April 18, 2024

Protecting a Cellphone Against Hackers

And while Mr. Bokath’s job is to expose security flaws in wireless devices, he said it was “trivial” to hack into a cellphone. Indeed, the instructions on how to do it are available online (the link most certainly will not be provided here). “It’s actually quite frightening,” said Mr. Bokath. “Most people have no idea how vulnerable they are when they use their cellphones.”

Technology experts expect breached, infiltrated or otherwise compromised cellphones to be the scourge of 2012. The smartphone security company Lookout Inc. estimates that more than a million phones worldwide have already been affected. But there are ways to reduce the likelihood of getting hacked — whether by a jealous ex or Russian crime syndicate — or at least minimize the damage should you fall prey.

As cellphones have gotten smarter, they have become less like phones and more like computers, and thus susceptible to hacking. But unlike desktop or even most laptop computers, cellphones are almost always on hand, and are often loaded with even more personal information. So an undefended or carelessly operated phone can result in a breathtaking invasion of individual privacy as well as the potential for data corruption and outright theft.

“Individuals can have a significant impact in protecting themselves from the kind of fraud and cybercrimes we’re starting to see in the mobile space,” said Paul N. Smocer, the president of Bits, the technology policy division of the Financial Services Roundtable, an industry association of more than 100 financial institutions.

Cellphones can be hacked in several ways. A so-called man-in-the-middle attack, Mr. Bokath’s specialty, is when someone hacks into a phone’s operating system and reroutes data to make a pit stop at a snooping third party before sending it on to its destination.

That means the hacker can listen to your calls, read your text messages, follow your Internet browsing activity and keystrokes and pinpoint your geographical location. A sophisticated perpetrator of a man-in-the-middle attack can even instruct your phone to transmit audio and video when your phone is turned off so intimate encounters and sensitive business negotiations essentially become broadcast news.

How do you protect yourself? Yanking out your phone’s battery is about the only way to interrupt the flow of information if you suspect you are already under surveillance. As for prevention, a common ruse for making a man-in-the middle attack is to send the target a text message that claims to be from his or her cell service provider asking for permission to “reprovision” or otherwise reconfigure the phone’s settings due to a network outage or other problem. Don’t click “O.K.” Call your carrier to see if the message is bogus.

For added security, Mr. Bokath uses a prepaid subscriber identity module, or SIM, card, which he throws away after using up the line of credit. A SIM card digitally identifies the cellphone’s user, not only to the cellphone provider but also to hackers. It can take several months for the cellphone registry to associate you with a new SIM. So regularly changing the SIM card, even if you have a contract, will make you harder to target. They are not expensive (about $25 for 50 of them on eBay). This tactic works only if your phone is from ATT or T-Mobile, which support SIM cards. Verizon and Sprint do not. Another way hackers can take over your phone is by embedding malware, or malicious software, in an app. When you download the app, the malware gets to work corrupting your system and stealing your data. Or the app might just be poorly designed, allowing hackers to exploit a security deficiency and insert malware on your phone when you visit a dodgy Web site or perhaps click on nefarious attachments or links in e-mails. Again, treat your cellphone as you would a computer. If it’s unlikely Aunt Beatrice texted or e-mailed you a link to “Great deals on Viagra!”, don’t click on it.

Since apps are a likely vector for malware transmission on smartphones, Roman Schlegel, a computer scientist at City University of Hong Kong who specializes in mobile security threats, advised, “Only buy apps from a well-known vendor like Google or Apple, not some lonely developer.”

It’s also a good idea to read the “permissions” that apps required before downloading them. “Be sure the permissions requested make sense,” Mr. Schlegel said. “Does it make sense for an alarm clock app to want permission to record audio? Probably not.” Be especially wary of apps that want permission to make phone calls, connect to the Internet or reveal your identity and location.

The Google Android Market, Microsoft Windows Phone Marketplace, Research in Motion BlackBerry App World and Appstore for Android on Amazon.com all disclose the permissions of apps they sell. The Apple iTunes App Store does not, because Apple says it vets all the apps in its store.

Also avoid free unofficial versions of popular apps, say, Angry Birds or Fruit Ninja. They often have malware hidden in the code. Do, however, download an antivirus app like Lookout, Norton and AVG. Some are free. Just know that security apps screen only for viruses, worms, Trojans and other malware that are already in circulation. They are always playing catch-up to hackers who are continually developing new kinds of malware. That’s why it’s important to promptly download security updates, not only from app developers but also from your cellphone provider.

