Recommended Posts

Honest question here, how much risk is there of getting a virus on cellphone if you are keeping it up to date and only downloading apps via the play store? I saw a readers digest article and the TL:DR was that cellphones were at risk of getting viruses. How much of this is really the case?

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1407335-cellphones-and-viruses/
Share on other sites

As long as you don't go around downloading apks from random websites and stick to known applications from trusted developers in the official play store your risk is basically nil.

 

If you choose to start downloading every tom dick and harry application and grant all permissions to lets say a torch application then it's a user issue.

 

Sounds more like a FUD article from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

  • Thanks 1
Just now, HoochieMamma said:

As long as you don't go around downloading apks from random websites and stick to known applications from trusted developers in the official play store your risk is basically nil.

 

If you choose to start downloading every tom dick and harry application and grant all permissions to lets say a torch application then it's a user issue.

 

Sounds more like a FUD article from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

I didn't read the article because RD is known to publish articles that are FUD as you so nicely pointed out 😛 but the headline had the TL:DR in it and that was why I asked.

6 minutes ago, Mindovermaster said:

You have little to worry about if you do it right. Like what Hoochie said.

I have nothing to worry about then. I don't download random APK's, in fact the only APK that I have downloaded that was not in the store, is Adguard.

  • Like 1
57 minutes ago, jnelsoninjax said:

I have nothing to worry about then. I don't download random APK's, in fact the only APK that I have downloaded that was not in the store, is Adguard.

Plus you have your AdGuard, too.. :)

5% change of getting viruses from GMarket if you have a stock phone, without root or Bootloader cracked

Hello,

 

The chance of coming across an actual, bona-fide computer virus on Android is vanishingly small, just as it is with Windows.  Parasitic computer viruses—that is, actual recursively-self-replicating-programs-whose-children-and-children's-children-are-possibly-evolved-copies, are actually pretty rare these days.  On the Windows side of things, just a handful of families are left (Ramnit, Sality, Virut, etc.) and even between all their variations, account for about a single-digit, percentage-wise, of what security companies see on a daily basis.  Simply put, the parasitic methods of propagation used by computer viruses are used less and less these days as criminals have found other mechanisms to do what they want.

 

What I suspect you are really asking about is malware (a portmanteau of malicious and software), which encompasses all the various forms of replicating and non-replicating software such as trojan horses, multi-stage downloaders, banking trojans, cryptocurrency miners, ransomware and other things you might not want on your computer (adware, spyware, and so forth).  There's quite a bit of that for Windows, and for Android as well.

 

What is a growing problem on Android is what Google calls unwanted software.  As the name implies, it is software which does things the user expressly would not want the software to do, if they understood/were aware of what it was doing.  This includes all sorts of unauthorized tracking, click-fraud, aggressive advertising and all sort of other privacy-invasive behaviors that 15-20 years ago were common to see in adware and spyware on Windows.  These are the kinds of malicious and abusive programs that are cause for concern for most folks.  There are also things like banking trojans as well as commercial spyware used by nation-states, but those tend to be a bit rarer due to limiting factors on whom they can affect or the cost of purchasing them.
 

Google's stance on this is fairly clear (see this, this, this, this, this, and this for more information).  And Google does make efforts to keep its ecosystem clean (e.g., Google Play Protect), but when you don't control device manufacturers, things like this, this, this, and this can happen, and that's without including scams where the user is tricked into installing a malicious app.  But, it's a big ecosystem, and stuff does happen to get through sometimes.

 

So, I suppose the real question here is, "How worried should I be about this?" followed by "What should I do to protect myself?"  Well, the answer to the first is that you should be a little concerned—not to panic about it, but just to be aware of the risks, which leads to taking steps to mitigate them.  The good news is that there are lots of security programs out there for Android in the Google Play Store, and you can certainly download various ones from reputable developers, and use them to see if they find anything.  Most programs are distributed under a freemium business model (or shareware, as it used to be called in the PC world) where you can install it, run it for a few days, weeks or perhaps a month, and then purchase a license, or uninstall it and try another until you find one you like.

