In recent developments, threat actors are using a technique known as "versioning" to evade Google Play Store's malware detection mechanisms, posing a significant risk to Android users. This method allows them to specifically target users and compromise their sensitive information, including credentials, data, and finances. Despite being a known tactic, versioning remains challenging to detect, making it a preferred choice for malicious developers.
In a blog post published on April 10, Kaspersky researchers reported their findings of a thorough analysis of nine of the most well-known Dark Web forums. They discovered a booming market of buyers and sellers exchanging access to botnets, malicious Android applications, and app developer accounts for hundreds of dollars at a time by monitoring activities between 2019 and 2023.
Some highly valuable products, such as source code that can let a threat actor hack into an existing cryptocurrency or a dating app on Google Play can cost several thousand dollars.
"It's an infinite cat and mouse game[…]The attackers find a way to bypass security scanners. Then the people developing the security scanners deploy patches to ensure that doesn't happen again. Then the attackers find new flaws. And it goes on and on," says Georgy Kucherin, Kaspersky research with regards to Google’s app security.
Any program that is posted to the Apple or Google app stores undergoes a rigorous inspection. However, according to the Kaspersky researchers “just like any security solution that exists in the world, it's not 100% effective[…]Every scanner contains flaws that threat actors exploit to upload malware to Google Play."
Commonly, there are two methods by with a hacker attempts to sneak malware onto an app store:
Moreover, depending on the developer, access to a Google Play account may only cost as little as $60, depending on the developer. However, other, more beneficial accounts, resources, and services have significantly greater costs.
For example, considering the power they hold, loaders — the software necessary to deploy malicious code into an Android app — can cost big bucks on the darknet markets, ranging up to a whopping $5,000 each for an instance.
A well-resourced criminal could well go with a premium package, like the source code for a loader.
"You can do whatever you want with that — deploy it to as many apps as you want[…]You can modify the code as much as you want, adapting it to your needs. And the original developer of the code may even provide support, like updates for the code, and maybe new ways to bypass security measures," Kucherin explains.
The threats posed by Google Play are a cause of great concern to organizations, especially the ones with feeble enterprise security. Kucherin notes that many businesses still have lax bring-your-own-device arrangements in place, which extend the security perimeter outside of corporate networks and right into the hands of its employees.
"Say an employee installs a malicious app on the phone[…]If this app turns out to be a stealer, cybercriminals can get access to, for example, corporate emails or sensitive corporate data, then they can upload it to their servers and sell it on the Dark Web. Or even worse: An employee might keep their passwords in, for example, their phone's notes app. Then hackers can steal those notes and get access to corporate infrastructure," he explains.
In order to prevent such severe outcomes, Kucherin suggests two simple precautionary measures:
One, you can teach the employees cyber-hygiene principles, like not downloading apps that are not trusted. However, this might not suffice, so "another thing you can do — though it's more expensive — is give your employees a separate phone, which they will use only for purposes of work. Those devices will contain a limited number of apps — just the essentials like email, phone, no other apps allowed,” he adds.
Just as it is for the cybercriminals, you have to pay more to get more, he notes: "Using dedicated work devices is more effective, but more expensive."
The study was conducted between the 40 most downloaded Android apps, out of which 20 were free apps and 20 were paid, on Google Play and found that nearly 80% of these apps disclose misleading or false information.
The following findings were made by the Mozilla researchers:
Google apparently launched its data privacy section for the Play Store last year. This section was introduced in an attempt to provide a “complete and accurate declaration” for information gathered by their apps by filling out the Google Data Safety Form.
Due to certain vulnerabilities in the safety form's honor-based system, such as ambiguous definitions for "collection" and "sharing," and the failure to require apps to report data shared with "service providers," Mozilla claims that these self-reported privacy labels may not accurately reflect what user data is actually being collected.
In regards to Google’s Data Safety labels, Jen Caltrider, project lead at Mozilla says “Consumers care about privacy and want to make smart decisions when they download apps. Google’s Data Safety labels are supposed to help them do that[…]Unfortunately, they don’t. Instead, I’m worried they do more harm than good.”
In one instance in the report, Mozilla notes that TikTok and Twitter both confirm that they do not share any user data with the third parties in their Data Safety Forms, despite stating that the data is shared with the third parties in their respective privacy policies. “When I see Data Safety labels stating that apps like Twitter or TikTok don’t share data with third parties it makes me angry because it is completely untrue. Of course, Twitter and TikTok share data with third parties[…]Consumers deserve better. Google must do better,” says Caltrider.
In response to the claim, Google has been dismissing Mozilla’s study by deeming its grading system inefficient. “This report conflates company-wide privacy policies that are meant to cover a variety of products and services with individual Data safety labels, which inform users about the data that a specific app collects[…]The arbitrary grades Mozilla Foundation assigned to apps are not a helpful measure of the safety or accuracy of labels given the flawed methodology and lack of substantiating information,” says a Google spokesperson.
Apple, on the other hand, has also been criticized for its developer-submitted privacy labels. The 2021 report from The Washington Post indicates that several iOS apps similarly disclose misleading information, along with several other apps falsely claiming that they did not collect, share, or track user data.
To address these issues, Mozilla suggests that both Apple and Google adopt an overall, standardized data privacy system across all of their platforms. Mozilla also urges that major tech firms shoulder more responsibility and take enforcement action against apps that fail to give accurate information about data sharing. “Google Play Store’s misleading Data Safety labels give users a false sense of security[…]It’s time we have honest data safety labels to help us better protect our privacy,” says Caltrider.
![]() |
Users complain that the app doesn't work and just deletes itself |