Clues that you might have already been infected include delayed receipt of e-mails and texts, sluggish performance while surfing the Internet and shorter battery life. Also look for unexplained charges on your cellphone bill.

As a general rule it is safer to use a 3G network than public Wi-Fi. Using Wi-Fi in a Starbucks or airport, for example, leaves you open to hackers shooting the equivalent of “gossamer threads into your phone, which they use to reel in your data,” said Martin H. Singer, chief executive of Pctel, a company in Bloomingdale, Ill., that provides wireless security services to government and industry.

If that creepy image tips you into the realm of paranoia, there are supersecure smartphones like the Sectéra Edge by General Dynamics, which was commissioned by the Defense Department for use by soldiers and spies. Today, the phone is available for $3,000 only to those working for government-sponsored entities, but it’s rumored that the company is working to provide something similar to the public in the near future. General Dynamics did not wish to comment.

Georgia Tech Research Institute is taking a different tack by developing software add-on solutions to make commercially available phones as locked-down as those used by government agents.

Michael Pearce, a mobile security consultant with Neohapsis in Chicago, said you probably did not need to go as far as buying a spy phone, but you should take precautions. “It’s like any arms race,” he said. “No one wins, but you have to go ahead and fight anyway.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=faaa26d420b15bb6f03089bb0ff337a1

Bits Blog: HTC’s Decline Is Samsung’s Gain

The Samsung Galaxy Note mini tablet.Sean Gallup/Getty ImagesThe Samsung Galaxy Note mini-tablet.

Samsung Electronics on Friday posted record fourth-quarter profits, citing high sales of its Android devices, while HTC, another major Android player, reported a drop in profits, its first decline in two years.

Samsung, based in Seoul, South Korea, said its profits increased 73 percent compared to 2010’s fourth quarter. It cited record-breaking sales of its smartphones, as well as the sale of its hard drive business to Seagate.

HTC, based in Taiwan, said profits decreased 26 percent compared to the year-ago fourth quarter, citing slower sales of its handsets.

Both companies have been aggressive advocates of Google’s Android operating system, and their differing performances illustrate the vast effort it takes to remain successful in the highly competitive mobile industry.

“I think what’s wicked cool about this is this is a perfect example of the velocity of mobile, of what’s happening in the mobile space,” said Michael Gartenberg, an analyst at Gartner, the technology research company. “It just goes to show how quickly things change in the market, how fast people need to innovate and how hard it is to innovate.”

HTC was the first company to make a big bet on Android. It released the G1, the first smartphone running Google’s operating system, in 2007. In the ensuing years, HTC continued to ride Google’s momentum, pumping out some of the most popular Android smartphones, like the Nexus One. The bet paid off: By 2009, HTC became the world’s fourth-largest maker of smartphones, after Nokia, Research in Motion and Apple.

Samsung waited until 2010 to make an aggressive play with Android, when it released its Galaxy S smartphone, which sold 10 million units in 10 months. Samsung rolled out more products under the Galaxy portfolio, including the Galaxy S II phone and the Galaxy Tab tablet. It threw as much as it could against the wall until some things stuck. And if some products were flops, Samsung could afford losses, given its size. For HTC, a smaller manufacturer, failures would be less forgiving.

While a dramatic change, HTC’s setback is probably related to the company’s lack of interesting innovation in the last year, said Will Stofega, an analyst at the International Data Corporation.

“It’s almost like a fashion market,” he said. “They’ve had some great devices, but they didn’t have that little sparkle or pizazz.”

Mr. Stofega added that Horace Luke, HTC’s chief innovation officer, resigned in April 2011 for personal reasons. That was a tremendous loss for the company because he had overseen some of the most successful designs, Mr. Stofega said.

Victory for Samsung, now the largest smartphone maker in the world, is hardly permanent in a market that changes so quickly, Mr. Gartenberg said. “Is it a long-term strategy, and will it pay off long term for them?” he said. “What do they need to keep up the current momentum in a market that can be very very fickle, and where fortunes literally change overnight?”

