Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Security Technology

Researchers Find Methods For Bypassing Google's Bouncer Android Security 79

Trailrunner7 writes "Google's Android platform has become the most popular mobile operating system both among consumers and malware writers, and the company earlier this year introduced the Bouncer system to look for malicious apps in the Google Play market. Bouncer, which checks for malicious apps and known malware, is a good first step, but as new work from researchers Jon Oberheide and Charlie Miller shows, it can be bypassed quite easily and in ways that will be difficult for Google to address in the long term. Oberheide and Miller, both well-known for their work on mobile security, went into their research without much detailed knowledge of how the Bouncer system works. Google has said little publicly about its capabilities, preferring not to give attackers any insights into the system's inner workings. So Oberheide and Miller looked at it as a challenge, an exercise to see how much they could deduce about Bouncer from the outside, and, as it turns out, the inside."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Researchers Find Methods For Bypassing Google's Bouncer Android Security

Comments Filter:
  • Mobile Security (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MyLongNickName ( 822545 ) on Monday June 04, 2012 @05:02PM (#40213539) Journal

    This is why I hate Android in the corporate environment. While I love open technology for personal uses, trying to manage corporate security with Android in the mix is a nightmare. I can have a nice pretty policy that makes upper management happy but I have no really good way of enforcing it. For the pain in the butt that Blackberry is, it was designed around corporate security. Apple is a step above Android in this regard, but it is still not designed with corporate use in mind.

  • Nightclubs (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DeeEff ( 2370332 ) on Monday June 04, 2012 @05:09PM (#40213621)

    And here I thought researchers were looking for a way to break into the secret google night clubs. Everyone knows that's where all the cool nerds are.

    Keeping this analogy, it does seem about as effective as an actual bouncer. While most drunken retards are being thrown out on the streets, the dangerous, more vile types get to stay inside and ultimately take drunk chicks home. I suppose it's nice to have less people throwing up on you, but getting stabbed at a nightclub is still getting stabbed at a nightclub. I suppose you could draw the argument that there's a pat-down and weapons check at the door, but let's be real, if you were going to bring a weapon to hurt someone in the first place, you'd be smart enough to hide it and get in.

    If that didn't make sense to you (lack of cars, etc...), basically this means bouncer will only affect poor malware writers and the big-boys will just skirt around the security anyways. Which really means little, because I'd rather get rid of the big players and be stuck with a bunch of obvious annoyances than to remove the annoyances and have a false sense of security about my apps. I should give google credit though, at least it's a start. Hopefully by this time next year they'll have managed to match common sense 2014 in terms of malware protection.

  • Re:Mobile Security (Score:4, Interesting)

    by robmv ( 855035 ) on Monday June 04, 2012 @05:22PM (#40213741)

    I think the parent want a little more than a lock screen policy. I want:

    1) disable outside market instalation of apps
    2) disable installation of market apps or restrict them to a whitelist
    3) Be able to setup a corporate store for internal developed apps, this could work but you must enable installation of outside market applications (see 2)
    4) Lock Google accounts addition and removal

  • by Jeng ( 926980 ) on Monday June 04, 2012 @05:59PM (#40214057)

    The problem is that they are so vague about why the permission is needed. When presented with a list of things the app has permission to do, it should also list why the app needs this and what specifically the app is going to do with those permissions.

    As an example I pulled up a free flashlight app, it needs the following permissions.

    Storage: modify/delete sd card contents.
    System Tools: prevent phone from sleeping
    Your Location: Coarse (network-based) location, fine (GPS) location
    Phone Calls: Read phone state and identity
    Network Communication: Full internet access
    Hardware Controls: Take Pictures and videos

    Since this is an app that turns on the flash on your phone as well as any other available lights so it does not need really any of the permissions it asks for, and you have no idea what it is going to use those permission for.

    In this case since it is just a flashlight app it is very easy to tell it is asking for permission for things it should not be doing, but what do you do when the app you want asks for permission for things it would technically need, but you have no idea if it is going beyond what is needed for functionality vs more nefarious operations?

The Tao doesn't take sides; it gives birth to both wins and losses. The Guru doesn't take sides; she welcomes both hackers and lusers.

Working...