- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- privacy
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- privacy
You must log in or register to comment.
Why are articles about mobile malware or hack tools always written vaguely enough to suggest they’re 0-click? What valuse does an article have if it doesn’t list the steps to get infected or uninfected?
Not sure what you are talking about. Paragraph 1 has
The malware is delivered through a fake Google Chrome update that is shown while using the web browser.
and the article makes it pretty clear after that that the user is tricked into installing the fake apk.
That’s an incredibly vague statement that’d lead most people to think they’re fucked if they so much as open a site that says to update chrome.
Unless it’s using some unmentioned exploit, the user in question needs to:
- Download the ‘update’ from their browser instead of play store
- Ignore the dangerous download warning chromium browsers show
- Run the download
- Enable installing apk from their browser / file manager
- Ignore that the prompt says ‘install’ and not ‘update’
- Ignore the play protect unknown app warning (or dangerous app warning if it recognizes the malware)
- Find and enable the accessibility service for the malware
- Ignore the accessibility warning
- Enable all the other permissions or disable settings app accessibility protection
Unless the app is circumventing the above steps, much more than just a “fake Google Chrome update that is shown while using the web browser.” is needed to get infected. Not specifying if this is just an ordinary app with malicious intentions or if it actually uses exploits to achieve what normally can’t be is misleading.