If you have thoughts on how to answer that question, post them in the comments section below.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=8f8ff794bf460f8c118a8a64c3e87cda

Interactive: Imagining 2076: Connect Your Brain to the Internet

Far enough in the distance to dream, yet seemingly within arm’s reach, that year was attached to more predictions of technological innovations from readers than any other in the interactive, crowd-sourced timeline published online with “The Future of Computing,” last week’s special issue of Science Times.

Holographic displays. Robotic restaurants. Computers that replace doctors, translators and drivers. If it’s proximate science fiction you want, you’ll have it, it seems, at the end of the decade.

Looking at 2020 and beyond, readers imagined a future with cures for intractable diseases, direct links between brain and computer, automated everything, contact with alien life forms, sentient machines and no language barriers.

Readers were invited to make predictions and collaboratively edit this timeline, which was divided into three sections: a sampling of past advances in computing, predictions that readers could push forward or pull backward in time with the click of a button (but not, of course, into the past), and a form for making and voting on predictions. Tens of thousands of edits were made.

Starting with predictions from experts like Sebastian Thrun, Georges Nahon, Larry Smarr, Drew Endy and David Patterson, the timeline grew in scope and creativity with the addition of selected reader suggestions as word of the project spread socially via sites like Twitter.

Optimistic predictions far outpaced negative ones — a wishful view, perhaps, of technology as panacea. The most popular reader-submitted prediction came from Roy in Italy, who wrote that by 2020, “Google will provide everyone with the ability to communicate with everyone else, regardless of the specific language they speak, via their smartphone, with real-time language translation.”

Pushing and pulling dates on the timeline, readers said it would take 65 years to connect our brains to the Internet via Wi-Fi, as D. Moysey of Boston predicted, “granting nearly unlimited memory and communication ability, provided you don’t lose the signal.”

Not all predictions were rosy. In David Gibson’s dystopian view, “humans will become so integrated with electronics that more people will die from computer viruses in a year than from biological viruses.” Readers suggested this would happen about 2170.

Many of the negative forecasts were bullish on technological growth, just skeptical about our ability to control it. In 2021, Steve Williams wrote from Calgary, Alberta, “computers will become so ubiquitous that they will be relegated to appliance status like toasters, as people strive to put the misnamed ‘social media’ aside in favor of face-to-face human connections.”

Some predictions, good or bad, were open to interpretation. Within 10 years, wrote Ian Breckheimer, “more people will enter into romantic relationships with people they met online than people they met in person.”

Predictions about the far future — 2100 and beyond — took a broader view of changes that might affect all of humanity. Will we speak telepathically? Maybe by 2484, readers said. Will we be governed by an all-knowing artificial intelligence? In 2267, perhaps. Live forever? That could happen as soon as 2100, according to Jay Snipes of Pickerington, Ohio, who predicted, “Medical and computer sciences will learn to map the human brain, preserving the memories, knowledge, and wisdom of selected individuals before they die.”

When, if ever, will these flights of fantasy become fact? Perhaps the most accurate prediction of all belongs to R. Campos of Brazil, who wrote that in the year 2025, “we’ll be laughing at these predictions.”

More predictions follow.

2012: COMPUTER ON A CHIP “The high-end microprocessor of 2020 will be an entire computer on a single chip: processor and main memory versus the many processor chips and DRAM chips of today.”

David Patterson, a professor of computer science at the University of California, Berkeley. Readers moved this date 906 times.

2013: ELECTRONIC INK “Electronic ink becomes as flexible and thin as paper. A new print revolution starts.”

Ziad Youssfi of East Lansing, Mich. Readers moved this date 800 times.

2019: ONLINE SCIENCE “Scientific publishing will move away from the current journal-and-conference model to a model that takes better advantage of online tools.”

Scott Aaronson, associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science at M.I.T. He predicted 2026. Readers moved this date 836 times.

2019: UNIVERSAL MEDICAL DATABASE “Your entire medical history from birth till death will be collectively combined in one universal system and available to all your different doctors.”

Chelsea of New York. Readers moved this date 443 times.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=5a0ae88260f5b9d23acc862b9c55838c

App Smart: Curl Up With a Soothing Smartphone and Relax

But for every yin there is a yang. And mobile phones are no exception.

A path to a quiet mind can travel through apps dedicated to guided meditation and sleep enhancement. And fortunately, for those who need more, or better, rest, or who are inclined to still their minds for a few minutes a day, some good ones exist on all the major mobile platforms.

