Kaspersky Inks a Deal With Qualcomm To Improve Android Security

First time accepted submitter llebeel writes "Kaspersky Lab has signed an agreement with chip designer Qualcomm to improve security at 'the lower level' of a smartphone's mobile operating system. The Russian security firm told The Inquirer that it has agreed to offer 'special terms' for preloading Kaspersky Mobile Security and Kaspersky Tablet Security products on Android devices powered by Qualcomm Snapdragon processors."

Same unenviable fate as windows

[anthony_greer]

This seems like a bad thing - I don't really trust any of the AV companies after 20 years of experience on Windows OEM AV crap...Is android doomed to the same bundled security crapware that plauges off the shelf Windows PCs in the retail channel?

Give it 12 months from the launch of this and you will have Norton/Mcafee trial crap on every android device when Asus/Samsung/Whoever figure out that there is money on the table...

Not good

[stewsters]

This is something that should be fixed lower down. Phones need to be easy to upgrade to the newest version. Having a band-aid that has root privileges is a bad idea, especially when your phone doesn't have the battery to keep scanning 24/7.

So, how much do you trust the Russian govt. with y

[wisebabo]

While I'm sure that Mr. Kaspersky is a trustworthy, ethical person and that his staff adhere to the highest of professional standards, the fact remains that Kaspersky is based in Russia and therefore most of its assets (and employees!) are subject to the whims of the Russian government.

And yes, I do mean "whims". I'm sure that close observers of Russia will agree that the rule of law does not apply when strategic interests (defined as whatever interests Putin) are at stake. While the United States by comparison, is hardly an angel in that regard it cannot be compared to a government that throws Billionaires in prison on trumped up charges and assassinates its own agents overseas (with Polonium no less) who cross it. Ethics and professional standards would/should crumble when your life or the lives or your family members are at stake.

So should Kaspersky be allowed to make changes (at the chip level!) I would hope that at the very least it can be shown that it does not give the Russian govt. a back door into the platform. (For the same reason I would be very reluctant to use a home grown Chinese OS on a smartphone.)

Re:Same unenviable fate as windows

[MrMickS]

This seems like a bad thing - I don't really trust any of the AV companies after 20 years of experience on Windows OEM AV crap...Is android doomed to the same bundled security crapware that plauges off the shelf Windows PCs in the retail channel?

Give it 12 months from the launch of this and you will have Norton/Mcafee trial crap on every android device when Asus/Samsung/Whoever figure out that there is money on the table...

Android is doomed to this for the same reason Windows was. Its too easy to install programs from anywhere.

Now, before I get shouted down let me explain a little.

Having open systems where we can install whatever we like is good. It does however come with at a price. That price is that in order that this isn't exploited the user has to have sufficient knowledge to be able to evaluate the decisions they make regarding installing software. These days that's more than just whether to install the software but what level of access to give it. E.g. does that drawing program really need access to my contacts? Sadly the people capable of making these decisions is a subset of those people that buy the systems. Its also a subset of those people that believe that they are capable of making these decisions. The outcome of this is that systems become infected.

Currently the only protection we have against infected systems are AV suites. These are, not to put too fine a point on it, crap. Yes, they do the job that they are asked to but in a reactive manner and in such a way as to consume resource, valuable resource in the case of mobile devices.

The alternative is some sort of trust based vetting of software; Apple does this with their approvals system for their app store, Google does it retrospectively with Play. They are different approaches to the same issue but have their own drawbacks.

So there are your choices; keep the AV, or surrender the ability for the general public to load software from any source onto their devices. Which is it to be?