Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HTC Android Phones Found With Malware Pre-Installed

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the saving-users-time-and-effort dept.

Android 158

Trailrunner7 writes "Security researchers have found that Vodafone, one of the world's larger wireless providers, is distributing some HTC phones with malware pre-installed on them. The phone, HTC's Magic, runs the Google Android mobile operating system, and is one of the more popular handsets right now. A researcher at Panda Software received one of the handsets recently, and upon attaching it to her PC, found that the phone was pre-loaded with the Mariposa bot client. Mariposa has been in the news of late thanks to some arrests connected to the operation of the botnet."

cancel ×

158 comments

It's not a bug (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415426)

It's an undocumented feature!

Re:It's not a bug (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415458)

It's a perfectly cromulent feature. I mean come on...malware preinstalled? That rocks tits to dust.

Impressive! (2, Interesting)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415718)

Windows malware preinstalled on a Linux device?
Is it WINE-compatible, and can WINE even be installed on Android phones?

Re:Impressive! (1)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415830)

Doesn't need too, the android device acts like a usb disk when attached to a PC. Add that to auto start and boom, you are infected.

Re:It's not a bug (1)

daremonai (859175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416542)

I don't see what's the big deal here. Verizon has been pre-installing malware on all their phones for years.

Re:It's not a bug (1)

Alphathon (1634555) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416592)

Crapware maybe, but unless it's gone horribly unreported (or I just havn't noticed, being in the UK and all) they don't carry botnets

Re:It's not a bug (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31415824)

Wait a minute, I thought Android already had spyware installed...wasn't it called: Google?

Re:It's not a bug (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416460)

spyware !== malware.

My understanding was that Mariposa is a bot client, not just spyware.

Re:It's not a bug (4, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416074)

You think THATS bad - I got my HTC phone with Windows Mobile 6.1 Pre Installed!

Pre-installed (3, Funny)

0racle (667029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415440)

No user intervention, IT JUST WORKS

Technically, not installed... (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415446)

The software in question was an autorun file, so it wasn't installed on the phone, it was just present on the phone's flash drive waiting to try to infect any OS stupid enough to automatically run programs from untrusted devices. It's not like the phone was running a botnet client and using up your data allowance sending spam, it was just a carrier.

Re:Technically, not installed... (5, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415536)

That’s a good distinction to make.

Of course I immediately assumed they didn’t really mean “installed”, since it’s a Windows virus and an Android OS...

Re:Technically, not installed... (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416148)

I can't seem to get the original panda research page to open, so here's the google cache
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:http://research.pandasecurity.com/vodafone-distributes-mariposa/ [74.125.113.132]

It's funny how TFA treats "a researcher" and "one phone" as "some HTC phones".

Re:Technically, not installed... (4, Insightful)

56 (527333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415562)

Either way, that's pretty crazy. I wonder if it's a case of a rogue employee putting it there, or if it somehow got installed unntentionally by Vodafone. Or maybe the phone was used, returned, and re-sold without having the micro sd card formatted.

Re:Technically, not installed... (2, Insightful)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416492)

Or maybe the "colleague" already had these viruses and they hopped over to the USB? Or maybe Panda just made it all up? Kinda hard to say when it's a single phone. But time to get out the pitchforks regardless! I like pitchforks.

Re:Technically, not installed... (2, Insightful)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415584)

"untrusted devices"

Its not like this phone was bought on e-bay or some back ally. This is straight from the manufacture.

It baffles me that products get through QA and carry viruses, Trojans or other malware, I mean come on.

Re:Technically, not installed... (3, Insightful)

sbeacom (1225868) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415650)

It's not really straight from the manufacturer is it?

I'm not sure about how Vodafone works, but most carriers around here love to brand their phones. The issue it self seems to be isolated to just the Vodafone models so could it be part of the branding they do with the phones?

Re:Technically, not installed... (0, Flamebait)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415676)

The branding is done at the manufacturer, though. Silkscreening is done at the same time as manufacturer logos, and firmware preload is done at the manufacturer.

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

56 (527333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415764)

my rogers htc magic has a bunch of rogers images preloaded, and several rogers bookmarks placed in the web-browser. i would be surprised if that's done by htc.

also, i've received phones from rogers that have been bought and then returned, with the other person's content still on the sd card - as could easily have been the case with the phone in question. In my case, there were pictures of the guy's trip to new york left on the phone.

