Mobile World Congress – Biggest story out of the bag already?

#MWC10 – I could have sworn we’ve been here before 😉

Mobile World Congress T minus 1 and I already feel like I’ve had too many Long Island Iced Teas. I woke up to lots of leaks about Mozilla’s Boot-to-Gecko (B2G) project. It looks like they’re teaming up with LG and a lot of others to launch a web runtime based phone. I have already seen a lot of cynical comment, to the extent that a lot of people are saying it is dead on arrival. I’m not so sure. It is clear there is a market for low-end devices with front-ends for SMS-based services in emerging countries (Smart in the Philippines have already launched a phone with this in mind). HTML5 implementations have matured to the state that is ready for mobile devices too and a lot of work has gone on in industry over the years to head in this direction.

Mobile web coverage is rubbish

The biggest issue that I see is the continuing assumption that mobile web / cloud access is ubiquitous. This kind of wrong-headed thinking is sadly typical of projects which live on Silicon Roundabout in London or in the valley with great 3G or WiFi connections. This simply isn’t the case for the vast majority of users in the world. Even in the UK, rural network coverage is horrific. Attention to caching and offline browsing has been lacking.

Don’t ignore the security concerns

I worked on this exact subject for quite a while. My biggest concern however is the way in which a lot of the people involved in these projects pay complete lip service to security and privacy. If you look at the B2G wiki, there is not one single mention of security in the FAQs.

What Mozilla are doing is connecting the web to the physical features of the device. Want access to the entire user’s phonebook or location from a web application? Yep, that’s right you can have it. Authorisation is difficult (as Android permissions have shown) and history shows that both users and system developers end up going for the least common denominator when it comes to security and privacy options – they take the one that is the most easy and requires the least intervention (which in the user’s case is pretty much setting everything to no protection).

The W3C Device APIs working group have spent years wrangling with these issues and haven’t come up with a meaningful answer. Lots of people will remember me regularly telling the group that they needed to take security seriously. The EU webinos project is continuing to work on it and are thankfully taking a better approach (based on its origins, OMTP BONDI).

My hope is that more focus on B2G’s security will ensure that mobile users are not exposed to the high number of web application security issues out there.

Chrome app security model is broken

I’m worried. I’m worried for a lot of users who’ve installed Chrome Apps. I was idly browsing the Apps in the Chrome web store the other day and came across the popular Super Mario 2 app on the front page (over 14k users). I have to admit, I actually installed the app (extension) myself, so let me explain the user (and security) experience.

I saw the big splash screen for the flash game and thought I’d give it a try. There is a big install button (see picture). Installation is pretty instantaneous. As I looked at the screen, I saw the box to the bottom right. “This extension can access: Your data on all websites, Your bookmarks, Your browsing history”. I think I can legitimately give my mental response as “WTF!?! This is a game! What does it need access to all this for?”. I then immediately took steps to remove the app.

Removing the app

So, disabling and removing the app was not as straightforward as you would think and this was also quite annoying. The Chrome web store also includes ‘extensions’ to Chrome (the extensions gallery). These are not easily visible to a user as to where they’re installed. In fact, you have to go to the settings->tools->extensions to do anything about it. The normal installed Chrome apps are listed when you open a new tab (ctrl-t), but this is not the case for extensions.

Permissions by default

Having removed the app, I set about investigating precisely what I had exposed this app to and the implications. Under the “Learn more” link, I found a full description of permissions that could be allowed by an application. I had to cross-reference these back to what the app / extension had asked for. The picture below shows the permissions (expanded) for the Super Mario 2 game.

I don’t want to go into great detail about the ins and outs of what some people would term “informed consent” or “notified consent”, but the bottom line is that a hell of a lot is being given away with very little responsibility on Google’s part. After all, to the average user, the Chrome ‘chrome’ is an implicit guarantor of trust. A Google app store, the apps must have been checked out by Google, right?

I also won’t go into the top line “All data on your computer…” which installs an NPAPI plug-in which is essentially gameover in terms of access to your computer. To be fair to Google, their developer guidelines (below) state that any applications using this permission will be manually checked by Google. However, there is an implication there that the other applications and extensions aren’t.

So let’s concentrate on the permissions that are requested by the game.

