On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Disconnect <[email protected]> wrote:

> As Android privacy becomes increasingly under attack,

The term "attack" is a little strong, given that nobody is claiming
these dubious apps bypass the permission system or otherwise break the
Android security model. Note that the TaintDroid video,

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/092910-android-privacy.html?page=2

doesn't show the install screen. Presumably, the wallpaper app asks
for the various permissions it uses, just like all apps. For
privacy-conscious users, the combination of INTERNET and (say)
READ_PHONE_STATE for a wallpaper app should be a big warning sign.

If an app uses the permissions you give it in a way you don't like,
why not uninstall it and give it a bad review on Market? TaintDroid
seems like a good tool for detecting bad behavior in apps that don't
try to bypass TaintDroid. And there's always Wireshark and
smali/baksmali.

Also, the problem is not specific to Android --- Android just surfaces
these pre-existing concerns and deals with them better. Not perfectly,
but better. Other platforms give all apps all the goods all the time,
no permission screen required.

> maybe it is time to
> revisit an old idea - allow a user to (temporarily or permanently) remove
> permissions from an app.

In an earlier message you said users are not going to wise up and will
click OK on anything. I don't think you're right about that, but if
you are, increasing the complexity of the UX is surely
counterproductive.

Personally, I'm not against the idea of having the permission screen
be (for example) a list of checkboxes rather than a yes/no for all.
But we'd have to have some way to cope with all the existing apps that
are not prepared to catch the (unchecked) SecurityExceptions they will
get when permissions they thought they had are gone.

> The UI doesn't have to be a mess, and the API
> interface is easily backward-compatible. (Add an API call to find out if a
> permission is revoked, and older API apps receive a reasonable, valid "no
> data" return on reads and either "temporary error" or "ok" on writes.)

You're underestimating the complexity and scope of that project. But
it could be a good project. It'd be cool to try out this idea out in
Cyanogen or another distribution. If it flies, you could contribute it
back to AOSP?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Android Security Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/android-security-discuss?hl=en.

Reply via email to