Researchers at Bluebox Security have published an unsettling discovery in the Android operating system that is the digital equivalent of a law enforcement official neglecting to verify if your driver’s license is actually real whenever you submit it as proof of your identity. Oh, and this little bug has been around since version 2.1 of the OS, which was released in January 2010. The real problem with this bug (aside from it being over 4 years old and still unpatched) is that it has the potential to grant malware written to take advantage of this bug an unprecedented level of access to your phone. While Google has acknowledged Bluebox’s finding, there is still no word on when this serious flaw will be fixed.
What this means for you:
Normally, Android apps installed on your phone are “sandboxed” into their own spaces, preventing them from interacting with other apps without permission. However, there are a certain set of apps that are allowed access to other apps, ostensibly to provide services to those apps. A well known example of a “super-privileged” app is Adobe’s Flash Player (before it was removed from the Play Store in Android 4.4) which was granted privileges to other apps primarily to provide rendering and playback services for Flash content. Each app comes with its own security certificate that is supposed to verify the apps identity and authenticity. Except because of the above-mentioned bug, your Android phone doesn’t bother to verify if the certificate itself was issued by a proper authority. Oops.
Until Google fixes this bug, be very careful installing new apps that appear on the Play store, especially if you are directed to one via suspicious email or social media. Even though Google supposedly checks every single app made available on the Play Store, hackers and security researchers have been able to sneak malware into the store for a short period of time. And definitely do not side-load apps. Hopefully I don’t need to explain just how bad having malware on your phone could be, especially one that could interact with things like your contact list, banking apps and social media accounts.
Did you know that if you jailbroke your iPhone (or any locked smartphone) without your mobile carrier’s permission anytime between early 2013 and now, you were actually breaking a federal law? That’s right, due to an expired clause in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, it’s actually illegal to unlock a smartphone you own. This bit of nonsense was courtesy of a Congress that was deadlocked on just about every issue big or small, so it’s no surprise that only just now they are getting around to fixing an issue that both the FCC, Whitehouse and even mobile carriers recognized was just plain wrong.
What this means for you:
The “Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act” was passed by Congress on July 25 and is now awaiting the President’s signature, but the impending law seems like a token gesture in response to what is now more of a symbolic stance from a vocal minority of smartphone users. In the intervening 18 months, the mobile marketplace has seen a fierce rise in competition, including some carriers offering to pay off early termination fees to woo customers away from the competition. Most carriers now also offer plans that incorporate no-penalty upgrades to new hardware, another incentive to not bother unlocking phones or switching carriers. And to top it all off, the CDMA/GSM network divide continues to limit your unlocked phone to a single alternative (if you want nation-wide coverage).
The carriers, even though they “allow” you to unlock your phones once your contract has expired, still do not always make the process easy, nor is it always a simple technical process, especially on the Android platform. In the end, if you aren’t already a veteran jailbreaker, you are better off interrogating the salesperson at your local carrier store about upgrade options and no-contract plans rather than worrying about whether you can take your phone over to the other guys.
Image courtesy of Stuart Miles / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Normally I don’t blog about rumors, but this one is just too good to pass up. Leaked screenshots of Windows 9 show what looks like the return of the much missed Start Menu that has been a staple of Windows computing since Windows 95. Do you really need to know anything more about Windows 9? OK, how about the fact that Microsoft seems to be stepping back from their bold push with the Metro interface – you know, the start-up screen with all the tiles that everyone immediately skips past to use the “old-fashioned” desktop interface.
What this means for you:
For the majority of my clients, I’ve been recommending sticking with Windows 7 unless you have an utterly compelling business reason to get a computer with Windows 8. I’ve been using Windows 8 for the better part of a year, daily, and the only way I find it usable is to boot into desktop mode and essentially use it like a Windows 7 computer. And this is from a guy who lives and breathes technology change! Keep in mind that Windows 8 features a lot of under-the-hood changes that considerably improve every aspect of the OS (security, speed, efficiency etc.), however they are all overshadowed by the changes made to the user interface that were too jarring and counter-productive (and under-utilized) for the average business user. And let’s face it, if you work for a large company, your IT department probably just finished upgrading everyone to Windows 7 only a year or two ago, so you are probably only just now getting over the switch from XP to 7. Just like you skipped over Vista, you may want to give Windows 8 a pass and wait until 2015 for Windows 9.
Despite the fact that everyone (including me) has been telling you that encryption makes the data stored on your smartphone safer, it would seem that is not necessarily the case for iOS devices. Renowned iPhone hacker, developer and author Jonathan Zdziarski presented a large body of research and evidence that Apple has built backdoor data access into its devices for some time, and not just the kind required by law enforcement for warranted search or for troubleshooting and debugging. Also damning was the fact that these processes and services aren’t documented at all by Apple, but are apparently well-known by various law enforcement agencies and forensic data specialists. And the cherry on top? The encryption on your iPhone can easily be bypassed by these backdoor tools through USB connections, wifi and possibly even cellular connections.
