Android vulnerability allows hackers to take full control of phone.

May 11, 2008
22,566
1,472
126
This is the original text in Dutch. I tried to use google translate for the website. However, since we have a cookie law, every user must give permission about cookie use. The website is unfortunately made in such a way that i cannot get passed the cookie permission field when using google translate. So i used google translate to translate the text only.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/tech/groot-lek-in-android-telefoons~a4089416/

The researchers at the free university in Amsterdam found a vulnerability in android that allows them to take over the phone. They do this by acquiring the username and log in and then install malicious software.

Digid is a log in code to access government services in the Netherlands.
ING is a dutch bank.
Paypal is a payment service.

Lek on Android phones by Google security

Maker Google know for months, say Dutch researchers, but does nothing. They discovered a security flaw in the Android operating system that gives criminals free reign.

Due to a flaw in the Android operating system, which is in the vast majority of smart phones, it is easy to crack the protection of their DigiD, ING banking and Paypal. Criminals can gain simple access to mobile phones. Then they can do anything with these phones, including the unprecedented abuse of SMS authentication method using the above mentioned services.

This was discovered by researchers from the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. The extent of the problem is large; Android is by far the most used operating system. The newly delivered smartphones in 2014 turned 85 percent on Android.

Google knows there since late 2014, but to our dismay they do nothing about it. This is a big safety hazard, according to researchers Krish-nan. vd Veen and Bos.


The problem is caused by the creator of Android itself Google. Because users have a single Google user account to control different devices (computer, tablet, smartphone), can someone who infected a web browser through the user account simply install malicious apps on a mobile phone. This without the user doing anything on their phones.

The researchers, Radhesh Krish-nan, Victor van der Veen and professor of system and network Herbert Bos, shared their findings at an early stage with Google. Bos: "They know about this since late 2014, but to our dismay they do nothing about it. This is a big security risk. "

Forest also has the National Cyber ​​and Security Centre (NCSC) and the High Tech Crime Team (THTC) informed the police. "In the police they took it seriously." ING also takes the problem seriously. A month ago, the bank said to work on a solution. Bos: "Because it is still not resolved, it is time to inform the public."

Malignant versions
Researcher Krishnan discovered the leak. By gaining access to someone's web browser he could retreive the google user account. Then he installed an app on the mobile phone of the victim. Unseen, he could activate the app then to gain control over the phone. After that everything was possible: camera activation, applications replaced by intercepting malicious versions, messages, install malware.

Bos: "The problem is caused by Google bringing many services as possible under one user account together and allow apps to be put through one browser on a phone. This integration of services is nice for users, but has a downside. "

To combat malware, some banks and DigiD use an additional security method: they send a verification code via SMS to a mobile phone. This is based on the idea that a person's web browser and mobile phone are disconnected systems. On Android and Google, this is not the case.

The problem is caused by Google because of the many services under a single google account.

Bos: 'So it was relatively easy for us to unseen to intercept the authentication code. " Criminals can get in this way money from someone's account or log in to DigiD.

Of the major Dutch banks ING only makes use of this method. This week it became known that criminals widely ING customers beset with links to fake websites to - unnoticed - to install a spy app on mobile phones. Within 24 hours, three thousand people had been such app on their phone. This is a different method than the hack describing the VU researchers.

A spokesman for ING says that there has been contact with the investigators. "They have told us that this is possible." ING says' detection measures "to be taken to reduce the risk of fraud. The spokesman: "We can also identify transactions that are not right." Affected customers can thus be compensated.

Google did not respond to a request for clarification.
 
Last edited:

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,587
10,225
126
I think that you meant to post this in Security?

Anyways, I have an Android phone, but I don't use a Google account, at all, on any device. So I presume I'm safe?
 
May 11, 2008
22,566
1,472
126
I do not know if it is the same. But i did need to create some login to be able to use my phone. Based on a gmail account. But i used a different name for that.
Did you not have to create a gmail account when you start using your phone ?
I will post it in the section security. Thank you.
 
Last edited:

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
So the vulnerability is: If a malicious person knows your Google account password, they can do bad stuff.

No $)&@?! :rolleyes:

I have two factor authentication enabled for my Google account. Even with my password, I don't think they could get to the point where they can push their malware app install to my own devices.
 
May 11, 2008
22,566
1,472
126
So the vulnerability is: If a malicious person knows your Google account password, they can do bad stuff.

No $)&@?! :rolleyes:

I have two factor authentication enabled for my Google account. Even with my password, I don't think they could get to the point where they can push their malware app install to my own devices.

