Question for you android users

[warhed]

All.

So how many is all?  Give me a number.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

You're wrong yet again.  My carrier (Verizon) has no method available to root my phone over the air.  Next?  Without ADB access, they wouldn't even be able to unlock my bootloader.

Oh right, you're perfectly safe. You think alike with the millions of users who already got malware on their phones But I don't really care...

I've made my point and proven it to boot.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

So how many is all?  Give me a number.

Google it if you're interested.

[warhed]

I did a little research on your carrier backdoor claim.  The reason you can't find the article is most likely because you didn't want to explain what it was.  The carrier backdoor root method applies to Chinese phone maker ZTE.  It is the only case of carrier backdoor rooting, and the only reason it works is because ZTE has it installed on their phones.  I've never even heard of ZTE phones.  So, now admit that carriers have no backdoor root method, or at the least, stop spouting nonsense that has no basis in truth

[warhed]

Google it if you're interested.

You're the one who said "provide me proof."

So, provide me detailed figures that back up your 91% claim.  And no, the same old link that states that figure, that says both "91% of NEW malware infects Android phones," and at the same time says "91% of ALL malware infects Android phones" is not going to suffice as proof.  Even that source doesn't have any idea what they're actually saying.  Friends of yours?

See? You couldn't provide a link, I did. Your turn.

http://www.redmondpie.com/this-mobile-spyware-can-remotely-take-complete-control-over-your-ios-or-android-device/

It's your turn anyway

[Noir]

http://www.besttechie.com/2012/10/02/android-security-threats/

that 91% article was written by GUEST AUTHOR, uses contradictory and unclear statements...I also liked the last phrase

This was a guest post by SaaSCanada, a site that helps Canadian consumers in selecting the most robust and secure online backup services so that they can keep their personal information safe from loss or destruction.

So that article was posted by a private company how interesting.

Also if you click on the source article, its even more vague! http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/security/56208-beware-growth-in-android-malware-kaspersky/56208-beware-growth-in-android-malware-kaspersky?start=1

Kasperky, a security software developer, is telling us our security is at risk? How surprising.

Reminds me that apple is still in denial of their own security issues.

[warhed]

Hey ripley, we still love you, even if you're....

[MrRiplEy[H]]

You're the one who said "provide me proof."

So, provide me detailed figures that back up your 91% claim.  And no, the same old link that states that figure, that says both "91% of NEW malware infects Android phones," and at the same time says "91% of ALL malware infects Android phones" is not going to suffice as proof.  Even that source doesn't have any idea what they're actually saying.  Friends of yours?

It's your turn anyway

You're getting totally retarded here lol. What are you after? What exactly do you hope to achieve by getting a total number of mobile malware attacks? Are you contemplating if they exist or what?  

If you don't believe me, maybe you believe your government? http://www.ic3.gov/media/2012/121012.aspx

Your link is about a proof of concept which never got past Apple content checks and is not present anywhere in the wild. Prove me wrong - have a nice day.

[warhed]

You're getting totally retarded here lol. What are you after? What exactly do you hope to achieve by getting a total number of mobile malware attacks? Are you contemplating if they exist or what?  

Your link is about a proof of concept which never got past Apple content checks and is not present anywhere in the wild. Prove me wrong - have a nice day.

The burden of proof is upon the person making outrageous claims.  
The link is simply showing that both OS's are vulnerable to attack.  iOS is not inherently safe.  Neither is Android.  That link "proves" the former statement.  See how this works.  We make a claim, and we provide proof to back it up.  

Your link backs up my statement, it says "Smartphones."  Not Android smartphones, not iOS smartphones, just Smartphones.  All smartphones are vulnerable. 

[MrRiplEy[H]]

The burden of proof is upon the person making outrageous claims.  

Exactly, that's why you should prove your claim since no hard evidence is available to back it up. Prove it or be quiet.

iOS is vulnerable - but the app store distibution method provides a 'firewall' to the end users for app based attacks which are the majority of threats on smartphones.

[warhed]

Exactly, that's why you should prove your claim since no hard evidence is available to back it up. Prove it or be quiet.

I haven't made any claims other than, mobile phone OS's are vulnerable to attack.  I've already provided proof of that, and you helped me with your last link.  So we've come to agreement, if you have a smartphone, be aware that nefarious individuals are plotting to steal your money and\or data.  Regardless of what OS or phone you use.

[warhed]

Exactly, that's why you should prove your claim since no hard evidence is available to back it up. Prove it or be quiet.

iOS is vulnerable - but the app store distibution method provides a 'firewall' to the end users for app based attacks which are the majority of threats on smartphones.

Since you added the last line, you should modify it once again to say both iOS's appstore, and Android's appstore provide a firewall to end users.  Seeing as how Google actively monitors apps submitted and already accepted into their sandbox.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I haven't made any claims other than, mobile phone OS's are vulnerable to attack.  I've already provided proof of that, and you helped me with your last link.  So we've come to agreement, if you have a smartphone, be aware that nefarious individuals are plotting to steal your money and\or data.  Regardless of what OS or phone you use.

Ok, maybe I've been too hard on you. It honestly seems to me now that you're unable to grasp the whole root of the discussion. We're talking about attacks that are in the wild - happening as we speak. One has many, other has in practical terms speaking none.

I can provide you with links like this all day - and you can provide me with black hat research proof of concept or pwn2own proof of concepts.  

Premium-rate SMS malware survived in Google Play for weeks

[warhed]

Ok, maybe I've been too hard on you. It honestly seems to me now that you're unable to grasp the whole root of the discussion. We're talking about attacks that are in the wild - happening as we speak. One has many, other has in practical terms speaking none.

I can provide you with links like this all day - and you can provide me with black hat research proof of concept or pwn2own proof of concepts.  

If you simply checked to see the app was requesting the ability to send SMS messages, you didn't have to install it.  Without granting it specific rights to do so, it could not have done so.  Also, that app is not in the Play Store.

From the article, "The key to remaining safe is to always check the permissions. The Activator package would have had to specifically ask for the permission to send SMS messages when it was installed. This should always be a warning to Android users. Games don’t need to send SMS messages, neither do any registration or activation apps that they subsequently try to install."

Next?  Try this time to not bring up software that has been banned and removed from the marketplace, as you are simply proving that Google is very focused on removing malware from the market.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

If you simply checked to see the app was requesting the ability to send SMS messages, you didn't have to install it.  Without granting it specific rights to do so, it could not have done so.  Also, that app is not in the Play Store.  Next?

Yeah close your ears and eyes, tell it to the thousands that installed this malware. You're a waste of time, sadly.