In the beginning, there was the web and you accessed it though the browser and all was good. Stuff didn’t download until you clicked on something; you expected cookies to be tracking you and you always knew if HTTPS was being used. In general, the casual observer had a pretty good idea of what was going on between the client and the server.
Not so in the mobile app world of today. These days, there’s this great big fat abstraction layer on top of everything that keeps you pretty well disconnected from what’s actually going on. Thing is, it’s a trivial task to see what’s going on underneath, you just fire up an HTTP proxy like Fiddler, sit back and watch the show.
Let me introduce you to the seedy underbelly of the iPhone, a world where not all is as it seems and certainly not all is as it should be.
There’s no such thing as too much information – or is there?
Here’s a good place to start: conventional wisdom says that network efficiency is always a good thing. Content downloads faster, content renders more quickly and site owners minimise their bandwidth footprint. But even more importantly in the mobile world, consumers are frequently limited to fairly meagre download limits, at least by today’s broadband standards. Bottom line: bandwidth optimisation in mobile apps is very important, far more so than in your browser-based web apps of today.
Let me give you an example of where this all starts to go wrong with mobile apps. Take the Triple M app, designed to give you a bunch of info about one of Australia’s premier radio stations and play it over 3G for you. Here’s how it looks:
Where it all starts to go wrong is when you look at the requests being made just to load the app, you’re up to 1.3MB alone:
Why? Well, part of the problem is that you’ve got no gzip compression. Actually, that’s not entirely true, some of the small stuff is compressed, just none of the big stuff. Go figure.
But there’s also a lot of redundancy. For example, on the app above you can see the first article titled “Manly Sea Eagles’ 2013 Coach…” and this is returned in request #2 as is the body of the story. So far, so good. But jump down to request #19 – that massive 1.2MB one – and you get the whole thing again. Valuable bandwidth right out the window there.
Now of course this app is designed to stream audio so it’s never going to be light on bandwidth (as my wife discovered when she hit her cap “just by listening to the radio”), and of course some of the upfront load is also to allow the app to respond instantaneously when you drill down to stories. But the patterns above are just unnecessary; why send redundant data in an uncompressed format?
Here’s a dirty Foxtel secret; what do you reckon it costs you in bandwidth to load the app you see below? A few KB? Maybe a hundred KB to pull down a nice gzipped JSON feed of all the channels? Maybe nothing because it will pull data on demand when you actually do something?
Guess again, you’ll be needing a couple of meg just to start the app:
Part of the problem is shown under the Content-Type heading above; it’s nearly all PNG files. Actually, it’s 134 PNG files. Why? I mean what on earth could justify nearly 2 meg of PNGs just to open the app? Take a look at this fella:
This is just one of the actual images at original size. And why is this humungous PNG required? To generate this screen:
Hmmm, not really a use case for a 425x243, 86KB PNG. Why? Probably because as we’ve seen before, developers like to take something that’s already in existence and repurpose it outside its intended context, and just as in that aforementioned link, this can start causing all sorts of problems. Unfortunately it makes for an unpleasant user experience as you sit there waiting for things to load while it does unpleasant things to your (possibly meagre) data allocation.
But we’re only just warming up. Let’s take a look at the very excellent, visually stunning EVO magazine on the iPad. The initial screen is just a list of editions like so:
Let’s talk in real terms for a moment; the iPad resolution is 1024x768 or what we used to think of as “high-res” not that long ago. The image above has been resized down to about 60% of original but on the iPad, each of those little magazine covers was originally 180x135 which even saved as a high quality PNG, can be brought down well under 50KB apiece. However:
Thirteen and a half meg?! Where an earth did all that go?! Here’s a clue:
Go on, click it, I’ll wait.
4,267 pixels wide, 3,200 pixels high.
Why? I have no idea, perhaps the art department just sent over the originals intended for print and it was “easy” to dump that into the app. All you can do in the app without purchasing the magazine (for which you expect a big bandwidth hit), is just look at those thumbnails. So there you go, 13.5MB chewed out of your 3G plan before you even do anything just because images are being loaded with 560 times more pixels than they need.
The secret stalker within
Apps you install directly onto the OS have always been a bit of a black box. I mean it’s not the same “view source” world that we've become so accustomed to with the web over the last decade and a half where it’s pretty easy to see what’s going on under the covers (at least under the browser covers). With the volume and affordability of iOS apps out there, we’re now well and truly back in the world of rich clients which performs all sorts of things out of your immediate view, and some of them are rather interesting.