There are also many independent organizations which test Android security software, such as AV-Comparatives, AV-TEST, MRG-Effitas, and SE Labs, to name a few.  They have been testing desktop software software for years, so the names may be somewhat familiar from those activities.  While they are no substitute for trying a program yourself and verifying it works well, they can be useful in helping you select which programs to evaluate.

 

Regards,

 

Aryeh Goretsky

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

The Play Store has a history of allowing apps that include malware https://www.neowin.net/news/camscanner-removed-from-the-play-store-due-to-detection-of-malware-is-now-back although they are usually found quickly it is not always the case. This is also the case with browser extensions that can inject javascript or replace ads on a web page with their own which has also slipped through the checks.

 

It mainly applies to smaller lesser known apps, but that can also happen with an app that suddenly takes off and goes viral and the developer decides to monetize through malicious coding (like injecting ads) or perhaps with a crypto miner.

 

What I am saying is that it is always possible, if you are installing lesser known apps, maybe have a look around online about what people are saying about it.

  • Like 2
2 hours ago, goretsky said:

Hello,

 

The chance of coming across an actual, bona-fide computer virus on Android is vanishingly small, just as it is with Windows.  Parasitic computer viruses—that is, actual recursively-self-replicating-programs-whose-children-and-children's-children-are-possibly-evolved-copies, are actually pretty rare these days.  On the Windows side of things, just a handful of families are left (Ramnit, Sality, Virut, etc.) and even between all their variations, account for about a single-digit, percentage-wise, of what security companies see on a daily basis.  Simply put, the parasitic methods of propagation used by computer viruses are used less and less these days as criminals have found other mechanisms to do what they want.

 

What I suspect you are really asking about is malware (a portmanteau of malicious and software), which encompasses all the various forms of replicating and non-replicating software such as trojan horses, multi-stage downloaders, banking trojans, cryptocurrency miners, ransomware and other things you might not want on your computer (adware, spyware, and so forth).  There's quite a bit of that for Windows, and for Android as well.

 

What is a growing problem on Android is what Google calls unwanted software.  As the name implies, it is software which does things the user expressly would not want the software to do, if they understood/were aware of what it was doing.  This includes all sorts of unauthorized tracking, click-fraud, aggressive advertising and all sort of other privacy-invasive behaviors that 15-20 years ago were common to see in adware and spyware on Windows.  These are the kinds of malicious and abusive programs that are cause for concern for most folks.  There are also things like banking trojans as well as commercial spyware used by nation-states, but those tend to be a bit rarer due to limiting factors on whom they can affect or the cost of purchasing them.
 

Google's stance on this is fairly clear (see this, this, this, this, this, and this for more information).  And Google does make efforts to keep its ecosystem clean (e.g., Google Play Protect), but when you don't control device manufacturers, things like this, this, this, and this can happen, and that's without including scams where the user is tricked into installing a malicious app.  But, it's a big ecosystem, and stuff does happen to get through sometimes.

 

So, I suppose the real question here is, "How worried should I be about this?" followed by "What should I do to protect myself?"  Well, the answer to the first is that you should be a little concerned—not to panic about it, but just to be aware of the risks, which leads to taking steps to mitigate them.  The good news is that there are lots of security programs out there for Android in the Google Play Store, and you can certainly download various ones from reputable developers, and use them to see if they find anything.  Most programs are distributed under a freemium business model (or shareware, as it used to be called in the PC world) where you can install it, run it for a few days, weeks or perhaps a month, and then purchase a license, or uninstall it and try another until you find one you like.

There are also many independent organizations which test Android security software, such as AV-Comparatives, AV-TEST, MRG-Effitas, and SE Labs, to name a few.  They have been testing desktop software software for years, so the names may be somewhat familiar from those activities.  While they are no substitute for trying a program yourself and verifying it works well, they can be useful in helping you select which programs to evaluate.