What this means for you:
According to Mr. Zdziarski’s findings, iPhone encryption is essentially bypassed because iOS maintains a base state of authentication even if your phone is “locked” with a pin or password. The tools and services running quietly in the background of your device have direct access to your data, and not just the “anonymous” or “non-identifying” data that Apple collects for performance and troubleshooting purposes. Apple has yet to comment on Mr. Zdziarski’s findings, but the growing media attention on this issue will likely force a response from the Cupertino company. Unfortunately, there is not much you can do about this, as these backdoors are so deeply embedded in the operating system of iOS that removing or disabling them is impossible. You can, of course, demonstrate your displeasure by contacting your local congress-critter, providing feedback to Apple, as well as restraining yourself from buying Apple products until they address everyone’s privacy concerns. Given Apple’s strangle-hold on the smartphone market, they have very little incentive to change anything unless consumer sentiment starts to sway against them on this issue.
If you had asked me 10 years ago whether something like this would ever happen, I’d have had a good laugh and then asked you to share whatever it was you had been drinking. But here we are, 2014, and strange bedfellows Apple and IBM have announced a “landmark” partnership in pursuit of enterprise business. And just like a Disney fairytale or the famously delicious chocolate-peanut butter confection, it turns out the mis-matched pair were made for each other after all.
Let me ‘splain:
You may have noticed that Apple, despite the proliferation of iOS devices throughout the business world, has, up until now, remained staunchly consumer focused. The primary plank in its branding was to demonstrate just how “not corporate” its devices were. Conversely, can anyone remember a time when IBM was ever viewed as anything but the epitome of big business? You can bet Apple is painfully aware of how much money it’s leaving on the table by not playing in the corporate and enterprise space, and IBM is just as painfully aware of how “not sexy” its current service offerings are. If you’ve ever used enterprise software (SAP, Oracle, Peoplesoft, etc.) then you know just how awful the experience is. Now imagine Apple lending its design sensibilities to a UI that interfaces with IBM’s monstrously powerful back office software – and oh, by the way, you can use it on this shiny iPad? Move over Brangelina, here comes the new “power couple” of the decade!
A new battle front just opened up in the corporate espionage cyberwar. Security firm TrapX has released information on a new attack that appears to be focused on shipping and logistics firms, and is being delivered via hand-held inventory scanners made by a specific manufacturer in China. The wireless devices appear to contain malware that once connected to a company’s corporate network targets enterprise resource planning (ERP) servers and attempts to compromise them through a variety of known weaknesses. If successful it then facilitates the installation of command-and-control malware that provides a backdoor on the compromised server to an unidentified location in China. The manufacturer of the scanners has denied the devices were intentionally shipped with the malware, but their close proximity to the Lanxiang Vocational School (allegedly tied to other infamous hacking incidents) has raised security eyebrows everywhere.
What this means for you:
It’s a safe bet that you probably won’t be directly affected by this particular hacking vector unless you are one of the handful of firms who bought and used the devices before the manufacturer rectified the issue. However, this is just another crack in the dangerously swollen dike that is technology security, and the white hats are rapidly running out of fingers and toes with which to plug the holes. The fact that the Chinese have targeted supply chain technologies means they are fishing for big data to steal, and the amount of money (and power) at stake is enough for the bad guys to continually search out new ways to compromise and breach businesses. They know they have the good guys over a barrel, as we have to continually try to guess where the next mole will pop up in a playing grid with an infinite number of holes. Will we get to a point that we have to run a malware scan on anything with electronics and a means to transmit data? It’s starting to look that way.
For finding things, it’s hard to beat Google, whether it be concept, place or thing. If you are looking for a local business using Google Maps, that information is provided by another Google platform called “Places”, which consists of listings provided by business owners and “crowdsourcing”, which can either be a boon or bane to your business, especially if you were unaware that your business even has a Places listing. A restaurant owner in Virginia found out the hard way how impactful the internet can be, despite the low tech way he ran his business. The Serbian Crown only discovered that it had a Google Places listing after it was on a rapid decline in weekend receipts that eventually led to its closure. After months of struggling to find out why, the owner received a call from a regular who asked why they were closed on Saturdays, Sundays and Mondays. They weren’t, but Google’s search results said they were. The owner hired a consultant to take control of the places listing and correct the information, but the damage was already done.
What this means for you:
It’s unclear whether the misinformation found in the above Google Places listing was a mistake entered by an anonymous visitor just trying to be helpful, or deliberate sabotage by a competitor. Though the Serbian Crown’s owner alleges the latter and has sued Google for creating a platform that enables this sort of sabotage, Google has dismissed the claim as meritless. Anyone who has done any work managing a brand online, especially through Yelp, can understand how the Serbian Crown’s downfall could be wrought. The restaurant spent months walking around unaware with the equivalent of a “Kick me” sign stuck to its back. As more and more people get their information from the Internet, how your business appears online matters immensely, regardless of what service you perform, and it’s essentially impossible for any organization with a public-facing element to remain invisible or “off the grid.” If you don’t actively maintain an online presence, it’s still important to regularly search for your organization online to see what the internet has to say about it.
Ahead of a court order that is still pending, Google has blocked delivery of a single email mistakenly sent to a wrong address at the request of the sender’s employer. As most of you can attest, doing something like this, while technically possible within certain parameters, is usually not done for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is opening the Pandora’s box of requests for Google to do the same thing for every email sent to the wrong address or for the wrong reasons. In this particular instance, the sender was a contractor for Goldman Sachs, and the email in question contained significant sensitive customer data sent to the wrong address. Rather than risking a signficant exposure for the customers whose data was contained in the email, on top of saving Goldman Sachs from considerable liability, Google acquiesced to the request, which normally requires a court order.
What this means for you:
The only reason this was even possible in the first place was because the unintended recipient hadn’t actually accessed the account since the email was sent, and therefore Google knew for certain that the email wouldn’t have been read, and there could be “un-sent.” You may have experienced both the relief and disappointment of attempting to “unsend” emails via your own company’s Exchange server, which can call back unread emails, but once the email has been opened by the recipient, intended or not, there’s no way to unsend it. What you should really be taking away from this was why someone was using email to send a report with such sensitive information in the first place. In this case, convenience and ease of use led to a near-catastrophic breach. Do you use email to exchange confidential information with other parties? If you do, you should carefully consider the consequences of a mis-delivered email, and what it might cost your organization.
Canadian lawmakers have finally had enough spam in their email boxes and just passed legislation which essentially outlaws all unsolicited commercial emails. If you want to send commercial email to a Canadian, you must have their express consent, regardless of where your company is in the world. At first blush, you may be tempted to say, “Good for them. Fight the good fight, Canada!” and you’d be counted sane to believe this was enacted with good intentions, but we know where those types of roads sometimes lead. As many others have pointed out, this will likely negatively impact the businesses and organizations we do want to hear from, and will have little to no impact on spammers who already ignore laws, ethics, logic, spelling and common sense. Rather than having an inbox filled with all sorts of email, Canadians can look forward to only getting spam from scofflaws. Oh, and a ton of emails from companies asking for their permission to keep their addresses on their lists.
What this means for you:
If you send commercial email to your clients or customers, and some of them happen to be Canadian, you now have to sort them out and get a positive confirmation from them, regardless of whether they had actively or tacitly agreed to be on your mailing list. In other words, you have to send out what is likely to be viewed as an unwanted email to someone who already has too much email, asking if they are OK with you sending emails to them in the future. The fines for violating CASL are quite stiff (up to $1M for individuals), so you can be sure businesses with Canadian customers are taking this very seriously. And this law isn’t just limited to advertisement emails. This newsletter is technically an email with commercial intent, and if I were to send it to Canadians without their express consent, I could be held liable. Is a law similar to CASL likely to be considered in the US? Seeing as our politicians have trouble agreeing on just about anything lately, I’d say we’d only have to worry about the Spam Mounties for the moment.
Image courtesy of renjith krishnan / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
It’d probably be criminal not to share with the small handful of you who haven’t already heard about this story, but you might be surprised to find out that Facebook is once again creating trust issues with its userbase. This time around the dust-up was caused by a research study conducted in 2012 wherein Facebook purposefully manipulated an undisclosed number of newsfeeds to first emphasize emotionally negative posts, and then positive posts in an attempt to demonstrate that one or the other could “infect” readers with that emotion and cause them to post similar negative or positive posts. Recently published results seem to bear out that theory, but that’s not what has everyone in a dither. The problem is that Facebook didn’t bother telling any of the subjects (that would be me and you and everyone else on Facebook during the time of the experiment) that they were part of this experiment.
Most who utilize social media apps are aware to a greater or lesser degree that whenever an app as “useful” as Facebook is free (and even when they are not free), you are actually paying for the use of that app via your demographic potential (advertising) and via data generated by your interaction. The more cynical among us will just nod their head at the above and mutter a resigned, “Told ya so,” or “Why am I not surprised?” but there are still plenty of folks out there who (bless their hearts) believe that Facebook has their best interests in mind all the time. The only thing surprising to me about the above news was that it took this long for Facebook to admit that manipulating its billions of users was something that it was doing to make sure people kept using Facebook.
What this means for you:
At first, Facebook seemed to be surprised that people were upset about this study, and quickly pointed out that everyone had already consented to this by accepting the Facebook Terms of Use (you read that fine print, right?). Not so fast, says the internet. At the time of the study, Facebook’s TOU did not include the wording that would (however obliquely) cover your consent in participating in said “research”. That wording only appeared 4 months later, almost as if they knew what might be coming. The Cornell researcher who published the paper on the study has already publicly apologized for upsetting the internet, and Cornell University is backing away from any association with the study like it was radioactive waste.
What are the take-aways? Facebook has yet again betrayed user trust. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Will people stop using Facebook because of this? A small percentage might, but the majority will shrug it off, as they have other infractions in the past. By my count, we are well past two instances of Facebook not always looking out for its users’ best interests. “Buyer beware” is all I can say in this regard. And in case you are still “new” to today’s technology landscape, this isn’t restricted to Facebook. Everyone is doing it: Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Amazon all the way down to the thousands of scrappy startups. Data is this century’s gold rush, and as before, people and companies can and will do many, many unscrupulous things in the mad rush for profit.