Well, the news story does not explain how they do it in detail.
I assume, perhaps the researchers keep details to a minimum to prevent malicious people from obtaining the information.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
Well, the news story does not explain how they do it in detail.
I assume, perhaps the researchers keep details to a minimum to prevent malicious people from obtaining the information.

Seems to me they're just advertising the feature that you can use your Google account to remotely push app installs to your devices.

If someone has your Google account password, they can install bad things.

Even so, I'm betting the malicious people can't use my Google account + password to do it since I have two-factor authentication enabled.

If I didn't have two-factor authentication enabled for my Google account, the malware apps get installed and have access to my text messages, so they could get into almost anything else that uses two-factor authentication.
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
60,165
10,626
126
You do not have an android based smartphone ?
Or did you hack it ?
Can an android phone be used without a google account ?

It's Android. I've removed most of the Google stuff. I still have a bit more to do, but the remainder requires more thought and care to keep from breaking stuff. For the questionable items, I rename the executables, and if nothing breaks, I back it up to my computer, and delete them from the phone. I have some renamed programs now I need to get rid of, but haven't felt like making the time.

I don't use Play store, and *I don't sync anything. Everything works as I like, but I'm naturally missing stuff some people would like.

*I do have a Mega account I keep work files backed up to, but they contain no sensitive/identifiable information. Just blueprints and data files.
 
May 11, 2008
22,566
1,472
126
From another news site about security : security.nl i found some more information.

Here is a brief extract :

The hidden install is not as hidden as it seems because the notification bar does show that a app is being downloaded and installed. During this moment and afterwards the notification bar is pulled down, it can be seen that an application with a given name is installed.
But most people have the update process for apps set to automatic. And would not check the notification bar for every update.

Also, when the app is signed in a special way, it does not show up in the all applications view.

The researchers noted that they were able to place malicious apps on google play without being detected(at least for the time they did the research).
Google play gives the feeling that apps are save for users.
However, some people allow apps to be installed from sites different than google play. By allowing the device to download apps from unknown sources.
An option in the security menu. This is also a practice that must be used with caution.

Of course it is not as dangerous as it seems but an sms authentication method can be comprised this way.
 
May 11, 2008
22,566
1,472
126
It's Android. I've removed most of the Google stuff. I still have a bit more to do, but the remainder requires more thought and care to keep from breaking stuff. For the questionable items, I rename the executables, and if nothing breaks, I back it up to my computer, and delete them from the phone. I have some renamed programs now I need to get rid of, but haven't felt like making the time.

I don't use Play store, and *I don't sync anything. Everything works as I like, but I'm naturally missing stuff some people would like.

*I do have a Mega account I keep work files backed up to, but they contain no sensitive/identifiable information. Just blueprints and data files.

With syncing you mean auto update ?
I noticed that my tablet with android 4 has the option to update an app as an individual option for every individual app.
I have to check some of those settings again.
 

matricks

Member
Nov 19, 2014
194
0
0
So, from what has been revealed, the "vulnerability" is the ability to remotely install apps from a device logged into the same account the Android device is linked to.

1. Installing an app produces a notification, whether done remotely or locally.
2. Installing a new app (one that hasn't been on the device before) produces a different notification from an app update.
3. Mitigation consists of the most basic security advice that everyone knows (but lots still ignore): good password policy and two factor authentication (which Google accounts support, and the service encourages users to enable it).
4. None of an apps code will run until the user launches it manually for the first time. Installed apps will not do anything until the user presses the app icon once (after that they can trigger code e.g. on boot and run whenever they please, but not before first manual launch). There may be undocumented ways to circumvent this, but the design goal is that nothing happens until the user launches an app manually once.

My vote is for storm in a teacup. This relies heavily on user stupidity, it requires bad password management, and that users ignore notifications of app installs they didn't initiate, and requires them to launch an app they don't remember installing. Yes, there are lots of real users who are potentially at risk from this, but they have already installed all the fixup tuning programs, antiviruses and free porn clients suggested to them in ads, this is the least of their problems.
 
Last edited:

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
60,165
10,626
126
With syncing you mean auto update ?
I noticed that my tablet with android 4 has the option to update an app as an individual option for every individual app.
I have to check some of those settings again.

No, I mean contacts, phone settings, or other stuff that goes to google. I use the fdroid repository, and update programs individually. I've removed the system updater, and am locked to KitKat.
 

KLin

Lifer
Feb 29, 2000
30,441
752
126
Yea this is a feature, not a vulnerability. I install apps to my phone from my desktop frequently after searching them out on google play.
 
May 11, 2008
22,566
1,472
126
So, from what has been revealed, the "vulnerability" is the ability to remotely install apps from a device logged into the same account the Android device is linked to.