 

Regards,

 

Aryeh Goretsky

Thanks for such an excellent write up! I suspect you are correct in that it is malware vs virus, but as I said before, Readers Digest is not a tech magazine, and cater to a completely different group, so calling it a malware would more than likely have the readers either not reading it (because what is malware?) or they simply might skim it, now when they call it a virus suddenly everyone (mostly) knows what that is, or has a general idea of what it is.

I found the article, and upon reading it a bit more, it does mention Malware as well, here is the article if anyone is interested.

Play store and Apple store are not always the clean/safe playground they make them out to be.. Where you can feel "safe" installing everything you see..

 

Here is a recent write up on how little apple does to keep unwanted apps out of their store..

 

https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/8/22272849/apple-app-store-scams-ios-fraud-reviews-ratings-flicktype

 

As already mentioned above - before going installing some app that seems great, might behoove you to do a bit of research on it, etc..

Hello,


That's a really good point:  Reader's Digest isn't Virus Bulletin (the journal of the antivirus/antimalware/endpoint detection & response/etc. industry), but I know that the folks on the business side are pretty savvy about computer threats.  Good article.  It would have been better to explain that viruses are just a specific type of malware, much like all squares being rectangles, but not the other way around.  Still, for a four-year-old article, it holds up really well.

 

Regards,

 

Aryeh Goretsky

 

17 hours ago, jnelsoninjax said:

Thanks for such an excellent write up! I suspect you are correct in that it is malware vs virus, but as I said before, Readers Digest is not a tech magazine, and cater to a completely different group, so calling it a malware would more than likely have the readers either not reading it (because what is malware?) or they simply might skim it, now when they call it a virus suddenly everyone (mostly) knows what that is, or has a general idea of what it is.

I found the article, and upon reading it a bit more, it does mention Malware as well, here is the article if anyone is interested.

 

18 hours ago, goretsky said:

much like all squares being rectangles, but not the other way around.

