puzzle
      redmicapps Sexy Women Puzzle Brain & Puzzle

      These are all Facebook type games that idiots play.

      O for my mod points +6 funny :)

  • by trifish (826353) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @05:18AM (#38848783)
    I somehow can't imagine malware authors would sign their apps with a valid CA-issued certificate that would prove their identity in court.
  • ... that Symantic says its a Risk Level is at 1: Very Low
    That they believe number of "infections" is 1000+

    And that to get rid of it all you have to do is UNINSTALL IT.

    If you don't it may

    Copy bookmarks on the device
    Copy opt out details
    Copy push notifications
    Copy shortcuts
    Identify the last executed command
    Modify the browser's home page

  • by WindBourne (631190) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @06:14AM (#38848901) Journal
    Seriously, this is an opportunity for a company to come up with a new market to compete against Google. Basically, set it up similar to Apples: submit the app, have it tested, etc. and charge a small amount of money. For me, I will stay with google. BUT, for my parents and in-laws, they would go with the secured market.

The F-15 Eagle: If it's up, we'll shoot it down. If it's down, we'll blow it up. -- A McDonnel-Douglas ad from a few years ago

Working...