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415896)

Just checked my HTC magic, no virus found.

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415968)

Interesting. I guess the short version of it is, if you buy a phone, make sure you check it before just plugging it in and letting your computer run stuff off it without permission. You might be the unlucky one.

Then again, you might be lucky... depending on the photos you find.

Re:Technically, not installed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31415938)

I used to work for a very large fast food chain, developing software for their Point-Of-Sale system. The company decided to switch from a system originally developed in-house to a third-party Windows-based system. Shortly after they set up the QA lab with the new system (over 100 machines), the entire lab (except for the few machines still running the old system) were infected with a virus, presumably brought in on someone's thumb drive.

Anyone in the development/testing/manufacturing process could accidentally (or intentionally) install a virus into a commercial system. Of course, it pretty much has to be a Windows-based system for any actual damage to occur.

Re:Technically, not installed... (2, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416004)

From what you said, several things are glaringly obvious about your set-up.

No antivirus.

You probably didn’t disable autoruns.

Most importantly, UNPATCHED NETWORKED WINDOWS MACHINES. Your firewall is NOT enough to protect them.

Re:Technically, not installed... (2, Informative)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415682)

And if it's an autorun file, that means only XP and earlier, and very stupid users are vulnerable. Vista and 7 don't execute Autorun.exe by default.

Re:Technically, not installed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31415780)

And if it's an autorun file, that means only XP and earlier, and very stupid users are vulnerable. Vista and 7 don't execute Autorun.exe by default.

Really? Nice. Windows is really growing up.

Re:Technically, not installed... (3, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415818)

Wrong [wikipedia.org] , it was replaced with Autorun.inf, and Vista/7 do execute it if you choose to “Autoplay” the device. I believe the dialog will appear first to ask you what you want to do, but “Autoplay” is the top choice and is selected by default.

Re:Technically, not installed... (0, Flamebait)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415880)

*sigh*

Don't microsoft *ever* learn?

Thank god I bailed out of Windows years ago.

Re:Technically, not installed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31415990)

That's fantastic! Why don't you give yourself a big pat on the back for your incredible foresight?

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415936)

You mean the device will autoplay if you tell it to autoplay? Oh my god!

Re:Technically, not installed... (2, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416050)

No... it will autoplay if you give it permission to autoplay.

You don’t tell it to. It asks, and the default option is to allow it. All you have to do is click Ok.

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416136)

Just like UAC will run programs with admin privileges if you give it permission to run them.

You don't tell it to. It asks. All you have to do is click "Yes".

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416284)

My point was that it will autoplay. They added a level of protection, but not much, and the default choice offered with very little fanfare will result in you being infected.

Microsoft has at least gone to great lengths to make UAC unmistakable, inescapable, and demand your immediate and full attention. The device autoplay dialog isn’t anywhere near as scary as a UAC prompt.

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416420)

So me and AndrewNeo are right, then? Autoplay will be ran only if you select it? Good. Carry on.

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416456)

No, you don’t have to select anything. All you have to do is click “Ok” and let the computer do what it thought was the best idea.

Maybe you think a user is “very stupid” if they autoplay a device that’s fresh out of the box? I don’t...

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416508)

God damn, you don't have to be so fucking literal about everything. If the user sees "AUTOPLAY" and clicks "OK", then he selected it and approves.

99% of the time the user wants to run autoplay, because he's inserting a CD, DVD or a software disk. The only valid thing to do here is to pop that menu and let him "confirm", as you said.

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416586)

99% of the time the user wants to run autoplay, because he's inserting a CD, DVD or a software disk. The only valid thing to do here is to pop that menu and let him "confirm", as you said.

I agree. And if the Windows Vista/7 users are just presented an option that 99% of the time would have been correct, but in this case it infects their computer with a botnet client, please explain to me how you figure that this statement is correct:

And if it's an autorun file, that means only XP and earlier, and very stupid users are vulnerable.

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416658)

Except your bold "WRONG" statement applied to "Vista and 7 don't execute Autorun.exe by default.", which has nothing to do with whether a user is stupid or not. Fact is, Vista and 7 do not execute anything autorun by default. They ask you first.