Let’s take cooking as an example; the ABC Foodi app is a beautiful piece of work. I mean it really is visually delightful and a great example of what can be done on the iPad:
But it’s spying on you and phoning home at every opportunity. For example, you can’t just open the app and start browsing around in the privacy of your own home, oh no, this activity is immediately reported (I’m deliberately obfuscating part of the device ID):
Ok, that’s a mostly innocuous, but it looks like my location – or at least my city – is also in there so obviously my movements are traceable. Sure, far greater location fidelity can usually be derived from the IP address anyway (and they may well be doing this on the back end), but it’s interesting to see this explicitly captured.
Let’s try something else, say, favouriting a dish:
Not the asparagus!!! Looks like you can’t even create a favourite without your every move being tracked. But it’s actually even more than that; I just located a nice chocolate cake and emailed it to myself using the “share” feature. Here’s what happened next:
The app tracks your every move and sends it back to base in small batches. In this case, that base is at flurry.com, and who are these guys? Well it’s quite clear from their website:
Flurry powers acquisition, engagement and monetization for the new mobile app economy, using powerful data and applying game-changing insight.
Funny, I knew I’d seen that somewhere before!
Here’s something I’ve seen before: POST requests to data.flurry.com. It’s perfectly obvious when you use the realestate.com.au iPad app:
Uh, except it isn’t really obvious, it’s another sneaky backdoor to help power acquisitions and monetise the new app economy with game-changing insight. Here’s what it’s doing and clearly it has nothing to do with finding real estate:
Hang on – does that partially obfuscated device ID look a bit familiar?! Yes it does, so Flurry now knows both what I’m cooking and which kitchen I’d like to be cooking it in. And in case you missed it, the first request when the Foxtel app was loaded earlier on was also to data.flurry.com. Oh, and how about those travel plans with TripIt – the cheerful blue sky looks innocuous enough:
But under the covers:
Suddenly monetisation with powerful data starts to make more sense.
But this is no different to a tracking cookie on a website, right? Well, yes and no. Firstly, tracking cookies can be disabled. If you don’t like ‘em, turn ‘em off. Not so the iOS app as everything is hidden under the covers. Actually, it’s in much the same way as a classic app that gets installed on any OS although in the desktop world, we’ve become accustomed to being asked if we’re happy to share our activities “for product improvement purposes”.
These privacy issues simply come down to this: what does the user expect? Do they expect to be tracked when browsing a cook book installed on their local device? And do they expect this activity to be cross-referenceable with the use of other apparently unrelated apps? I highly doubt it, and therein lays the problem.
Security? We don’t need no stinkin’ security!
Many people are touting mobile apps as the new security frontier, and rightly so IMHO. When I wrote about Westfield last month I observed how easy it was for the security of services used by apps to be all but ignored as they don’t have the same direct public exposure as the apps themselves. A browse through my iPhone collection supports the theory that mobile app security is taking a back seat to their browser-based peers.
Let’s take the Facebook app. Now to be honest, this one surprised me a little. Back in Jan of this year, Facebook allowed opt-in SSL or in or in the words of The Register, this is also known as “Turn it on yourself...bitch”. Harsh, but fair – this valuable security feature was going to be overlooked by many, many people. “SS what?”
Unfortunately, the very security that is offered to browser-based Facebook users is not accessible on the iPhone client. You know, the device which is most likely to be carried around to wireless hotspots where insecure communications are most vulnerable. Here’s what we’re left with:
This is especially surprising as that little bit of packet-sniffing magic that is Firesheep was no doubt the impetus for even having the choice of enable SSL. But here we are, one year on and apparently Facebook is none the wiser.
Let’s change pace a little and take a look inside the Australian Frequent Flyer app. This is “Australia's leading Frequent Flyer Community” and clearly a community of such standing would take security very, very seriously. Let’s login:
As with the Qantas example above, you have absolutely no idea how these credentials are being transported across the wire. Well, unless you have Fiddler then it’s perfectly clear they’re just being posted to this HTTP address: http://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/mobiquo-withsponsor/mobiquo.php
And of course it’s all very simple to see the post body which in this case, is little chunk of XML:
Bugger, clearly this is going to tack some sort of hacker mastermind to figure out what these credentials are! Except it doesn’t, it just takes a bit of Googling. There are two parameters and they’re both Base64 encoded. How do we know this? Well, firstly it tells us in one of the XML nodes and secondly, it’s a pretty common practice to encode data in this fashion before shipping it around the place (refer the link in this paragraph for the ins and outs of why this is useful).
