Cell Phones Responsible For Next Internet Worm? 109
nitsudima writes "The mobile devices you know and love are great for productivity, but they have completely changed the vulnerability state of our networks. Norm Laudermilch tells you why you should be afraid, very afraid." From the article: "The new and largely unexplored propagation vector for malicious code distribution is mobile devices. With 802.11, Bluetooth, WiFI, WiMAX, MMS, Infrared, and cellular data capabilities on almost all new models, these devices provide a wealth of opportunity for the transmission of data. With no notion of user access levels in the compact mobile operating systems, a lack of effective authentication, and no data encryption, these environments are prime targets for the incubation of malicious code."
I want a refrigerator (Score:5, Interesting)
No, seriously, what aren't they thinking of using cell phones for these days, except maybe making reliable, clear, and simple phone calls? Seems like the piling on of more non-cell-phone features on cell phones is not very well thought out. Couple the lack of security design in these added networking features with the possibility/probability more mobile phones are moving to embedded Windows (at least that's what I've read), potential for network compromise and disaster increases non-linearly (upward).
What I find annoying and intrusive about this is I'm sitting here in my (our) internet universe working hard to make it reasonably sound, and these entrepreneurs trump that work with their one-off, disposable technology. So, I (we) eventually take the big hit for their irresponsibility. Sheesh, in every major park I've visited there's a requirement for pet owners to clean up after their pets, it'd be nice to see similar structure here.
When they're designing these phones, and these networks, and what and how the phones work, does anyone in the room bring up the notion these phones first and foremost should be phones?
In haste to be the first with the new features it seems the ramifications of what and how they add are considered little, if at all. It's money grabbing, and let the chips fall where they may, as long as the manufacturer is first and fastest with the latest new features. Sick.
I find it ironic, paradoxical(?), one of the features so darling and network centric is text messaging. I've referenced this before the T-Mobile Sidekick got written into an episode of Gilmore Girls where Rory carried on a "conversation" with Daddy about arrangements to attend a function. I'm waiting for the next great headlines where someone discovered the newest and fastest way to communicate with one of these devices -- you can actually dial a number and talk to the other person!!!
As for the "The mobile devices you know and love are great for productivity" statement, give me a break. Firstly I don't "love" them, and if by "great for productivity" you mean: great for interrupting the social flow of interaction; great for rude behavior; great for ignoring real world, then, okay, great! Not.
(And, for those who feel they must beat me with their clue sticks, no thanks on advice about how to get phones that are just phones -- been there, done that... I know how to get around the system, I just don't think I should have to.)
Re:I want a refrigerator (Score:4, Insightful)
After that, it's all bloat as far as I'm concerned.
Disclaimer: I'm still cell-phone free.
Re:I want a refrigerator (Score:5, Informative)
Cost isn't even the issue for me, in my case 1 SMS message costs EXACTLY as much as a 1 minute phone call. It's all about the convinience. You can reply WHEN you want and you have time to think about WHAT you actually want to reply. Where I live (Finland), it's not uncommon for the youth to keep their phones on "silent mode" and communicate via SMS.
Re:I want a refrigerator (Score:2)
I've spent a lot of time, money, and effort to build and acquire devices that make it so I don't have to talk to other people. Actually talking is for sales people and MBAs.
Re:I want a refrigerator (Score:2)
When they're designing these phones, and these networks, and what and how the phones work, does anyone in the room bring up the notion these phones first and foremost should be phones?
Well, they would if they weren't busy fiddling with their Blackberrys.
In haste to be the first with the new features it seems the ramifications of what and how they add are considered little, if at all. It's money grabbing, and let the chips fall where they may, as long as the manufacturer is first and fastest with the
Re:I want a refrigerator (Score:2)
Phone calls.
This may be because I'm from the US, and we get the crap phones here from what I hear. The UI on these things gets worse every year. I wish there were "open" phones with a free SDK so I could make the UI worthwhile. My current phone is pretty simple, so I can tolerate the numerous issues I have with it, but are these people on crack when they program these things?
My phone is paid for by my employer and is "part of my
PC LOAD LETTER!?! (Score:2)
It's really sad how many phones get landfilled, most of them still work fine, even have a good battery. I'd be more likely to consider a phone that was built to last, focused on simple things like being pleasant to use and high voice quality. Oh well, if I won't buy a new phone every few months I'm not who they're designing these things for. Works for me!
Re:I want a refrigerator (Score:3, Funny)
DUH. DUH DUH DUH.