1. Installing an app produces a notification, whether done remotely or locally.
2. Installing a new app (one that hasn't been on the device before) produces a different notification from an app update.
3. Mitigation consists of the most basic security advice that everyone knows (but lots still ignore): good password policy and two factor authentication (which Google accounts support, and the service encourages users to enable it).
4. None of an apps code will run until the user launches it manually for the first time. Installed apps will not do anything until the user presses the app icon once (after that they can trigger code e.g. on boot and run whenever they please, but not before first manual launch). There may be undocumented ways to circumvent this, but the design goal is that nothing happens until the user launches an app manually once.

My vote is for storm in a teacup. This relies heavily on user stupidity, it requires bad password management, and that users ignore notifications of app installs they didn't initiate, and requires them to launch an app they don't remember installing. Yes, there are lots of real users who are potentially at risk from this, but they have already installed all the fixup tuning programs, antiviruses and free porn clients suggested to 4 in ads, this is the least of their problems.

According to the news article, the researcher was able to execute the app unseen. I assume this means remote execution or automatic execution. I doubt he had to press the icon since the app is not even visible. We will just have to wait on what is going on.
 

Jodell88

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2007
8,762
30
91
The only way I can see this happening is having something like Pushbullet installed. Even then, I'm still not sure it will work assuming you need to set up Pushbullet on the mobile device
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
70,642
13,821
126
www.anyf.ca
You do not have an android based smartphone ?
Or did you hack it ?
Can an android phone be used without a google account ?

I'd be curious about this as well. I always hated the idea that my device is tied to some account but figured I had no choice. I did create a completely separate one that I don't use for anything else though.
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
60,165
10,626
126
I'd be curious about this as well. I always hated the idea that my device is tied to some account but figured I had no choice. I did create a completely separate one that I don't use for anything else though.

You need an account if want to use google stuff. The phone works fine without google. Hard to believe, I know :^P
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,769
126
It's Android. I've removed most of the Google stuff. I still have a bit more to do, but the remainder requires more thought and care to keep from breaking stuff. For the questionable items, I rename the executables, and if nothing breaks, I back it up to my computer, and delete them from the phone. I have some renamed programs now I need to get rid of, but haven't felt like making the time.

I don't use Play store, and *I don't sync anything. Everything works as I like, but I'm naturally missing stuff some people would like.

*I do have a Mega account I keep work files backed up to, but they contain no sensitive/identifiable information. Just blueprints and data files.

What!...no Angry Birds Star Wars edition!...but, but, what about the children!!!.. :awe:
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
60,165
10,626
126
What!...no Angry Birds Star Wars edition!...but, but, what about the children!!!.. :awe:

AngryBirds is kind of fun, but not worth using proprietary software. Until a libre clone comes around(AngryTux?), I'll play other things. This is the game I play most...

https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdfilter=flickit&fdid=com.studio332.flickit.android

It's fun, but not so fun that I sink a lot of time in it. I'm good for a couple rounds before I do something else. Much to everyone's despair, it doesn't significantly affect my neffing :^D
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,769
126
AngryBirds is kind of fun, but not worth using proprietary software. Until a libre clone comes around(AngryTux?), I'll play other things. This is the game I play most...

https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdfilter=flickit&fdid=com.studio332.flickit.android

It's fun, but not so fun that I sink a lot of time in it. I'm good for a couple rounds before I do something else. Much to everyone's despair, it doesn't significantly affect my neffing :^D

Actually Revio wrecked the Angry Birds deal, now you have to be online or it won't run and you have to buy your birds. It was fun through "Space" but once they did the "Star wars" edition they went the IAP route, fuck that, I do NOT do IAP at all.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
70,642
13,821
126
www.anyf.ca
Actually Revio wrecked the Angry Birds deal, now you have to be online or it won't run and you have to buy your birds. It was fun through "Space" but once they did the "Star wars" edition they went the IAP route, fuck that, I do NOT do IAP at all.

Wow that sucks. Imagine how much data it's collecting while it's online. Time to uninstall that crap then. I have not played it in a while anyway.
 

Crono

Lifer
Aug 8, 2001
23,720
1,502
136
I use my phone without play services or any Google apps. You can get apps from open source markets like F-Droid or get any free app off the Play store using this site: http://apps.evozi.com/apk-downloader/

Downside is some apps are Play Services dependent. Upside is I don't have the GApps/services leeching resources/battery in the background.

I used to be a fan of Google (used Gmail, Voice, Compute Engine, Drive, Work, Google+, Hangouts, Play Music All Access, AdSense, Docs, Wallet...), but not anymore. If you ever had to deal with their support even for paid services, you will understand why.

I have AFWall+ and XPrivacy/AppOps blocking anything to internet access and device permissions that doesn't need it.
 
Last edited: