Android users that chose to use Amazon’s new Appstore may be less secure than what they think.
[ad#Google Adsense 300×250 in story]According to Yankee Group’s Ted Julian, one of Android’s native security settings allows only apps from Google’s Android Market to be installed on the device.
Here’s where things get interesting. In order to install Amazon’s store, you have to disable the native security controls in Android. As Julian points out, that means that apps can be installed from any app store.
“As one of the few controls protecting Android users from malware, this is arguably the equivalent of suggesting that users turn off their firewall to run their software,” wrote Julian.
Perhaps Google can put out an update to exclude the Amazon Appstore, as well as its own, but that’s going to get complicated. There are so many versions of Android and new app stores could pop up at any time — do they exclude them all? It’s a slippery slope.
“Sorry Amazon; knowingly compromising the security of the customers you are supposed to value so that you can make a buck is not okay,” wrote Julian.
To be fair, what alternatives are there for Amazon? Seems like it really is more of a closed ecosystem than Google would like to have us believe, if compromising the security of the phone is the only way to do something that is perfectly reasonable and should have been expected to occur.
Imagine the uproar if Apple ever pulled a stunt like this!
You couldn’t pay me to use an Android, simply because of the lack of security. I guess many users of Android are PC people, so they are used to having to live in fear of viruses, etc.
Not meant to be a snobby Apple guy but I for one appreciate the scrutiny of the Apple app store.
So you have choice at the expense of security? Give me a walled garden any day.
LMAO! Ah, life outside the walled garden (of Apple) that some like to complain about. Too bad living outside Apple’s environment means needing to disable system securities in the Android OS. Gee, anyone else see any similarities in this situation to older versions of Microsoft’s Windows? Sounds more like the fracturing (or multi-flavored) world of the Android OS still needs a bit longer to “mature”! Sure sounds like a mess!! LOL
I don’t understand why Google hasn’t implemented an “Apps for Android” program, where the OS could easily refer to a list hosted by them somewhere with approved stores. Did they never intend for third party app stores to exist? I still like Google, but a lot of their new products aren’t thought through beyond 6 buddies in mom’s basement.
You may not mean to be a snobby Apple guy, I guess it just comes naturally?
C’mon Nick. Apple users actually are “less secure” than PC users. The only reason you may not have more widespread viruses reported in the media is because you have “security thru obscurity” in the desktop world. Hackers target where the overwhelming majority of people in the world have their data – that would be on Windows machines, Nick.
And in the mobile world? How many viruses have there been on mobile phones to date? Windows, Android or Apple? Of course this will change – and I have antivirus software on my EVO and don’t open attachments from people I don’t know. But get real.
actually, multiple cases of malware on Android, it’s the current leader, including some sold on the Android Marketplace. One or maybe two for iOS, but only if you jailbreak your device. If you don’t, then zero.
So yeah, “get real”
LOL Antivirus on a phone and not opening attachments from people you don’t know. Weird sounds like running Windows ‘cmon Kevin it’s supposed to be a phone not another ball of viruses like your desktop! Kevin, you have a virus scanner on your phone surely that’s not a good thing? Cmon admit it, thats pretty poor having all of your personal info and location on a device which for some reason needs a virus scanner.
Stop reading this though it’s time to update the definitions database.
The golden bars are so pretty 🙂
My mom likes to keep six of my buddies in her basement, but all they release are blood-curdling screams of terror, rather than software applications. Although having used Wave one could argue there isn’t much difference.
Sure is getting Daniel Erin Dilger in here.
Not quite sure why Jim has decided his coverage’s main priority is criticism of competitors to Apple, but hey ho.
So so pretty. The unicorns are a nice touch as well.
Where’s the damned CONFIG.SYS on this thing, anyway?
Jim Dalrymple expresses opinions based on his long experience with the industry. Show us an Apple competitor that isn’t shooting themselves in the foot every week. It’d be a refreshing change of pace.
I like that it disables this security. Amazon is the only way I can install decent apps on my x-86 tablet, since there is no Android Marketplace on that (yet). The other available app stores are terrible.
Mmmh, rainbow farts.
@Kevin Stagg
You may not mean to be a snotty troll. I guess it just comes naturally?
Spin it how you want. Mac OS X users are safer than Windows users in terms of countable threats in the wild.
This really is not a problem. Just change back the setting to the stricter setting after installing an app from Amazon. That is a small price to pay for there to be competition among app providers.
Android really is the desktop WIN – full of security FAIls and fragmented look and feel …
Between this and their pricing policy re Android Software makes me wonder. But then they treated books rather poorly as well. Why people complain about Apple’s 30/70 is a mystery to me.
This is much to do about a little issue.
Android is “OPEN”.
Open means Lack of Security.
So Live WITH IT.
D.L.: You don’t seem to understand the complaints content providers have with Apple’s new policies that will be implemented in June. App makers are not complaining about Apple taking 30% since those app makers are actually offering the apps for free. What they are complaining about is an untenable policy that makes it impossible for them to provide content to iOS devices.
Apple is forcing a situation where content providers must provide the ability to provide content through the app store so that Apple gets 30%. They are not allowed to have the app not go through the app store to facilitate purchasing. What this means is only 70% of the cost of content would be available to content producers and distributors after the Apple tax. Amazon, B&N, Rhapsody, and other content providers will not be able to afford providing iOS apps with only 70% of the $ coming to them after Apple’s sketchy policy. This means less competition, which hurts the iOS device user.
I am happy to have an Android phone and to be able to download more reasonably priced albums from Amazon and play them off of my Amazon cloud drive. I will continue to have access to my books from the far superior Kindle service and can avoid ever again being tethered to the horrific iTunes.
Amazon does deserve some criticism for not explaining better the risks of loosening security when adding their app store application. I was surprised to see it ask me to remove restrictions without a disclaimer.
The Amazon store make my phone 0% less secure. This is because it is quite easy to turn back on the restrictions on non-android market app installs, which I always do. This negligible additional effort is trivial in comparison with the added benefit of competition. Anyone who complains about this extra effort must have never used an iPhone. iOS require tedious menu navigation to turn anything on or off. Adding apps is also horrible designed, with the phone leaving the app store to the desktop every time you add something — never mind the brain-dead design of the age confirmation dialogs every time you update a browser app or rss reader app. Did I get younger since the last time I updated the app?
Up until a recent OS update jailbreaking your iPhone could be done via a malicious PDF.
So yeah, “secure”