I swear, cellphone UI design must be done by retards.
Re:I want a refrigerator (Score:2)
I have a feeling its some PHB behind the issues.
Wow, I forgot to mention that my phone does not have a ring at a moderate level AND vibrate option. Vibrate only works with no volume on the ringer or when the ringer is at full volume. Keep in mind that it took extra code to make it that way vs a simple toggle for vibrate on or off.
I don't get it.
Re:I want a refrigerator (Score:2)
On this phone loud isn't all that loud for the ringer, really. I'd be happier w/ just ringer on/off, *possibly* with a "settings" menu option to change the volume... I don't think people want to always be finessing the fucking volume all the ti
Re:I want a refrigerator (Score:1)
You mean, (Score:2)
you mean, Wii?
Re:I want a refrigerator (Score:2)
The goal now is to differentiate your product from the 'normal' cell phone. Hence the feature bloat.
Would you complain that computers are no longer highly specialized code breaking machines and instead have turned into general computing devices?
Re:I want a refrigerator (Score:1)
Having said that, it woul
Re:I want a refrigerator (Score:2)
What the hell device[s] are you ranting against that are sold as cell phones and can't make calls? Every cell phone I've seen in the past year can make calls. Nobody is going to manufacture a cell phone that can't make calls.
The reason some idiot engineer doesn't raise his hand at the meeting and say "What about making ca
Re:I want a refrigerator (Score:2)
I didn't say "couldn't make calls", I added the modifiers: reliable, clear, and simple .
Re:I want a refrigerator (Score:2)
So if your phone has a calendar on it, but gets lousy reception, and you're thinking that Cingular is wa
Re:I want a refrigerator (Score:2)
But, I'm the customer -- I should always be right. As I've mentioned, I've been in some of these design meetings, and I know what tradeoffs are being made to maximize profit (translation: push the compression algorithm
Re:I want a refrigerator (Score:2)
Forget about driving across country. What about standing still in the middle of a major metro area?
The building I work in has a cell antenna on top of it (to be fair, it isn't from my provider). The building two blocks over (right outside our window) has a cell antenna on it. The building one block over and one bl
Re:I want a refrigerator (Score:2)
Text messaging is free money... (Score:3, Interesting)
Text messaging is the equivalent of someone coming to you and telling you to give them money for something you've already paid for. What people don't understand about this technology is that they are getting nothing for something. In the time it takes for you to utter "Hello World!" with your voice, you could send hundreds of text messages in the same data stream. So text messages are essentially "free"
Re:Text messaging is free money... (Score:2)
You asked, "In fact, why in the world don't prices drop further for established services? Why do all your typical monthly bills seem to bottom out at around $20 to $30 (a single person, living alone). Why are they all about the same, even for completely differing services. Ever notice that you will never get an electric bill for less than $30 dollars? Why doesn't a land line phone only cost $5.00 a
Re:Text messaging is free money... (Score:2)
That's an ironic claim, from someone who had just written:
Firstly, mobile communications tend to use multiple channels for different purposes. It's not very likely that your text messages are in the same d
Re:I want a refrigerator (Score:2)
In Microsoft and Apple's example, Microsoft is doing better. So Quantity wins here.
In GM and Toyota's example, obviously Toyota is doing better. So Quality wins.
In the case of cell phones, there isn't even a clear competitor that offers Quality over Quantity. Or is there? Look at Samsung phones. Their models just barely started getting bluetooth. And they are rudimentary, with a simpl
Infrared (Score:1)
Like All Other Hype... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Like All Other Hype... (Score:2)
Sorry, biology is WAY OFF TOPIC and doesn't apply here. Perhaps you'd like calling the people who DID die of SARS [cnn.com] "just statistics".
Re:Like All Other Hype... (Score:2)
Sorry, you're missing the point. I'm not saying that SARS is funny, or that the people who have died (170 in China, according to the article you reference), are just "statistics".
I'm saying that the media's hype is inappropriate for these cases. If the media spent half as much time reporting on drunk driving cases, domestic abuse, etc., you'd think that thousands and thous
OT, sorry (Score:2)
It's sad so many retards get all worked up over something so insignificant. 58 million people die every year. That number will only go up unless we're dying as a species. When a disease or natural disaster or attack approaches 1/100th of this is the time to freak out. Not at 1/1,000,000.
Appeals to emotion never enhance the issue, by the way.
Bollocks! (Score:5, Informative)
Absolute bollocks. The extreme majority of cell phones are running closed operating systems, and the only exposed APIs are Java (Java ME, MIDP). They are a lot MORE secure than anything else we're currently using - even on our PCs. They contain access levels (only signed applications can access certain APIs without needing to prompt the user), and they store their data encrypted if it's on an exchangable memory card or else it's stored in the phone's own secure flash.
The extreme _miniority_ of phones so far running less secure operating systems are rapidly shifting in the same direction - look at the latest Symbian version as an example.
Nothing to see here - move along.
Re:Bollocks! (Score:2, Informative)
Absolute bollocks. The extreme majority of cell phones are running closed operating systems, and the only exposed APIs are Java (Java ME, MIDP). They are a lot MORE secure than anything else we're currently using - even on our PCs.
They're also not very complex, relatively speaking. A cell phone might have 150,000 lines of code as opposed to 20-50 million that Windows might have
Re:Bollocks! (Score:2)
Re:Bollocks! (Score:1)
In Symbian OS v9 and onwards this problem is eliminated too. With the capability model, apps have to be signed to use potentially dangerous
Anti-hobbyist? (Score:1)
With the capability model, apps have to be signed to use potentially dangerous APIs.
What is the process for a legitimate hobbyist developer to get his or her application signed?
Thanks for information about Symbian Signed (Score:2)
You might not require any at all, and you can still install unsigned software, you'll just get a nice set of warnings about what features it's trying to access.
The PDFs on the page that you linked suggest that the warnings for most "unsigned sandboxed APIs" happen at install time, which is better than what I had imagined (every time an unsigned program starts).
Windows Mobile includes a checkbox for a network operator (also called carrier or provider) to turn off execution of unsigned code entirely, a
Re:Bollocks! (Score:2)
This is like porn to people like Bruce Schenier, but in real life its alarmist crap. This is just as real as "Toothing" which got lots of press but turned out to be an urban legend fueled by the sexual fantasies of tech writers.
signed applications (Score:1)
You are stop on about the story being bollocks though.
Celly: A tale of cellphones in the Philippines (Score:2)
People in the upper middle class in the Philippines - that means they earn about 50,000 pesos a month, or $1,000 - thought of their phones as status symbols. They would happily show them off to me, and I was suitably impressed. The technology was much, much nicer than what I saw routinely in the US. Everyone had nice cameras, big
Re:Bollocks! (Score:2)
I use Opera Mini on my Motorola v557 and EVERY time it goes to the net for a web page, I get the Java warning, "Allow network access? Yes - this time, No - this time, No - never". Not an option for a "Yes - Always".
Apparantly it doesn't like Opera Mini's certificate.
It would be quite difficu
Re:Bollocks! (Score:1)
Re:Bollocks! (Score:1)
Please don't mistake the sorry state of cell phone use and features in the US with the rest of the world. My closed operating system (with excellent Java support) phone has no problems whatsoever using SyncML for wireless synchronization of mail, calendar, contacts etc over GPRS, EDGE and 3G.
Re:Bollocks! (Score:1)
Re:Bollocks! (Score:1)
OTOH, I'm quite biased.
Afraid (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize the submitter was probably joking, but has anyone else noticed that the same sentiment is exactly what comprises 90% (number pulled out of thin air) of media stories these days?
Counter productive (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Counter productive (Score:2)
Yeah, I know what you mean. Some of the less intelligent peers I have at work *always* answer the phone even though we're engaged in a very productive discussion. We're making great headway into some system we're developing or reverse engineering some problem domain programming language and the phone will ring. Even though both of us are really engaged in the
Great. That's just @%#$ Dandy. (Score:2, Funny)
ZOMGWTF (Score:5, Interesting)
Says somebody who has clearly never programmed a mobile phone.
The vast, vast majority of consumer phones are not the so-called "smartphones" that run traditional operating systems like Symbian or Windows, they run proprietary operating systems that have no publically known names and do not export any APIs, except for J2ME or possibly BREW.
As an aside, J2ME consumer phones are often just as "smart" as larger, more powerful phone/PDA hybrids ... my own does calendaring, web access, has an IMAP client built in, is themable, plays music and videos, and has a 500mb flash storage facility amongst other capabilities. Yet by the standard definition it is not "smart".
Anyway, J2ME has many flaws, but security is not one of them. If somebody finds a programmatic way to compromise a J2ME phone in the next 5 years then I will be very surprised. These things have no concept of processes or users, which is great, because this sort of security confuses the crap out of pretty much anybody who isn't steeped in UNIX security lore. Instead they rely on constructing (with a bit of help) a mathematical proof that the Java programs they're running don't compromise type safety, and then either interpret them or on Jazelle-based phones run them direct on the chip. This is safe and allows for a very flexible and intuitive form of security.
