The Federal Trade Commission charged HTC
with customizing the software on its Android- and Windows-based phones
in ways that let third-party applications install software that could
steal personal information, surreptitiously send text messages or enable
the device’s microphone to record the user’s phone calls.
HTC America, based in Bellevue, Wash., agreed to settle the civil suit
with the commission by issuing software patches that close the security
holes, and by creating a security program that will be monitored by an
independent party for the next 20 years. The F.T.C. does not have the
authority to assess fines in consumer protection cases.
“The company didn’t design its products with security in mind,” Lesley
Fair, a senior lawyer in the commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection,
wrote in a blog post.
“HTC didn’t test the software on its mobile devices for potential
security vulnerabilities, didn’t follow commonly accepted secure coding
practices and didn’t even respond when warned about the flaws in its
devices.”
An HTC official said Friday that the company had already started to
update its software and distribute it to users of some, but not all, of
the affected phones.
“Working with our carrier partners, we have addressed the identified
security vulnerabilities on the majority of devices in the U.S. released
after December 2010,” Sally Julien, an HTC spokeswoman, said in a
statement. “We’re working to roll out the remaining software updates now
and recommend customers download them once available.”
“Privacy and security are important,” the statement added, “and we are
committed to improving practices that help safeguard our customers’
devices and data.”
The trade commission charged that the security flaws resulted from HTC’s
modifying the operating system software used on most of the affected
phones. In the case of Android, created by Google, the system is
designed to protect sensitive information and phone functions through
what is known as a permission-based security model.
That requires a user, when installing an application that is not a
standard part of the operating system, to be notified and to agree that
the application could gain access to certain information or functions.
HTC, however, preinstalled certain apps on its phones in a way that, in
addition to preventing consumers from removing them, disabled the
permission-based model and allowed newly installed apps to have
immediate access to personal data.
“The analogy isn’t exact,” wrote Ms. Fair of the F.T.C., “but it’s like
giving a friend the combination to a safe only to find out he’s handing
it over to anyone who asks.”
That security hole could, for example, let the rogue software secretly
record users’ phone conversations or track their location.
Flaws in the security system could also give third-party apps access to
phone numbers, contents of text messages, browsing history and
information like credit card numbers and banking transactions. Those
flaws also affected HTC phones that used Windows-based operating
systems.
While HTC’s actions introduced numerous security vulnerabilities to its
phones, a commission official said it was not clear how many users
experienced illegal incursions into their phones and personal
information.
The flaw in the company’s phones has been known
since at least 2011. HTC acknowledged the problems at that time and
developed software patches for at least some of the deficiencies that
year.
But the problems were far from minor. The F.T.C. said that text-message
toll fraud, in which a hacker causes a phone to send text messages to a
number that charges the user for delivery of the message, “is one of the
most common types of Android malware,” or malicious software.
HTC’s user manuals either said or implied that a user was protected
against malware because of the permission-based security, the commission
said.
The commission will collect public comments on the proposed remedies for
30 days, after which it will decide whether to formally carry out the
order. If HTC subsequently violates the order’s restrictions and
requirements, it faces civil penalties of up to $16,000 a violation.
No comments:
Post a Comment