Simply Being ($1 on Apple, Android and BlackBerry) and Mindfulness Meditation ($2 on Apple, with an Android version in the works) are among the better ones, while Universal Breathing – Pranayama Free (free on Apple) and Pranayama Free (on Android) are useful for those who want to test the waters.

Those with pressing insomnia issues should consider Pzizz Sleep ($6 on Apple, with a Lite version for $2). On Android, the app costs $5.69 and goes by the name Pzizz, the Insomnia Solution. Another good, but pricey, option, is Mayo Clinic Insomnia Wellness Solutions ($25 on Apple).The meditation apps, though, may well be enough to get you to sleep — or at least help calm you down.

Pranayama Free is the simplest. It leads you through exercises meant to limit you to seven breaths per minute, five breaths per minute, or about four breaths per minute. When I tried it, the graphics were helpful, but the music was a tad obtrusive.

A bigger problem was that it was slow to load and not very responsive to the touch (at least on my Droid2), so it was barely more relaxing than frustrating.

I tried Simply Being not long after in the middle of a workday that had gone haywire. I was surrounded by e-mail-toting gadgets that, I was sure, were loading important messages from colleagues.

I grabbed my iPhone and opened Simply Being, and the screen offered four options for “guided meditation for relaxation and presence.” I chose the 5-minute option, and left the 10-, 15- and 20-minute options for another day.

I then chose music, rather than nature sounds, to accompany the narrative, and I tweaked the volume of each so the narrative was clearly audible.

I was braced for a narrator who had the sort of whispery, saccharine tone that’s as relaxing as a Sawzall on a steel pipe, but fortunately, the narrator, Mary Maddux, used an approach that didn’t sound like a parent cooing a baby to sleep.

Ms. Maddux’s husband and co-developer of the app, Richard Maddux, composed the admirable soundtrack.

After five minutes I was nearly asleep.

Not everyone will respond to a given narrator’s voice, so another good choice is Mindfulness Meditation, which is written and narrated by Stephan Bodian, the author of “Meditation for Dummies.”

Mr. Bodian’s narrative was thorough, relaxing and well pitched for a meditation novice like me. There is no music or sound accompaniment, but there is more content to the app than in Simply Being.

Users can choose meditations of 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 minutes, or a simpler relaxation narrative of 10 minutes.

A guide also offers audio tips for finding the best meditation position, for instance, and there is a text-based checklist of eight factors to improve the experience.

About an hour after nearly falling asleep to Ms. Maddux’s voice, I did the same with Mr. Bodian’s voice.

That drowsiness was partly due to a bout of insomnia the previous night. Lying awake at 3 a.m., I tried Brain Wave ($2 on Apple), which features binaural electronic tones against the backdrop of nature sounds. According to the app’s description, it requires earbuds or earphones to work properly.

Brain Wave, which has attracted good ratings from iTunes users, also has programs for easing anxiety, improving mental focus and the like, but I chose the option “Deep Sleep.” It wasn’t very practical because I couldn’t lay my head to either side or the earbuds would jam into my ear.

Either because of that, or because the binaural sounds simply didn’t work for me, I felt no closer to sleep after 45 minutes. I turned off the program, pulled out the earbuds and later managed to get to sleep.

Another option is Pzizz Sleep, which uses binaural sounds, spoken words and music in new combinations each time the user opens the app. It’s a smart choice for those who tend to grow weary of repeated narrations on other apps.

The Mayo clinic app is generally good, as well. Given how much money insomniacs spend on other treatment options, it is arguably worth the $25 investment.

That’s especially true for iPad users. The app is split between a multipage stress assessment and roughly 90 minutes of videos, and the videos, especially, render nicely on the iPad’s screen. (Free tip: It’s a myth that exercising before bedtime will help you fall asleep more easily.)

For the price, though, users should be able to expect an experience that is devoid of fluff. Although many of the video tutorials are useful, including an in-depth discussion of insomnia by Mayo Clinic specialists, far too much video is devoted to a promotion of the app’s developer and the Mayo Clinic.

It’s anyone’s guess, for instance, why insomniacs would need to watch a testimonial from a mother whose son was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer at the Mayo Clinic.

It’s enough to make you mad — that is, if you weren’t already in full command of your emotions.