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416416)

The push is toward making computers smarter. Instead of waiting for the user to tell the computer what to do, it figures it out for itself and asks the user to confirm before it does it (don’t laugh, I’m being serious).

Smarter computers make it easier for dumb people to install software and surf the web, because all they have to do is click “Ok”.

And smarter computers also make it easier for dumb people to get infected with malware, because they’re too dumb to know when the answer should be “NO!”.

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

dancingmilk (1005461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416528)

Which is telling the computer "Yes, I want to autorun this program."

Just because its the default option doesn't mean its bad or something. You still have to hit a button. If the user mindlessly clicks away at buttons, well thats no fault of the software. Thats just a PEBKAC issue.

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416838)

They trusted the manufacturer to sell them a phone that won’t give them brain cancer when they hold it up against their head, and they trusted the manufacturer to sell them a phone that won’t give their computer a virus when they attach it.

Taking a device which creates and uses radio waves and holding it up to your head is just as much a choice as clicking “Ok” when your computer asks you whether it should autoplay the device, and reasonable users don’t expect either action to result in harm to themselves or their computer.

So basically, AndrewNeo was wrong on all counts. He said that users would have to be using Windows XP and be exceptionally stupid in order to get infected by this malware. In my opinion, reasonable users on Windows Vista/7 could still be infected.

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

RalphSleigh (899929) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416970)

Maybe, but we can only hope the user will use the menu to select import photos or invoke the phones bloated windows software package instead of autoplaying.

Anyway, even if the user runs the autoplay, it will still need to pop a UAC prompt to do anything nasty (well install itself as part of a botnet, oh for the old days when viruses just deleted your files and popped up a dialogue saying ha ha, no UAC needed there).

Re:Technically, not installed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31415948)

And if that dialog came up when plugging in a new phone, I'd expect it to be installing software for the phone, so not only stupid people would be infected.

Re:Technically, not installed... (0)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415758)

People around here love to bitch about Apple and their control over their hand set, but this was one of the reasons they locked it down. Especially in the early days when it wasn't a proven platform. If the iPhone had been a free for all, malware would have quickly popped up and not only killed the iPhone, but like set all smart phones not made by RIM back a few years. But long term I think there is going to be a malware problem on Android and then the Carriers will use that as an excuse to grab back control of the platform forcing users to only use "their App store".

And to those who say, "But don't run unsigned apps from sources you don't know". Yeah, makes perfect sense to me, but how many people do we know downloaded the prettypuppiesscreensaver.exe only to get infected with a virus? How long until we see some tweet linked to an android malware program that thousands of users install because they don't know any better?

You know, the more I get to thinking about it, the more sense Apple's policy of no background apps becomes.

Re:Technically, not installed... (5, Insightful)

Manax (41161) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415860)

That's just ridiculous. Did you even read the summary? This isn't about you installing a trojan on your phone, or about how open the platform is or isn't. It's about it COMING FROM THE CARRIER that way. This could have just as easily happened to an iPhone and had a mac or PC virus on it...

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415912)

This has nothing to do with lockdown. It came from the manufacturer this way. iPhones can connect by USB, so the same could happen if the manufacturer were not careful.

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416034)

If you read the article, it's the SD card that's infected. Which, no, wouldn't affect an iPhone since there isn't an SD slot. Question is, where did the SD card ship from? Vodoaphone or HTC?

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

bnenning (58349) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416354)

Exactly. This isn't an argument in support of Apple locking down the iPhone app store, it's an argument for preventing Macs from using flash drives. Is that what you want?

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

Alphathon (1634555) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416844)

Well, really it's an argument against devices having storage (be it internal e.g a hdd, or removable, e.g. an SD card) which is mountable, and having mountable storage be able to autorun. It has nothing specific to do with flash or removable storage, but storage in general. The same thing could happen on a CD if someone managed to hide it in a master copy used for production. The iPhone being closed prevents it from happening via an SD card, but if you can hide malware on it's internal memory a similar thing could happen.