  1. The first one, ‘Your bookmarks’ allows not only reading, but modification and additions to your bookmarks. Want setting up for something anyone? A legitimate link to your bank going to a phishing site?
  2. The second item, ‘Your browsing history’ for most people is going to reveal a lot. Very quickly, a motivated attacker is going to know where you live from your searches on google maps, illnesses you’re suffering and so on. There is a note here that this permission request is ‘often a by-product of an item needing to opening new tabs or windows’. Most engineers would call this, frankly, a half-arsed effort.
  3. The third item, ‘Your data on all websites’ seems to give permission for the application to access anything that I’m accessing. Then, the big yellow caution triangle: ‘Besides seeing all your pages, this item could use your credentials (cookies) to request your data from websites’. Woah. Run that one by me again? That’s a pretty big one. So, basically your attacker is home and dry. Lots of different types of attack exist to intercept cookies which will automatically authenticate a user to a website. This has been demonstrated against high-profile sites such as twitter and facebook by using tools such as firesheep. Given that it is a major threat vector, surely Google would have properly considered this in their permissioning and application acceptance model?

It’s pretty obvious how potentially bad the Mario extension could be, particularly when this is supposed to be just a flash game. What really irks me though is the ‘permissions by default’ installation. You click one button and it’s there, almost immediately with no prompt. Now, I’m not the greatest fan of prompts, but there are times when prompts are appropriate and install time is actually one of them. It gives me the chance to review what I’ve selected and make a decision, especially if I hadn’t spotted that information on a busy and cluttered webpage. I hear you all telling me that no-one reviews permissions statements in Android apps, so why would they do it here and yes, I partially agree. Human behaviour is such that if there is a hurdle in front of us and the motivation to go after the fantastic ‘dancing pigs’ application is sufficiently high, we’ll jump over the hurdle at any cost. There is also a danger that developers will go down the route they have with facebook applications – users accept all the permissions or you don’t get dancing pigs. Users will more than likely choose dancing pigs (see here for more info on dancing pigs).

The beauty of a well designed policy framework

So we’re not in an ideal world and everyone knows that. I firmly believe that there is a role for arbitration. Users are not security experts and are unlikely to make sensible decisions when faced with a list of technical functionality. However, the user must be firmly in control of the ultimate decision of what goes on their machine. If users could have a little security angel on their shoulder to advise them what to do next, that would give them much more peace of mind. This is where configurable policy frameworks come in. A fair bit of work has gone on in this area in the mobile industry through OMTP’s BONDI (now merged with JIL to become WAC) and also in the W3C (and sadly just stopped in the Device APIs and Policy working group). The EU webinos project is also looking at a policy framework. The policy framework acts in its basic sense as a sort of firewall. It can be configured to blacklist or whitelist URIs to protect the user from maliciousness, or it can go to a greater level of detail and block access to specific functionality. In combination with well-designed APIs it can act in a better way than a firewall – rather than just blocking access it gives a response to the developer that the policy framework prevented access to the function (allowing the application to gracefully fail rather than just hang). Third party providers that the user trusts (such as child protection charities, anti-virus vendors and so on) could provide policy to the user which is tailored to their needs. ‘Never allow my location to be released’, ‘only allow googlemaps to see my location’, ‘only allow a list of companies selected by ‘Which?’ to use tracking cookies’ – these are automated policy rules which are more realistic and easy for users to understand and which actually assist and advance user security.

Lessons for Google

Takedown – Looking at some of the comments from users on the Super Mario game, it is pretty clear people aren’t happy, with people mentioning the word virus, scam etc. The game has been up there since April – at the end of May, why haven’t Google done anything about it? The game doesn’t seem to be official, so it is highly likely to be in breach of Nintendo’s copyright. Again, why is this allowed in the Chrome web store? Is there any policing at all of the web store? Do Google respond to user reports of potentially malicious applications in a timely manner?

Permissions and Access – You should not have to open up permissions to your entire browsing history for an application to open a new tab! This is really, really bad security and privacy design.

Given what is happening with the evident permissiveness of Android and the Chrome web store, Google would do well to sit up and start looking some better solutions otherwise they could be staring regulation in the face.

Bootnote

I mentioned this to F-Secure’s Mikko Hypponen (@mikkohypponen) on Twitter and there were some good responses from his followers. @ArdaXi quite fairly pointed out that just to open a new window, a developer needed the to allow Chrome permission to access ‘Your browsing history’ (as discussed above). @JakeLSlater made the point that “google seem to be suggesting content not their responsibility, surely if hosted in CWS it has to be?” – I’m inclined to agree, they have at least some degree of responsibility if they are promoting it to users.

I notice that Google seem to have removed the offending application from the web store too. I think this followed MSNBC’s great article ‘Super Mario’ runs amok in Chrome Web app store after they picked up on my link through Mikko. I think it may be fair to say that the extension has been judged malicious.