So we have a value of “YWJjMTIz” and because Base64 is designed to allow for simple encoding and decoding (unlike a hash which is a one way process), you can simply convert this back to plain text using any old Base64 decoder. Here’s an online one right here and it tells us this value is “abc123”. Well how about that!
The next value is “NzA1ZWIyOThiNjQ4YWM1MGZiNmUxN2YzNjY0Yjc4ZTI=” which is obviously going to be the password. Once we Base64 decode this, we have something a little different: “705eb298b648ac50fb6e17f3664b78e2?”. Wow, that’s an impressive password! Except that as we well know, people choosing impressive passwords is a very rare occurrence indeed so in all likelihood this is a hash. Now there are all sorts of nifty brute forcing tools out there but when it comes to finding the plain text of a hash, nothing beats Google. And what does the first result Google gives us? Take a look:
I told you that was a useless password dammit! You see the thing is, there’s a smorgasbord of hashes and their plain text equivalents just sitting out there waiting to be searched which is why it’s always important to apply a cryptographically random salt to the plain text before hashing. A straight hash of most user-created passwords – which we know are generally crap – can very frequently be resolved to plain text in about 5 seconds via Google.
The bottom line is that this is almost no better than plain text credentials and it’s definitely no alternative to transport layer security. I’ve had numerous conversations with developers before trying to explain the difference between encoding, hashing and encryption and if I were to take a guess, someone behind this thinks they’re “encrypted” the password. Not quite.
But is this really any different to logging onto the Australian Frequent Flyer website which also (sadly) has no HTTPS? Yes, what’s different is that firstly, on the website it’s clear to see that no HTTPS has been employed, or at least not properly employed (the login form isn’t loaded over HTTPS). I can then make a judgement call on the trust and credibility of the site; I can’t do that with the app. But secondly, this is a mobile app – a mobile travel app – you know, the kind of thing that’s going to be used while roaming around wireless hotspots vulnerable to eavesdropping. It’s more important than ever to protect sensitive communications and the app totally misses the mark on that one.
While we’re talking travel apps, let’s take another look at Qantas. I’ve written about these guys before, in fact they made my Who’s who of bad password practices list earlier in the year. Although they made a small attempt at implementing security by posting to SSL, as I’ve said before, SSL is not about encryption and loading login forms over HTTP is a big no-no. But at least they made some attempt.
So why does the iPhone app just abandon all hope and do everything without any transport layer encryption at all? Even worse, it just whacks all the credentials in a query string. So it’s a GET request. Over HTTP. Here’s how it goes down:
This is a fairly typical login screen. So far, so good, although of course there’s no way to know how the credentials are handled. At least, that is, until you take a look at the underlying request that’s made. Here’s those query string parameters:
Or put simply, it’s just a request to this URL: http://wsl.qantas.com.au/qffservices/?channel=iphone:1.0&club=fwclub&action=authenticateMember&ff_number=1234567&pin=1234&last_name=Foo
Go ahead, give it a run. What I find most odd about this situation is that clearly a conscious decision was made to apply some degree of transport encryption to the browser app, why not the mobile app? Why must the mobile client remain the poor cousin when it comes to basic security measures? It’s not it’s going to be used inside any highly vulnerable public wifi hotspots like, oh I don’t know, an airport lounge, right?
Apps continue to get security wrong. Not just iOS apps mind you, there are plenty of problems on Android and once anyone buys a Windows Mobile 7 device we’ll see plenty of problems on those too. It’s just too easy to get wrong and when you do get it wrong, it’s further out of sight than your traditional web app. Fortunately the good folks at OWASP are doing some great work around a set of Top 10 mobile security risks so there’s certainly acknowledge of the issues and work being done to help developers get mobile security right.
What I discovered about is the result of casually observing some of only a few dozen apps I have installed on my iOS devices. There are about half a million more out there and if I were a betting man, my money would be the issues above only being the tip of the iceberg.
You can kind of get how these issues happen; every man and his dog appears to be building mobile apps these days and a low bar to entry is always going to introduce some quality issues. But Facebook? And Qantas? What are their excuses for making security take a back seat?
Developers can get away with more sloppy or sneaky practices in mobile apps as the execution is usually further out of view.
You can smack the user with a massive asynchronous download as their attention is on other content; but it kills their data plan.
You can track their moves across entirely autonomous apps; but it erodes their privacy.
And most importantly to me, you can jeopardise their security without their noticing; but the potential ramifications are severe.
We live in interesting times.