The absolute best you can do on these things is social engineering or exploiting piss-poor UI (which is what Cabir does). To claim you could "infect a cafe full of phones" is ludicrous: most people don't even have Bluetooth switched on as many phones disable it by default.
just like the Avian Flu pandemic? (Score:2)
Re:ZOMGWTF (Score:2)
It's already been done by at least one person. [theregister.co.uk] I read the paper and I see no reason to dispute his findings. Now, since the J2ME market is so fragmented, with tons of different implementations, the vulnerabilty affects only a very limited number of phones. This is not to say that other brands are not plagued with similar bugs, but they are quite hard to find.
At the time, I submitted the story, but it was rejected. Well, now you know.
Re:ZOMGWTF (Score:2)
Re:ZOMGWTF (Score:1)
More productive? (Score:5, Funny)
Assumption failure at line 1.
Re:More productive? (Score:2)
I disagree. For me, cell phones have always been useful. In fact, I think it is much easier to complete specific tasks because of the ready availability of communi--oh, hold on, I got a call coming in.
Funny, I saw it as sarcastic (Score:2)
When I read this phrase, it was pure sarcasm. Maybe my attitude colored my interpretation, but I was sure of its humor.
Paypal/ (Score:2, Funny)
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?rele
Pretty easy to transfer money if you can p0wn a phone...
Thanks for reminding me (Score:3, Funny)
lack of effective authentication (Score:2)
The future is looking up!
Oh my, what amazing FUD. (Score:5, Informative)
One of the biggest problems in the PC world with respect to virus propagation has been the homgenous nature of desktop PCs. 90%+ of the desktops in the world (and a decent percentage of servers, especailly a very high percentage of servers in small businesses) are running one software architecture (Win32) on one hardware architecture (x86). This means that viruses don't encounter compatibility problems when trying to propagate.
In the mobile phone market, this is not the case. There are at least three major smartphone software architectures (PocketPC/Windows Mobile, Symbian, PalmOS) each of which run on multiple hardware architectures. (PalmOS is only on ARM machines unless you count old m68k PalmOS smartphones, but I'm positive PPC/Windows Mobile supports at least 2-3 different CPU architectures and I believe Symbian does too.) Let's not forget the huge variety of "dumb" phones out there, where every manufacturer has their own custom OS and chances are that even compatibility of malware between a manufacturer's phones isn't guaranteed.
Yes there are hardware/software abstraction layers such as J2ME and (to some degree) BREW which allow an application to run on multiple manufacturer's phones, but both have varying degrees of sandboxing for those abstracted applications, and in the case of J2ME, compatibility STILL can't be guaranteed. (Look at the sites that offer Java games for mobile phones - Many of them have a slightly different download for every phone!)
Even if the phones didn't have ANY security features built into them at all, the heterogenous software/hardware environment that phone malware would have to live in presents large barriers to malware propagation.
Re:Oh my, what amazing FUD. (Score:1, Interesting)
As someone who has worked in the mobile industry since the dawn of J2ME and Brew, I know that claims of a widespread virus are complete FUD.
Anyone who has created applications for mobile devices know what a complete pain it is to port the applications (particularly ones that use advanced features like IR, Bluetooth, SMS or even create a network connection).
The anti-virus guys like Norton and their ilk are showing up at all of the major mobile shows now claiming to be s
Re:Oh my, what amazing FUD. (Score:1)
Responsible? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Responsible? (Score:1)
Security through Obscurity (Score:2, Funny)
That's a new sentiment to hear on
Re:Security through Obscurity and Incompatibility (Score:2)
Re:Security through Obscurity (Score:1)
I for one can't wait for the feces to hit the fan, and will LOL at all of them when it happens.
As it is now, in my home the standing rule is: turn of your cell phone upon entering- if it rings and disturbs me, I reserve the right to tie the offender's scrotum behind their ears.
Re:Security through Obscurity (Score:2, Insightful)
The gist I got was that they were secure because they are secure because they don't allow random software to run and don't expose any but secure APIs (requiring code-signing, etc.) to any software that does run, not that they were secure because their code was unpublished and not open-source.
One of us isn't reading the responses right.
