Mobile Threat Report Q1 2013 — Android becomes more and more like Windows

mobile_report_q1_2013Our latest Mobile Threat Report is out and the findings show that the Android malware ecosystem is more and more resembling the Windows ecosystem.

New mobile threat families and variants rose by 49% from last quarter, from 100 to 149. 136, or 91.3% of these were Android and 13, or 8.7% Symbian. Q1 2013 numbers are more than double that of a year ago in Q1 2012.

While the “walled-gardens” of the iOS and Windows Phone, where apps require approval before sale, have prevented malware threats to develop for the iPhone or Nokia models running those systems, Android threats are increasing and becoming more likely to affect average users.

“I’ll put it this way: Until now, I haven’t worried about my mother with her Android because she’s not into apps,” F-Secure Security Advisor Sean Sullivan said. “Now I have reason to worry because with cases like Stels, Android malware is also being distributed via spam, and my mother checks her email from her phone.”

You can get the entire report here and as you read through it, listen to our Chief Research Officer Mikko Hypponen and Sean Sullivan walk through the report in this exclusive preview. (Sorry, there is a odd echo for the first few minutes of the recording.)

Here’s a look at profit-motivated threats. Is anyone surprised that mobile malware authors are mostly motivated by money?

As far as the types of threats our Labs is seeing, Trojans continue to dominate:


We protect your mobile devices from all common threats. Get F-Secure Mobile Security free for 30 days or download it at Google Play .


More posts from this topic

Mikko Hypponen, Leo Laporte, Triangulation

5 things Mikko Hyppönen has learned from 25 years of fighting viruses

F-Secure Chief Research Officer Mikko Hyppönen sat down on Monday for a video chat with renowned tech journalist and broadcaster Leo Laporte on Triangulation. Laporte has admired Mikko and F-Secure from afar for more than twenty years, the host explained. So this first talk gave the two IT stalwarts a chance to talk over Mikko's nearly quarter century of work at F-Secure -- which he joined as a coder in 1991 when we were still known as Data Fellows. You can watch the whole interview below or download the audio here: [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpg-5NO9oS8] The whole show is worth your time but to get ready to mark Mikko's silver anniversary at F-Secure, we thought we'd pull out some interesting lessons he's learned in more than two decades of tangling with digital threats. Driving a forklift -- Mikko's job before joining F-Secure -- has one big advantage over being an internationally known virus hunter. Once you're done with work for the day, you don't think about your job at all. Mikko told Leo that being Chief Research Officer at a company that protects hundreds of millions of computers doesn't give you that luxury. Some early malware creators went on to some very interesting things. Mikko told Leo about his trip to Pakistan to meet the two brothers who wrote the first PC virus more than 25 years ago, which you can watch below. Basit Farooq Alvi and Amjad Farooq Alvi wrote the program for what they saw as a legitimate purpose -- preventing copyright infringement. Today the brothers along with a third brother run a successful telecommunications business. Robert Tapan Morris -- the creator of Morrisworm the first computer worm -- is a member of the Computer Science faculty at MIT and a partner in Y Combinator, which helps launch tech startups.[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnedOWfPKT0] His number one security tip? Back up your stuff. "Back up your computer, your iPad, your phone. And back it up so you can access it even if your house burns down." The numbers when it comes to malware are huge. F-Secure Labs receives about 350,000 malware samples a day, seven days a week. "The amount of new detections we build on those samples every day is usually around 10,000... 20 [thousand] on a bad day." Mobile malware isn't a big problem -- except, perhaps, in China -- because Android and iOS are very restrictive. "If you are a programmer, you cannot program on your iPad," Mikko explained. All apps that end up in the Play or App Store have to be approved by Google or Apple respectively. This model, which Mikko compares to the PlayStation and Xbox ecosystems, may be good for security, but it does have some negative consequences. "It's also a little bit sad in the sense that when you have these closed environments, it's sort of like converting the users from producers to consumers." Mikko wrapped up the interview by explaining F-Secure's principles when it comes to protecting and respecting users' data: "We try to sell our products the old-fashioned way. You pay for it with your money, not your privacy." Cheers, Sandra P.S.: For some bonus Mikko, watch a public lecture he gave this week at Estonian Information Technology College. [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXSAaVx2EOo&w=560&h=315]