Re:Technically, not installed... (4, Informative)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415950)

Ok... go lookup the story about iPods loaded with trojans that got through QA. http://msmvps.com/blogs/spywaresucks/archive/2006/10/19/187622.aspx [msmvps.com] This has nothing to do with android/apple and everything to do with crappy manufacturing using infected windows PC that will infect any usb connected device.

Oh? (2, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416402)

I agree it has nothing to do with Android, but that case had most certainly something to do with Apple. They use those crappy manufacturing facilities to save a few bucks and then save even more by not doing proper QA.

And before you claim how innocent and harmless this is, consider what is happening to Toyota. Or the numerous quality issues with products from China and god knows how many more places. In order to maximize profits (because you can't claim cost savings are passed onto to the consumer with Apple products) they cut corners everywhere and sooner or later something has to give.

And long after guy who got the bonus for cutting costs has left, the shit starts to happen. Toyota used to be the largest and fast growing, with the economy not affecting it nearly as much as the other car makers. Now it can't shift its cars. And the money for huge cash injections has already been spent. This might end up hurting Toyota, and for what? A few cents more to the stock holders.

It will be interesting to find out how this phone got its extra payload, but ultimately the story will be, lack of quality control. And someday your life may depend on cut rate QA.

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

BlackBloq (702158) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416966)

RTFA
Har
less than 1% - of the Video iPods available for purchase after September 12, 2006

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

517714 (762276) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416008)

Isn't that a bit like drawing the erroneous distinction that because Typhoid Mary was asymptomatic she was not sick? She was a vector for the disease because the disease resided within her. If the software resided on the phone it was installed.

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416086)

Isn't that a bit like drawing the erroneous distinction that because Typhoid Mary was asymptomatic she was not sick?

Um, yes, but it’s not erroneous. She wasn’t sick.

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416400)

If you have no symptoms, you are not sick. It doesn't matter what viruses or bacteria you may be playing host to. That's exactly what vaccines are about: giving you immunity such that if you are infected with a virus it doesn't make you sick.

In short: you're completely and utterly wrong.

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416018)

it was just present on the phone's flash drive waiting to try to infect any OS stupid enough to automatically run programs from untrusted devices.

Since when is my own phone an "untrusted device"?

Re:Technically, not installed... (0, Troll)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416098)

Since when is my own phone an "untrusted device"?

Since it came from HTC?

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416162)

That’s why it is a trusted device.

I trust them to build phones that are safe and to respect my privacy, and to ensure that nobody who isn’t trustworthy will get their hands on one of the phones before the customer does.

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416434)

accidental mod correcting

Re:Technically, not installed... (1)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416524)

It's an untrusted device relative to the computer. The computer doesn't know where it has been (That's why newer versions of Win and all versions of Linux ask you what to do)... YOU may trust it, but a competent programmer will not. A competent programmer will not trust ANYTHING not directly in the control of the program at all times (Don't trust anything that the user could possibly tamper with)...

Easy way to stop this from happening (4, Insightful)

grahamsaa (1287732) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415532)

I'm personally getting fed up with companies that allow this to happen. If companies that distribute devices that come pre-loaded with malware were fined heavily for each instance, they'd likely hire a few good devs and QA people to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again.

There's absolutely no excuse for this. If you contract out development or manufacturing and that leads to this kind of security risk, there's still no excuse. Unfortunately as of right now there are few if any consequences associated with this type of negligence -- which means that companies aren't going to do much to improve their security practices.

Re:Easy way to stop this from happening (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415882)

If companies that distribute devices that come pre-loaded with malware were fined heavily for each instance

Nice try - we've invented class-action lawsuits to protect the corporations from this problem. And corporations, as currently constituted, make sure nobody is actually liable for anything* they do.

I mean, not 'we', but the corporations. Or, um, the government. Sorry I get so confused these days where the lines are.

* for very large values of 'anything'.

Re:Easy way to stop this from happening (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415946)

Of course there are consequences. There's a huge PR hit, lost sales, the expense of remediating this -- including the class-action suit that's quite likely to follow. There's also a loss of consumer and business trust. Competitors can capitalize on this very easily, compounding the cost.

This is a self-correcting situation. Government fines not required.

Re:Easy way to stop this from happening (1)

grahamsaa (1287732) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416142)

There will almost certainly be no class action lawsuit. The average consumer doesn't know about these kinds of exploits, and most certainly does not care. That also means that there will be no significant PR hit. If this were self correcting behavior we wouldn't be seeing stories at least once a month about a high-profile company shipping infected hardware to customers. The reason this kind of thing keeps happening is that the consequences you mention are incredibly minimal, if there are consequences at all.

Government intervention usually isn't needed in areas that the general public understands well. It is precisely because the public does not understand security risks that the government should be involved.

Re:Easy way to stop this from happening (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416898)

Then let competitors educate consumers. "Did you know that the HTC phone can install viruses on your computer?" As long as they stick entirely to the facts, there's nothing preventing this.

Re:Easy way to stop this from happening (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31416526)

There's absolutely no excuse for this.

Nonsense. I came up with several:

1) My dog ate the QC test procedure.
2) The QC staff got stuck in traffic.
3) It was the new guy's fault.
4) Bob filled out the old TPS reports instead of the one with the new cover sheet.

See? There are excuses for this.

Please (5, Funny)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415544)

Linux is not a malware. Such smear tactic at slashdot must stop.

Re:Please (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31415574)

What, did they forget to teach you to read in first grade?

Re:Please (2, Funny)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415910)

Whoosh

Re:Please (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415626)

Apparently you think the Mariposa botnet is a... Linux distro? What are you smoking?

Re:Please (2, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415772)

Apparently you think the Mariposa botnet is a... Linux distro? What are you smoking?

Probably something similar to the (now ex-) QA employees

Re:Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31415748)

They weren't talking about linux, they were talking about Android's JVM. :D

You know Android has hit the big leagues (5, Insightful)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415566)

When people are trying to slander it. They're blaming everyone under the sun, when the most likely vector is a store employee who simply plugged the device into a computer and copied the file to the flash drive.

Re:You know Android has hit the big leagues (2, Funny)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415918)

The bigger problem is that this is HTC, who also produces the Nexus for Google proper. Even if the attack vector was an employee at the store, it gives people a moment of pause. When was the last time you saw a Blackberry, Palm, Nokia, LG, Windows Mobile, or iPhone distributed with Malware from the store? (Other than anything with vCast)

Re:You know Android has hit the big leagues (1)

PPalmgren (1009823) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416112)

Wish I had mod points for the vCast slam. I laughed for a good minute or two.

Re:You know Android has hit the big leagues (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416322)

If you define "malware" to include naughty pictures taken by previous owners of supposedly "new" phones, then the answer is "all the freakin' time".

I keed. We all know that the employees at mobile phone outlet stores are all bright citizens of upstanding character who would never do anything immoral or illegal. They are, after all, the strongest link in the chain from manufacturer to customer.

Re:You know Android has hit the big leagues (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415944)

It's also conspicuous that it's only the Vodafone version of the handset, which suggests the fault lies much further down the chain than HTC.

Re:You know Android has hit the big leagues (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416070)

It's also conspicuous that is one phone from one employee of company that is hawking its own anti-malware software.

Did they not even think of buying more phones to confirm it? Shouldn't they, you know, be helping the cops deal with it before they warn whoever put it there?

Re:You know Android has hit the big leagues (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416110)

Yes, but it says phones. No way the headline and summary would be referring to just one phone like that. No way at all.

Re:You know Android has hit the big leagues (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416576)

Yes, but it says phones. No way the headline and summary would be referring to just one phone like that. No way at all.

One article clearly is talking about only one phone. The other is quite obviously getting its info from the other, and the expansion from "phone" to "phones" is not justified. I.e. somebody read too much into the first article and is assuming that this is not an isolated occurrence.

Now, admittedly, for the phone that an employee of an antivirus company purchases to be the only one unlucky enough to be infected by a virus seems highly unlikely... but this may well be a local issue.

Now THAT's Multitasking! (2, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415598)

Enough said.

Queue the parade of iPhone drummers.

BTW, I wonder if this is one of the patents Apple is suing over

Re:Now THAT's Multitasking! (5, Funny)

genghisjahn (1344927) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415798)

Unfortunately, as an iPhone user, if I want to get malware my only option is to get it through the app store.

Re:Now THAT's Multitasking! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31416834)

don't worry it comes standard with most (all?) apple products and is called 'bonjour '

Android does (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31415616)

iPhone users still waiting on the port, but Android does.

When, where, how... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415656)

Since this appears to be a lone incident, it’s obvious that it didn’t come “straight” from the manufacturer, and it might not even be their fault.

Then again... if a lot more of these infected phones start turning up, there probably is an infected computer somewhere at the manufacturer and the phones are being plugged into it in the process of setting them up.

First order of importance, of course, is to send somebody to the end of the assembly line and start checking random phones right before they’re boxed.

Sue the company (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415662)

You know, I find it amazing. China continues to load this spy bots on goods destined for the west. Yet, SO many westerners continue to buy it. Here is a thought. QUIT BUYING IT, or SUE THEM. If you start suing the company for infecting your window systems, then companies will quit producing in China OR they will start caring about SECURITY.

Re:Sue the company (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415706)

You can’t sue a Chinese company, so I assume you mean the US company that imported the stuff? You’d have to show them to be grossly negligent, I think, and simply importing goods from China isn’t grossly negligent until this sort of thing is much more widespread. If you know that imported goods from China are probably loaded with spyware, then yeah, importing them and then distributing them without checking them would be negligent, but we’re not there yet.

I have one of these (1)

Myion (1662861) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415716)

As a long-term customer of vodafone I never experienced or even expected this level of incompetence from them before. I also bought a HTC Magic from them and feel like suing them right now.

Re:I have one of these (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416306)

I also bought a HTC Magic from them and feel like suing them right now.

Dear Sir,

We applaud your noble sentiments, and encourage any and all litigation for any offenses, real or imagined. We assure you that, with the proper degree of zeal, any country, can be transformed into an environment that encourages the unbridled growth of our industry.

Sincerely,

Every Lawyer Not In The Beautifully-Litigious United States

Malware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31415736)

Windows for phones is malware?

dacoda (1)

dacoda (1763228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415738)

What can these Malware possibly do to my phone?

Hotel,Resort,Accommodation, Package Tour [travelbooth-asia.com]

Re:dacoda (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415900)

Nothing however when you plug it into your windows box that computer will be infected.

Sexond if that kind of virus can slip through what other virii will make it on to the phone?

And to join the parade of apple fans. Isn't thatwhy mounting the phoneas a drive is dangerous?

Re:dacoda (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31415952)

Worse case: It can install Windows on your phone, so that it can run.

Note: In this case, the virus is the least of your problems.

Re:dacoda (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31415962)

This malware makes you post a bullshit link to your travel site that nobody cares about. Looks like you're infected.

Patented! (1)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416022)

So, is THIS what Apple was suing HTC over at the International Trade Commission? Does Apple have a patent on preloaded malware on smartphones?

Re:Patented! (2, Funny)

genner (694963) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416190)

So, is THIS what Apple was suing HTC over at the International Trade Commission? Does Apple have a patent on preloaded malware on smartphones?

If they do I'm sure Microsoft can claim prior art.

Re:Patented! (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416418)

No, it does not come preloaded, but there's an app for that.

Aha, it's an ad for Panda software (4, Insightful)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416188)

Following the linked article, and following that to the original post, we find that first off, it's a single phone, not more than one that had this malware, and we are informed of the software that detected this, coincidentally the commercial product the researchers are working on:

The interesting thing is that when she plugged the phone to her PC via USB her Panda Cloud Antivirus went off, detecting both an autorun.inf and autorun.exe as malicious

I'm rushing out today to buy this software that can do such feats as detecting this malware. They have a Linux version, right?

Re:Aha, it's an ad for Panda software (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416564)

They have a Linux version, right?

Yes [pandasoftware.com] .

C'mon slashdot. 1 phone, uncorroborated (4, Insightful)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416444)

Dont go the way of kdawson, soulskill.

Next we'll be reading stuff like "My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious. He might have Mariposa, or Confiker or something. Better get Ferris some AntiVirus software from PandaAV"

Re:C'mon slashdot. 1 phone, uncorroborated (1)

kseise (1012927) | more than 4 years ago | (#31416916)

Excellent point. Do you think anyone will pay attention to common sense though? Let's see how many they shipped and how many had the same little package installed. This should be relatively easy to trace.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...