Newsletters

Select newsletters below and click the button to sign up!

Boston News NY News
DC News Internet Daily
SiliconValley News
InternetNews Business Report




Become a Marketplace Partner



Partner With Us















Internetnews Bloggers

Recent Entries

Archives

November 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

Monthly Archives

Search The Blog

Netstat -vat by Sean Michael Kerner (bio)

A command line view of IT



Symbian signed malware - does signing matter?

symbian.jpg
From the 'who can you trust' files:

The Symbian mobile OS is used by millions of phones globally and thanks to a (now corrected) oversight they could have potentially installed malware - with Symbian's approval.
 
Symbian has a program called Symbian Signed - which digitally signs applications that meet the approval of Symbian. That system was thwarted and a piece of mobile malware known as Transmitter.C  (aka Sexy Space and Sexy View) was signed. Symbian admitted the signing on Thursday and also provided a fix which demonstrates the power of the signing process.
"As soon as we were notified of that (the following day) we revoked both the content certificate and the publisher certificate used to sign the malware," Symbian security chief Craig Heath blogged. "That means that the Symbian software installer will not now install the malware, providing that revocation checking is turned on."
Ok so Symbian signed a bad piece of code - that's bad - but the signing system does work as it should, doesn't it?

You see with a digital signature or certificate there is always a signing authority. That authority not only signs the app but it is also where browsers (in this case the mobile phone) checks to ensure the authenticity of the signature or certificate. The signing authority can revoke a certificate/signature which is exactly what Symbian is doing in this case.

The system works (or does it?).

How a piece of malware was signed in the first place is another story.

Symbian uses the services of  Finnish anti-virus vendor F-secure in order to scan apps for malware. F-Secure's chief research officer Mikko Hypponen blogged that in his view, "...the virus writer submitted the malware through the Express Signing procedure, where most applications are not inspected by humans."

That's still a little troubling to me. It still means the virus was scanned and that it passed the test. I personally think that is a major issue for F-secure and one that affects their credibility.

That issue aside, Hypponen does not see the revocation of the certificates to be the end of the problem for Symbian.
"The revocation certificates are not immediately distributed to all the hundreds of millions of Symbian smartphones,"  Hypponen wrote. "The default setting in most Symbian phones has to be changed to enable them to receive revocation certificates. To do this, go to Application Manager's Settings and set the Online certificate check to Must be passed."

| Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0) | Share

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Symbian signed malware - does signing matter?.

TrackBack URL for this entry: https://swarm.jupitermedia.com/mt-tb.cgi/8515

1 Comments

j0nny smith said:

Good information so we have to look into other option me personaly i have a nokia N95 8 gb and i put me eyes on the new N97 version .
So i m intersted in the posible option for protecting my phone ,i read olso that bitdefender in working for a beta version designed for symbian that will appear this year.

Leave a comment