Better example phrase is all bourbon is whiskey, but not all whiskey is bourbon ;)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • GitHub removes manual model selection from Copilot free and student plans by Karthik Mudaliar GitHub is removing the ability to manually select an AI model from its Copilot Free and Student plans, making its automatic routing system the default and only way to choose a model. This means users on these tiers will no longer be able to deliberately select a particular OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or Microsoft model for a task. In its announcement, GitHub said Copilot Auto will dynamically choose what it considers the best model for each request. Free and Student accounts will retain access to models from multiple families, although the available selection will continue to depend on the restrictions attached to each plan. GitHub did not identify a fixed pool of models that Auto will always use, and its documentation warns that model availability can change over time. GitHub describes Auto as more than a random fallback system. On supported surfaces, its task-optimization technology evaluates the complexity of a request alongside real-time information about model health and availability. Straightforward prompts can be routed to faster and less expensive models, while more demanding coding tasks may be sent to higher-cost reasoning models. The company says this approach should reduce rate limiting, latency, and failed requests. Auto generally selects one model along natural prompt-caching boundaries rather than repeatedly switching models during a session, as GitHub found that mid-session changes increased costs without producing sufficient improvements in output quality. Users can still check which model generated a response. In Copilot Chat, the information appears when hovering over an answer, while Copilot CLI and the Copilot cloud agent display the selected model alongside their output. Auto is available in Copilot Chat, Copilot CLI, and the cloud agent, with the exact implementation and release status varying between supported development environments. The latest restriction follows several months of adjustments to Copilot’s individual plans. GitHub temporarily halted new Pro, Pro+, and Student subscriptions in April as it sought to manage demand and service reliability. It later introduced token-based billing and began gradually reopening individual-plan registrations on June 17. Alongside the picker change, GitHub is retiring the “Preview” label from Microsoft-developed models. It argues that the label is no longer necessary because Auto handles model routing and models are continuously updated behind the scenes.
    • Look up 'inflation' kid. Ask an AI for the numbers between both games.
    • Google reportedly set to lose two key Gemini and DeepMind researchers to Anthropic by Karthik Mudaliar Google is reportedly preparing to lose two more prominent artificial intelligence researchers, with Gemini contributors Jonas Adler and Alexander Pritzel planning to join rival AI developer Anthropic. According to a report from Bloomberg, both researchers are viewed internally as important contributors to Google’s flagship Gemini model family. Adler worked on Google’s AI coding efforts, while Pritzel was involved in the process used to train AI systems. Neither company has publicly confirmed the moves. The report also does not say when the researchers will formally leave Google or what positions they will hold at Anthropic. Training a large AI model requires decisions covering its architecture, data preparation, distributed computing infrastructure, and post-training methods that shape how the finished system behaves. Researchers with experience operating at the scale of Gemini are consequently difficult to replace quickly. Both Adler and Pritzel have previously contributed to Google DeepMind’s scientific research as well. They are listed among the authors of the company’s work on expanding AlphaFold protein-structure predictions across entire proteomes, alongside AlphaFold researchers including John Jumper. The reported departures arrive shortly after another important change within Google’s Gemini organization. Gemini co-lead Noam Shazeer is leaving Google for OpenAI, after returning to the search company in 2024 through its deal with Character.AI. Shazeer is particularly well known as one of the authors of the Transformer paper, whose architecture became the foundation for most modern large language models. Anthropic, meanwhile, has been recruiting recognizable figures from other leading laboratories. OpenAI co-founder and former Tesla AI director Andrej Karpathy joined Anthropic’s pre-training team in May. His move, followed by the reported recruitment of several Google researchers, suggests Anthropic is strengthening the research teams responsible for the core capabilities of future Claude models rather than concentrating solely on product and enterprise sales. The competition is complicated by the companies’ extensive commercial relationships. Anthropic competes directly with Google’s Gemini models, but it also relies on Google as an infrastructure partner. In April, Anthropic announced an expanded agreement with Google and Broadcom covering multiple gigawatts of next-generation Tensor Processing Unit capacity. TPUs are Google-designed accelerators used to train and run large AI models. via Bloomberg
    • This article makes my head hurt. Lots of confusing words
    • Google adds built-in computer control to Gemini 3.5 flash by Karthik Mudaliar Google has added Computer Use as a built-in tool in Gemini 3.5 Flash, giving developers a single model that can reason about a task and operate graphical interfaces across browsers, mobile devices, and desktop environments. The feature is available through the Gemini API and Google’s Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, although it remains a preview feature for now. Computer Use enables an AI agent to examine screenshots and return actions such as mouse clicks, scrolling, and keyboard input. A developer’s application must execute those actions, capture the resulting screen, and send it back to Gemini, creating a continuous loop until the task is completed. Google says the integration can be used for activities including repetitive form filling, application testing, research across multiple websites, and longer enterprise workflows. Gemini 3.5 Flash can work with browser, mobile, and desktop environments, whereas Google’s earlier standalone Computer Use model was primarily positioned around browser interaction. The main change is consolidation. Computer control was previously offered through the separate Gemini 2.5 Computer Use preview model. As Neowin reported when that model was introduced, it was designed to interpret a visual interface and generate actions without requiring a website-specific API. Google later brought Computer Use to preview versions of Gemini 3 Pro and Gemini 3 Flash in January 2026. The latest release now incorporates the tool into the stable Gemini 3.5 Flash model rather than requiring developers to select a specialized model solely for interface automation. Gemini 3.5 Flash itself was announced in May as Google’s latest fast model for coding and multi-step agent workflows. It supports a one-million-token input context window and up to 65,000 output tokens, along with adjustable thinking levels that let developers trade additional reasoning for lower latency and cost. Google also added that Gemini 3.5 Flash received targeted adversarial training for computer-use scenarios. The company is also offering safeguards that can require user confirmation before sensitive or irreversible actions and automatically stop a workflow when suspected prompt injection is detected. Its developer documentation describes configurable protections for areas such as financial transactions and changes to sensitive records. Google isn't the first to bring Computer Use to its platform. Anthropic has made computer control available through Claude, while OpenAI has continued improving computer-use performance in its recent models. Microsoft has also applied the concept to business workflows, including a Computer Use capability for the Researcher agent in Microsoft 365 Copilot.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
    • One Year In
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      463
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!