Quick Calls

Lose It!, a popular (and free) weight-loss app for Apple, is now available on Android. … An Android version of Poetry, a great (free) app on Apple, for lovers of verse, also recently had its debut. … Shnap (free on Apple) is a cool new photo filtering and sharing tool. Earn points by posting popular pictures of your own and rating photos of others.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=d66043755f49cae6ac64065260c213a9

Facebook Offers Video Chat in Arrangement With Skype

The new feature allows users a way to connect with friends other than just posting messages, said Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder and chief executive, said at a news conference here at the company’s headquarters. “It’s so easy, so minimal to use,” he said.

Last week, Google introduced Google+, its latest and most serious challenge yet in social networking, which includes video chatting for up to 10 people in an area of the site called Hangouts. So far, Google has limited the number of people who can sign up for the networking service.

To a certain extent, Facebook is playing catch-up — an unfamiliar position for a company that has grown to 750 million users worldwide, a figure Mr. Zuckerberg disclosed at the news conference. He has spent the last few years lifting Facebook past its rivals — it had 500 million users a year ago — but now faces questions about why he is following their lead.

The new Facebook service does not allow for group video chats, for example. It is also not available on mobile phones, unlike Skype’s smartphone apps.

Danny Sullivan, editor of Search Engine Land, an industry blog, said Facebook’s new service at least lets the company counter Google’s move with its video chat. But in the end, he said, video chatting has been widely available for years in a variety of ways, like through instant messaging services, Skype and Apple’s FaceTime.

“I didn’t get the impression that people were finding it difficult to find one-to-one video chatting if they wanted to,” Mr. Sullivan said. “This potentially makes it easier for more people to get going, but I don’t see it as that hard to begin with.”

To start a video chat on Facebook, users click a button on their Facebook chat list or on a friend’s profile page. A box will then appear on the computer screen of that friend to either accept or decline the call.

Conversations take place inside a window that pops up within the browser. Downloading a plug-in is required to make and receive calls.

Video chatting will be available to all Facebook’s users in the coming weeks. For now, however, users can access it at facebook.com/videocalling.

For Skype, the partnership with Facebook provides a chance to have more visibility beyond its 170 million users. The service is free on Facebook, but Tony Bates, Skype’s chief executive, raised the possibility of eventually making paid calls available to Facebook users.

Making calls from computer to computer through Skype is free. But people who use Skype to call a landline or a mobile phone must pay. Facebook’s alliance with Skype expands an existing partnership between the two companies. Their cooperation started last year when Skype let its users connect with their Facebook friends from Skype and to get news feeds.

Last month, the Skype added a Facebook contacts tab and let Skype users send instant messages to their Facebook friends and comment on their friends’ status — all without leaving the Skype window.

But making Skype available on Facebook is risky and may, in the short term, undermine its business, said Greg Sterling, an analyst at Opus Research.

Facebook’s users will most likely flock to the new video chatting service, he said, while avoiding visiting Skype’s branded service directly.

“Obviously this is a great feature for Facebook — it’s really simple and a lot of people will use it,” Mr. Sterling said. But he added, “I think it’s going to have an adverse impact on Skype.”

Mr. Bates said: “We’ve always wanted to be as ubiquitous as possible. The long-term partnership far outweighs users moving from Skype, or visa versa.”

Microsoft is closing in on its acquisition of Skype for $8.5 billion. The purchase, announced two months ago, would give Microsoft a bigger footprint in online communications for consumers and corporate customers.

Microsoft, through its Skype acquisition, would also strengthen its ties to Facebook. Microsoft bought a small stake in Facebook in 2007, and it continues to provide search results within Facebook.

During the news conference on Wednesday, Mr. Zuckerberg signaled that the Skype integration was the first of several deals that would add services to Facebook with the help of other companies.

“Independent entrepreneurs, or entrepreneurs that focus on one thing, will always do better than a company that tries to focus on a million things,” Mr. Zuckerberg said in a comment that could be interpreted either as an acknowledgment of Facebook’s limits, or as a dig at Google for its broad ambitions.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=a31be69a51a7e6693a0d52725f6047fe

Bucks: Wednesday Reading: The Latest on Estrogen Treatments

April 06

Wednesday Reading: The Latest on Estrogen Treatments

Why most people don’t cheat on their taxes, turning your smartphone into a router, the latest on estrogen treatments and more consumer news from The Times.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=d53d3e5f2be6d9d0d65b0d7de1db8985