• killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    The vast majority of malware isn’t delivered via play store because of the existing measures and protections they have. Same reason you see very little app-store-based malware on iOS. DISCLAIMER: YES MALWARE EXISTS ON APPLE HARDWARE PLEASE DON’T SHOUT AT ME. Talking specifically about anything installed via first party stores on both platforms.

    Their main issue is this: dumb people install apks from spurious website and infect their phones. The least controllable and most pervasive factor here is the intelligence and knowledge of the user which cannot be controlled for by Google. So by eliminating the ability to exploit this entirely, it will eliminate that specific vector.

    It’s a sledgehammer solution that naturally comes with many downsides like disrupting intelligent and knowledgeable users that just want to hack around with FOSS and such.

    Google is relying on It being too expensive for malware creators to have to guide each individual user through adb installation and usage process just to get access to their phone. Most scammers only do that level of interaction to extract actual cash/gift cards from the target.

    I am personally and directly affected by their decision in many negative ways, but I’m not so dense as to not understand why they’re doing it.

    /corpodronespeak

    EDIT: bots help Xitter maintain inflated usage figures which justify people’s jobs, share prices, etc. Bots are a feature, not a bug.

    • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      yes, of course malware is distributed via apk.

      But what’s the difference between:

      1. malware that is signed anonymously and then, when its signature is identified, it’s removed via play protect
      2. malware that is signed with a stolen identity and then, when its signature is identified, it’s removed via play protect

      ?

      Isn’t exactly the same stuff? Or there’s someone that is actually thinking that criminals will use their real ID card for the verification?

      Does not change anything for malware distribution, except bother them for a dozen minutes meanwhile they “verify” their stolen ID

      • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Because it can be invalidated. That’s the difference.

        It’s absolutely not foolproof, but nothing is. Most actions corps take for this stuff only slows down the spread. Hackers and bad actors innovate way faster than companies can keep up with. So companies cast a wide net with their solutions. And the cycle continues.

          • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            with the new system, you must go online to check if the license for that app is still valid or revoked. But the current system works almost the same: if there’s an internet connection play protect checks the signature against an online malware db and prevents installation.

            From a couple years ago, google has the power to remotely install/uninstall any apk on your phone without your consent

          • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            No, the certificate can be invalidated preventing future installations for other users. If you already have it you’re SOOL