x
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Kruz 11/15/2013 | 1:43:15 PM
Re: Open means vulnerable? Yes. Fragmentation was always a set back for Android. And even though the numbers of malware out there are still low, the smartphone infection is damaging as your smartphone might have a wallet with mobile money connected to air time for example. Smartphone malware should be carefully monitored.
Sarah Thomas 11/15/2013 | 12:13:00 PM
Re: Open means vulnerable? That's true that criminals go where the money/eyeballs are, and Android is where it's at. I think the open nature of it used to be a bigger issue. Also, good point about the outdated OSs. I think that falls under the user error category. If you root the phone or don't keep it updated, it becomes more susceptible. 
Kruz 11/14/2013 | 11:54:31 AM
Re: Open means vulnerable? Open does not mean vulnerable.

With a worldwide market share of 81.9% for Android, compared to a 12.1% for IOS, Android is much more prone to malware (97.2% of Q3 infections).

This is a direct side effect of being successful, as the OS generates interest for malware developers as well as for Antivirus makers(yes, we all know from where some malware originate)

And this is nothing new - when comparing Windows to Linux in terms of malware, the numbers are ridiculously distant while Android's is based on Linux.

One thing to be mentioned that drives malware infections on Android is the fragmentation that exists in the Android world and the level of control Android gives to user:

- 2.3 for example, which is an aging Android revision, is still very popular even now when the version 4.4 is out

- Rooting your Android Device gives certainly more to users but increases the risk of malware
MordyK 11/14/2013 | 10:26:37 AM
Re: Open means vulnerable? LR apparently no longer highlights links. clickon the words "this article"
Sarah Thomas 11/14/2013 | 10:14:24 AM
Re: Open means vulnerable? Don't see the article, Mordy.
Sarah Thomas 11/14/2013 | 10:13:52 AM
Re: 0.6% a big issue? Sure, the numbers are low, but I think the fact that malware attacks on Android are growing, whereas other mobile OSs haven't been infected, is concerning. It at least warrants exploring why Android is so much more vulnerable.
pdonegan67 11/14/2013 | 8:56:22 AM
0.6% a big issue? I don't think I'd describe a mobile device infection rate of 0.6% as a big issue.

I think 99.4% of mobile devices not being infected is a remarkable achievement, due in large part to the investments that a lot of operators have made in network security infrastructure and device software to deal with a lot of this malware. But for that the infection rate would undoubtedly be a lot higher.

Consider the 11% infection rate in home networks (PCs etc) cited in the same Alcatel-Lucent/Kindsight report, of which more than half are termed "high-level threats such as a bots, root-kits, and banking Trojans".

The data shows the mobile device infection rate inching up from 0.5% in Q1 to 0.6% now. I'd say big congratulations to the mobile ecosystem as a whole for keeping it so low so far. There are increasingly testing times ahead as LTE scales up and new IP interfaces and protocols expose the mobile network still more but sofar: good job.
MordyK 11/13/2013 | 8:13:58 PM
Re: Open means vulnerable? No opinion here but I'll add this article as a counterpoint
Sarah Thomas 11/13/2013 | 5:10:55 PM
Re: Open means vulnerable? I was going to disagree, but then remembered i had an Android for 6 months and never downloaded any security apps... I think it's a good call to bundle Lookout for AT&T. The problem, I've heard, is that the free app is so good, not a lot of people upgrade to premium. I wonder if it'll end up being a good source of revenue for AT&T.
Phil_Britt 11/13/2013 | 5:07:17 PM
Re: Open means vulnerable? The important element here is that if users are being entrusted to handle security, they won't. They're just to lazy to use secure passwords or to download apps from unknown sources.

So bundling security as part of an app forces the user to practice "safe mobile use" to a point. The Apple products have also avoided NFC so far, and that can be unsafe unless secured in the cloud, rather than at the user level.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE