Anti-virus Vendors Eye Cell Phones 119
coastin writes "Are cell phones and handheld devices the next big market for anti-virus software vendors? While there have been more than 150 cell phone viruses discovered since 2004, compared to over 150,000 Windows PC viruses the count seems low at this time. Marketing researcher Gartner suggests a widespread attack could surface by the end of next year. With the number of cellular devices sold in 2005 far beyond that of Windows PCs and no choice of anti-virus protection for most cellular device customers, should the cell carriers listen more closely to the anti-virus vendors?"
ah excellent... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:ah excellent... (Score:1)
Re:ah excellent... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ah excellent... (Score:1)
Re:ah excellent... (Score:1)
Re:ah excellent... (Score:2)
Re:ah excellent... (Score:2)
It is silly to combine all of this into one thing. Even if you are a casual photographer, the 3MP coming through a shitty p
Battery life? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Battery life? (Score:2)
Hey, this is America. We were founded on the premise that smart people can take economic advantage of stupid people. If they can sell it hard enough, well, P.T. Barnum's law suggests that their customers will soon be parted from their money.
Re:Battery life? (Score:2)
Just as importantly how will this affect performance. Norton made my computer run at 2-3% cpu all the time no matter what I was doing. And if I was downloading something it jumped.
And those dang scheduled scans, how about one of them popping up in the middle of your conversation? "Sorry my AV fired up while we were talking so I lagged out."
Re:Battery life? (Score:1)
So now if I call phone sex numbers... (Score:2)
Stupid people, smart phones (Score:1)
I've personally seen just one infected S60 phone. The owner had hit 'No' a couple of times, then just "yes yes yes really yes ok ok ok yes" to get rid of the requesters.
Stupid people should not have ANY control over their hardware.
Re:Stupid people, smart phones (Score:2)
It's still well beyond me why anyone would bother writing a phone-virus other than "it can be done". Or why anyone would want to download anything in the middle of a meeting and then play it back on a 1" screen. I remember back when all cell phones did was call people. That was nice.
Re:Stupid people, smart phones (Score:3, Insightful)
It sounds to me that the 'stupid person' here was the engineer that designed a user interface that didn't allow the user to say 'no means no'.
The feature of javascript that allows programs to repeatedly display popups requesting a code download is a serious bug. It is the res
Re:Stupid people, smart phones (Score:2)
It's like having 100 "GO!" buttons, and no "Stop!" button. You have to make sure all the "Go!" buttons aren't pressed.
If in the future you have a new "Go!" button - making it 101 go buttons, your old code might not disable it.
Whereas if you had a "Stop!" button that meant "stop
Here come the cell phone virii (Score:1)
Re:Here come the cell phone virii (Score:2)
sheesh... (Score:1)
Re:sheesh... (Score:2)
Making something (in this case, data transfer) wireless isn't always a great idea. Sometimes, just sometimes, it's a terrible idea.
Re:sheesh... (Score:1)
Re:sheesh... (Score:2)
By leaving bluetooth on all the time I take 1/3 or more out of my phone's battery life. It's short enough as it is let alone with bluetooth, and trying to surf the web on the damn thing.
I don't mind colour screens if I could modify the display a bit.(in the Phone book, make each contact group a different color, personal, family, work, etc)
Re:sheesh... (Score:2)
I have a handsfree car adaptor. When I turn the key in my vehicle, it powers up and tells the phone "hey, I'm your headset now." If I get a call while driving, I hit a button on the dashboard and I'm talking. But if the phone's Bluetooth were off, the magic is all gone.
I also carry a Palm. When I want to send an SMS, I chicken-scratch out my message in English and tap "send". If Bluetooth were off, I'd be digging out the phone and pressing shortcut
Re:sheesh... (Score:1)
First, the whole point of bluetooth is that you can discover other phones. If you leave it off by default then if you want to send someone your contact information or a picture, you have to go through the phone config and turn it back on. And then you have to have your friend do the same thing. So, you just added what's potentially 5 extra minutes to the processes of exchanging contact information. And before you say, "oh just give them your number", contact i
If a widespread attack doesn't happen... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If a widespread attack doesn't happen... (Score:1)
Re:If a widespread attack doesn't happen... (Score:2)
*Which is why tech support for consumer products sucks in general.
Network Filtering (Score:3, Insightful)
<sarcasm>I mean honestly, can't they just check the evil bit?</sarcasm>
Re:Network Filtering (Score:1)
Re:Network Filtering (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Network Filtering (Score:1)
Of course, Symbian phones are pretty much the most promiscous things out there - they are not only able to connect via the network (which can be scanned by the operator) but also peer to peer (via Bluetooth, IR, or cable to PC, and eventually wifi and who knows what). Which is why a both a network an
Geez (Score:1)
Re:Geez (Score:1)
Re:Geez (Score:1)
Viewing /. From 703sh (Score:1)
But if they have A/V for cel phones, what is next? WinPhone AutoUpdate? I can see it now, in the middle of a 911 or $6mil business call: "Your phone has been updated, the phone must be rebooted now to continue."
ant-virus? (Score:2)
i bet (Score:2)
Maybe it's time to go back to the zack morris cell phone. SUre it's a little bigger but I want to see someone write a virus for that thing.
Linux (Score:1)
It ticks me off... (Score:1)
If I was more conspiracy minded, I'd think the AV vendors have been planning this for years... :-)
Th
What are you talking about? (Score:2)
Add to that the fact that there are multiple underlying architectures, and a company that is bound by the FCC to enforce fairly strong limitations of their commications devices, and you get a pretty tightly controlled system.
Heck, my phone
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:2)
These are hardware devices that were...hold on let me reiterate that HARDWARE. That means that there are tons and tons of regression tests.
HA! Hardware devices generally do get a bit better testing, but if you think they don't have a lot of flaws and require updates, then you haven't been paying attention. The cable company is constantly updating firmware in cable modems (and often screwing them up). Cisco has more serious vulnerabilities in its routers than I can count. Why are cell phones any differen
don't trust anti-virus vendors (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course on my linux side I have no virus problems, but it's also been ages since I've dealt with a windows virus, because I keep things updated and use better web browsers and email clients, and I also strongly suggest the same practises to people I know, people who I know will come to me for help when they get one. Viruses just aren't a problem if you use your computer intelligently and remain somewhat suspicious of odd behaviour.
All I'm saying is that it's sort of counter-productive, if you think about it, to have an entire industry who's very existance depends on malware, and who, if they are doing their jobs, would eliminate their very reason for being there in the first place. (Sure, the police are the same thing, but that is exactly why the police are a public entity, and not corporately owned.)
Re:don't trust anti-virus vendors (Score:2)
Re:don't trust anti-virus vendors (Score:1)
Of course on my linux side I have no virus problems, but it's also been ages since I've dealt with a windows virus, because I keep things updated and use better web browsers and email clients, and I also strongly suggest the same practises to people I know, people who I know will come to me for help when they get one. Viruses just aren't a problem if you use your computer intelligently and remain somewhat suspicious of odd behaviour.
Who said that linux is virus proof? It is not, no-one is writing linux v
Re:don't trust anti-virus vendors (Score:2)
I absolute wouldn't dispute that. Did I say that? I think you misread my post.
Wh
Re:don't trust anti-virus vendors (Score:2)
But which AV company would volunteer for this role? If a single company had a monopoly, this might be believable, but with a healthy competition going on right now in the AV industry, no AV company is going to intentionally let a recognized virus through. They look far better if they can release press that r
You'd think Verizon would stop them. (Score:2, Insightful)
But I doubt that such software would be used to improve service or reliability from the customer's point of view.
Why the handset? (Score:2)
It would seem to me that it makes more sense to keep the virus from getting through in the first place th
Re:Why the handset? (Score:1)
Unfortunately Symbian devices don't just connect via the network but also peer to peer (via Bluetooth, IR, cable etc). Obviously a network scanner is no use in relation to a virus bluetoothed from one phone to another. This is the reason that both a network and handset based solution is necessary.
how about less vulnerable phones? (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people use phones for more than talking. (Score:2)
A phone does not need a web browser, chat client, and e-mail client.
Mine does.
Next.
Re:how about less vulnerable phones? (Score:1)
It's not a vulnerability, it's a feature!
Unfortunately it's true. To drive the industry, and acquire a larger market share, cell phones companies have to make more advanced products, and the more advanced the products become, the more vulnerabilities are created. One created a phone that can store 10 numbers, another goes for 20, another adds phone-to-phone messaging, then chat, then web, and so on and so on, until you bascially have a computer in your hand that can also be used to make phone calls. Which
Re:how about less vulnerable phones? (Score:1)
Where does it say that?
> A phone certainly DOES NOT need any sort of scripting engine.
My phone has Symbian and Java. I'd imagine scripting comes in rather handy.
> Why did the cell phone manufactures go and add vulnerabilities into the phone in
> the first place?
If by `vulnerabilities` you mean `the capacity to run third party code written in Java and C++` then the answer is probably `when the market demanded it`. Frankly I rat
Re:how about less vulnerable phones? (Score:2)
Where? And why do I have to get some used POS when all I want is a telephone I can take with me? The largest nationwide network (Cingular/ATT) actually stopped supporting older phones a while back, anyway.
Can't you damned kids just get a laptop for better email, music, and game playing - and maybe a camera for taking better pictures?
Re:how about less vulnerable phones? (Score:1)
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/POKIA-retro-mobile-phone-han dsfree-PHOBILE-cool-gadget_W0QQitemZ9105970823QQca tegoryZ42427QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem [ebay.co.uk]
Or just look elsewhere on eBay for more normal (ahem) old phones.
> And why do I have to get some used POS when all I want is a telephone I can take
> with me?
Stuff that would cost thousands of pounds are pratically given away thanks to mass production. The downside is when stuff goes out of fashion you have to make do with the new stuff. Overall, it works i
Re:how about less vulnerable phones? (Score:2)
U.S. Cellular still maintains their AMPS network. They're the only way to get cellular phone service up in the hills 'round these parts (Lake County, CA, US). Well, that's not strictly true; for instance, if I'm at my friend's house on Cobb Mountain, I can walk about two miles (mostly uphill) to a point at which I can get about three of five bars on GSM1900.
Re:how about less vulnerable phones? (Score:2)
Displays: so use 20 digits - that'd still take less power to run than a million pixels. 14 days is better than 11.
I have warmed up to the camera in phone thing, though. It's nice to always have some kind of camera on me, though I still use the "real" camera when I know I'm gonna want
Re:how about less vulnerable phones? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish you pathetic luddites would fuck off back to the shack in the Ozarks that you crawled out of. Further, I wish the idiot moderators that keep modding you types as "insightful" would lose their eyesight - I can't imagine anyone being tenacious enough to read and mod slashdot on a braille reader, although now that I think of it probably 100% of those assholes would do so. The fact is that you are so far in the minority that you don't even show up as a inconsequential statistical anomaly. You don't even
Re:how about less vulnerable phones? (Score:2)
In fact I own a nice almost featureless cell phone made by Kyocera. They do exist and have no need for antivirus "solutions."
If I ever feel I want more, I'd rather have a PSP.
Re:how about less vulnerable phones? (Score:1)
Selling the Solution before the Problem? (Score:1)
A notable Cell Phone virus is going to have to arise before people will be bothered to install an anti-virus. If you asked most people what the thought of the possibilty of Cell Phone viruses, they'd probally look at you as if you had 3 heads. They think of their Cell Phone as they do their Toaster, or their Television, not as their Computer. It's going to be a hard sell for companies if there is no problem to solve.
Some of these antivirus companies are gonna have to buckle down and write some good viruses
Depends if a monoculture develops (Score:2)
If Linux were to become dominant, the situation wouldn't be quite as bad (fewer viruses) but the ones that came out would hit harder since fewer phones would be protected against them. Same for Java or whatever other non-Windows thing.
If the market remains splintered in terms of OS, that would hinder viruses from spreading. Most high-profile markets tend to consolidate around one or two big players, and as cell
Re:Depends if a monoculture develops (Score:1)
Re:Depends if a monoculture develops (Score:1)
Well... (Score:1)
More cell phone viruses than Mac (Score:1)
Markets aren't built on reality, they are built on perception of reality; most cell phone users use Windows and are used to viruses on Windows so they will easily buy into the notion of the cell phone being just as vulnerable to viruses as their desktop computer is.
Re:More cell phone viruses than Mac (Score:2)
Because both are stupid ideas. And so is Virus protection on Windows. That Microsoft is developing an anti-virus solution is only more proof of their laziness at fixing the problems which cause viruses in the first place.
Markets aren't built on reality, they are built on perception of reality
That doesn't make it right.
Ant-virus -- call the CDC (Score:2)
Oh no, first bird flu, now ant viruses!
Protect from what? (Score:3, Insightful)
So "Virus Scanners" for cell phones today will only protect against those ~150 threats that exist today. By definition, you can not protect against all future threats today (because if you could, your OS provider would have already done so).
Once threats become more widespread, the concept of a "Virus Scanner" will become more plausible.
What about white lists. (Score:1)
So why is this not being considered, or implemented?
Kyle
( background info: white lists [wikipedia.org] )
Yay (Score:1)
<br> (Score:2)
Gartner is a group of idiots (Score:1)
Just to bilk more cash (Score:1)
Cell phone viruses? (Score:1)
Just wondering... (Score:1)
As if I needed another reason not to upgrade my 3 year old nokia. No camera, minimal PDA function, no link to PC or thar intarweb. It's durable, and it's a fucking phone!!! Jeez.
Anti-virus=extortion (Score:1)
C'mon now... (Score:1)
Only for internet-enabled? (Score:1)
Trying to sell me antivirus software for my cell phone is like trying to sell winter coats to Ecuadorians.
Re:Only for internet-enabled? (Score:1)
Re:Only for internet-enabled? (Score:1)
Turns out that I use my phone to -- wait for it -- make phone calls. Thanks for validating me.
Just like Symantec antivirus for the Mac (Score:2)
No auto execute in Symbian S60 (Score:1)
did anyone notice? (Score:1)
Running up the bill (Score:2, Interesting)
Assuming a piece of malware could activate the data radio at pre-determined times (e.g. late at night), it could really run up the bill for those who don't have unlimited data plans.
Another avenue of attack, which I see as most li
No, it's just an excuse to lock down the programs. (Score:2)
Cellphone anti-virus companies are useless (Score:1)
Applications on cellular (Score:2)
Re:insecure phones? (Score:2)
Re:insecure phones? (Score:2)
I'm all for nifty gadgets, but I see way to many damaged/broken cell-phones to imagine why someone would spend upwards of $500 for a phone.
The really sad part, though, is that the developers can't even secure something as simple as a damn phone.
I'd
Re:insecure phones? (Score:2)
Bad analogy. Your home media centre doesn't need to be portable. Convergence works for portable items, as you get more functionality per ounce. You might carry a phone, a pda, and a mp3 player. I don't.
The really sad part, though, is that the developers can't even secure something as simple as a damn phone.
I'd take this discussion with a pinch of salt. There are several compani
Re:Viruses on cellphones? WTF? (Score:1)
Now, that's purely speculation, but that's one possible way I could see your phone getting infected.
-WeAz
Spammers & Phone Scams (Score:1)
Re:Spammers & Phone Scams (Score:1)
Re:Viruses on cellphones? WTF? (Score:2)
You can always terminate a J2ME app easily (push the red button), it can't stay resident, it has no access to any personal info (except for any data in the J2ME app's own database), it can't access the web without user intervention (the phone fires an alert asking for permission if an unknown app wants online - I've even seen it when I updated an app on my old phone), and accessing the GPS chip or the camera is yet another "must have permi
Re:Viruses on cellphones? WTF? (Score:1)
Re:Viruses on cellphones? WTF? (Score:2)
Wow.
OK, let me mention another advantage of J2ME. J2ME apps can't auto execute. Viruses tend to work better when they can.
Re:Oh great. (Score:1)
Re:There is allready one, for S60 devices (Score:1)
Re:Disable access to cell phone features (Score:2)
Then, we get paid to remove it.
Remember that.
Anyway, J2ME apps can usually only touch the keypad (and not the End button), the screen, the backlight, the speakers, the vibe alert, and the network connection. Some phones allow access to the camera and the GPS chip. No access to the address book, no access to the phone part of the phone.