Looking at the list of apps roll by as they are scanned in the Security function, I wonder:
°
wilhelmina, blastom
• what are they being scanned for?
• what might they be missing?
°
You often, hear terms like "hacked," "malware," and "virus," but as an informed user, does the standard 10 package actually look for all of those hazards in the apps on my mobile? Here's why I don't think so.
°
First of all, not all apps get downloaded from trusted sources, like Playstore or the Galaxy Store.
In the future, I hope, we will welcome new independent developers, who are savvy enough to host their own apps in their own marketplaces. Audacity, and Gimp, do it quite well without guidence on the desktop. But, remember Towelroot, and the word of mouth success the root checker had in the pioneer days of Android development? Android users ARE the mobile technologie's early adaptors. They are usually male, and range in ages 18 to 36. This is inspiring news for software developers who are, "future forward."
How will we accomodate developers, and users who are ready to race ahead?
°
As a development community, security must be our first priority when looking forward; security for our "product," the end user, and technology at large. Afterall, we are all interconnected and interdependent. But who is the "owner" of the title "chief of security?"
Right now, it is not widely known that Google LLC actually produces all the new frameworks for Android updates. In North America it is neither publicised, nor promoted. Google LLC's only investment, and profit centers, from Android platforms they produce, and their monthly security patch updates are in their sales of the platforms pre-releases to mobile device manufactures like Samsung, LG, and all other Android supported providers. They also reclaim on the costs invested in Android platform development with the sale of their Pixel mobile devices. Other than that, Android development is a thankle$$ endeavour.
°
It seems to me, that if a "chief of security" were to be appointed as a watchdog of Android app development, it would rightly be the Android Development Team. What I suggest is that developers who make Android apps should be required, to apply to a centralized Android team for packet signing or credential authentication, whether they are "identified developers" by today's standards or not.
°
That means one check point for all Android apps, wether they are sold through a one man operation in a "boutique" online shop, or through the Galaxy Store. Of course, Playstore sold apps would also be required to be "certified" in this way.
°
Benefits include: the potential to hold all developers to "industry standard" development, for the good of quality, security and cross-comparability, and development team recognition. These types of quality controls would secure the future of Android platform development by "garunteeimg" a better end user experience. Afterall, isn't that really what we ALL want and expect out of technology?
°°°