October 15, 2015

Is protection against self-incrimination dead in the digital era? (Poll)

How to balance between privacy and crime fighting? That’s one of the big questions now when we are entering the digitally connected era. Our western democracies have a set of well-established and widely accepted rules that control what authorities can and can’t do. One aspect of this has been in the headlines lately. That’s your right to “plead the Fifth”, as the Americans say. Laws are different in every country, but most have something similar to USA’s Fifth Amendment. The beef is that “No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,…”. Or as often expressed in popular culture: “You have the right to remain silent.” With more fancy words, protection against self-incrimination. What this means in practice is that no one can force you to reveal information if authorities are suspecting you of a crime. You have the right to defend yourself, and refusal to disclose information is a legal defense tactic. But the police can search your home and vehicles for items, if they have the proper warrant, and there’s nothing you can do to stop that. In short, the Fifth Amendment protects what you know but not what you have. Sounds fair. But the problem is that there was no information technology when these fundamental principles were formed back in 1789. The makers of the Fifth Amendment, and similar laws in other countries, could not foresee that “what you know” will expand far beyond our own brains. Our mobile gadgets, social media and cloud services can in the worst case store a very comprehensive picture of how we think, whom we have communicated with, where we have been and what we have done. All this is stored in devices, and thus available to the police even if we exercise our right to remain silent. Where were you last Thursday at 10 PM? Do you know Mr John Doe? What's the nature of your relationship with Ms Jane Doe? Have you purchased any chemicals lately? Do you own a gun? Have you traveled to Boston during the last month? Have you ever communicated with mohammad@isis.org? These are all questions that an investigator could ask you. And all may still be answered by data in your devices and clouds even if you exercise your right to remain silent. So has the Fifth Amendment lost its meaning? Would the original makers of the amendment accept this situation, or would they make an amendment to the amendment? The situation is pretty clear for social media and cloud storage. This data is stored in some service provider’s data center. The police can obtain a warrant and then get your data without any help from you.(* Same thing with computers they take from your home. The common interpretation is that this isn’t covered by the Fifth Amendment. But what if you stored encrypted files on the servers? Or you use a device that encrypts its local storage (modern Androids and iPhones belong to this category). The police will in these cases need the password. This is something you know, which makes it protected. This is a problem for the police and countries have varying legislation to address the problem. UK takes an aggressive approach and makes it a crime to refuse revealing passwords. Memorized passwords are however protected in US, which was demonstrated in a recent case. Biometric authentication is yet another twist. Imagine that you use your fingerprint to unlock your mobile device. Yes, it’s convenient. But it may at the same time reduce your Fifth Amendment protection significantly. Your fingerprint is what you are, not what you know. There are cases in the US where judges have ruled that forcing a suspect to unlock a device with a fingerprint isn’t in conflict with the constitution. But we haven’t heard the Supreme Court’s ruling on this issue yet. So the Fifth Amendment, and equal laws in other countries, is usually interpreted so that it only protects information stored in your brain. But this definition is quickly becoming outdated and very limited. This is a significant ethical question. Should we let the Fifth Amendment deteriorate and give crime fighting higher priority? Or should we accept that our personal memory expands beyond what we have in our heads? Our personal gadgets do no doubt contain a lot of such information that the makers of Fifth Amendment wanted to protect. If I have the right to withhold a piece of information stored in my head, why should I not have the right to withhold the same information stored elsewhere? Is there really a fundamental difference that justifies treating these two storage types differently? These are big questions where different interests conflict, and there are no perfect solutions. So I pass the question to you. What do you think? [polldaddy poll=9102679]   Safe surfing, Micke   Image by OhLizz   (* It is this simple if the police, the suspect and the service provider all are in the same country. But it can get very complicated in other cases. Let's not go there now as that would be beside the point of this post.  

September 30, 2015