Re:Security through Obscurity (Score:2)
Now it turns out I was wrong, there HAS been a problem with J2ME in the
Re:Security through Obscurity (Score:1)
Back to the late 80s/early 90s (Score:1)
The quick time to market model necessary to compete in the fast-paced world of mobile phones and the lucrative potential of exploits that call/text premium rate numbers means we're gonna get insecure firmware with plenty of black hat wannabes trying to create exploits.
Before we had internet access universally and virus protection, protecting against floppy disk based viruses was a real issue on vulnerable OSes; you could have an antivirus program but you didn't get the definitions updates or OS/
I don't have to worry (Score:1)
802.11 is the only real threat (Score:4, Insightful)
With 802.11 I can take a Nintendo DS with Linux and go to McDonalds, Starbucks, most local libraries and TV stations, and dozens of bussiness and port scan and/or brute force the hell out of the place.
If I find an open platform (it could even be the router) I then have the DS pull every bit of info out of it I can automatically. Then go home and look at my booty, like unencrypted passwords, stored in my handheld. Alterntively, I can inject tojans into the system that I scanning without anyone suspecting.
They won't get me! (Score:2)
Re:They won't get me! (Score:1)
Re:They won't get me! (Score:2)
Ha (Score:4, Insightful)
Can i even say the words "perimeter security" with a straight face. Ha, no. This is a bunch FUD created by people (or one in particular) who doesn't have enough work to do over the course of a day.
Sure, mobile devices have a number of transmission channels. It makes them useful. The reason why they are not a real tangible risk is that they are incredibly difficult to configure and operate in a networked mode. Getting a windows mobile phone to connect to a network and do something useful takes about three minutes by hand. Not to mention that their programming API's usually contain a much smaller subset of functions than that of a full blown pc.
Reading through the article there are more outlandish claims such as "The native security features of today's mobile devices are not capable of protecting against attacks like [mobile to mobile propagation], so it would be trivial to infect, say, an entire coffee shop full of Bluetooth phones in just a few minutes."
Right, and monkeys might fly out of my butt. The mobile device market is incredibly diversified. There are so many phones and capabilities that the notion of One Worm to rule them all is preposterous. This also assumes that everyone in the coffee shop has their phone in whore mode, accepting connections from any shiny device that walks by.
He goes on to suggest that "The mobile devices then walk out of the coffee shop and in the front door of corporate offices all over the world, past the perimeter security devices and all other network security protections, cradle to the desktop, and infect organizations in the worst possible spot: at the heart of the network, where security controls are the thinnest."
How? Almost every desktop PC in a corporate network has AV software on it. Any malicious code coming from the handheld would be detected by the AV software. Not to mention that the desktop sync software would ALSO need to be vulnerable.
Lets also examine the likelihood of this occurring: It would require the following scenario: the handheld device has a flaw that allows the transfer and execution of malicious code, the infector and the infected must be of the same type, they would also both need to have BT or Wi-Fi enabled, though I suspect that BT is much more a risk than wi-fi (most mobile devices don't provide services via wi-fi, but they do via BT). The virus would also need to behave itself such that the OS won't crash. Usually upon infection there are obvious signs of corruption. Slow downs, crashes, restarts. Then corporate man/woman would need to plug his/her device into his PC. From here the handheld may, or may not have a bridged connection directly to the network. Alternatively the handheld might be able to exploit a hole in the sync software such that it can remotely execute code on the host desktop. Finally, the handheld would execute a PC based worm that would not be in an up to date virus def. file.
Is it just me or does it seem like the planets need to align nicely for this work?
Re:Ha (Score:1)
Ah jeez, the ignorance displaced by TFA is just mindblowing. Only somebody with little knowledge of Bluetooth and how it works will believe that it's possible to infect the entire store with a virus or worm.
Not only are mobile phones incredibly diverse in terms of operating systems and architectures, and most will not have Bluetooth on by default anyway, but Bluetooth is a very secure transmission protocol. People have been trying to hack it ever since it emerged as a standard, and I've yet to see any rea
Re:Ha (Score:1)
the phone co. should hire them (Score:1)
Cell phone virii do not bother me one bit.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly the norm for most companies these days is to whore themselves out to the "must have it" minded people.
Not common yet, but they're working on it. (Score:3, Informative)
highly likely to happen (Score:2)
this wouldn't be very difficult in mobile phones especially now they are becoming more connected via ip. my friend told me once that he connected his pc to the mo
Re:"I just want to make a phone call" (Score:2)
I think it's completely retarded. But I'm in a tiny minority in the US.