Antivirus is one thing, but much more important is to make sure you can remotely locate, lock and wipe your smartphone.
What do you look for in a mobile phone? As well as the ability to make calls - and no-one really cares about that - the modern smartphone hosts a standard feature set: email, web browsing and entertainment multimedia capability (playing music and video).
Screen size, storage and connectivity may change depending on how much you want to spend on your handset. Then it's a question of platform: some will prefer Apple's slick but locked-down environment, with its curated book of apps, others are more at home in Android's rough-and-ready world. Windows is a must for a chunk of the population, on smartphone or PC, and plenty of mobile emailers remain addicted to their BlackBerrys.
What is less often considered by consumers is how secure a smartphone is. And yet even more than a laptop your handset offers up the keys to your email, bank account and all manner of personal data. If you want to steal someone's ID, steal their phone or tablet.
It's a conundrum plenty of businesses face every day. How do you give your staff mobile access to email and productivity tools, without opening the door to hackers?
Ever wondered why so many enterprises run BlackBerry phones? It's simple: RIM BlackBerry Enterprise Sever Express, a tool that allows the network administrator to remotely run a secure fleet of phones, is free. If a BlackBerry is mislaid, it can be bricked and wiped from the tech support guy's office, deep in the basement. And updates can be rolled out fleetwide in much the same way as Windows patches are applied.
Your CEO may think it's 'cool' for everyone to have an iPhone, the finance director thinks Android is a better idea, but the network admin is an avowed BlackBerry fan with a soft spot for Windows phones. Guaranteed.
Trouble is, it's a decision that's almost immaterial. Give someone a locked-down BlackBerry, and they'll turn up at work with two phones: one for work, one for pleasure. Short of putting in metal detectors and relieving staffers of their gadgets at the door, you can't stop people bringing in phones of all flavours, each one a potential Trojan horse capable of bringing malware in, and taking data out. (The metal detector idea would at least stop people nicking forks from the PC Advisor kitchen, however.)
Mobile computing is a fact of life, and it's not going away. Neither are the risks, and try as you might you can't remove them all. The only safe phone is one that's never used. But the good news for both consumers and businesses is that such risks can be managed.
Securing your smartphone: locate, lock and wipe
Whether used principally for business or for pleasure, every mobile device should run security software. But unlike in the Windows world, the principle reason for such applications is not to fend off malware. Indeed, a recent test by AV-Test.org suggested that Android antivirus simply doesn't work. It's not a bad thing to run mobile AV, as the data gathered will help security vendors get a handle on the threat dynamic, but it's no panacea. The threat will grow, so it's definitely worth thinking about getting a major brand AV tool if you're on Android. But even mobile security vendors admit that the 'unsafe' Android eco-system has no more than a few hundred live threats at this stage. There are literally millions of pieces of malware pointing at your Windows PC, right now.
Much more important is the ability to remotely locate, lock and wipe your mobile device. The best mobile security solutions do exactly that. Norton Mobile Security 2.5, for instance, offers a web interface from which you can log in to find out where your phone is. Then if it is in the hands of a crook you can make it emit a loud scream, take a photo of the miscreant who has parted you from your phone, track its location, wipe all the data and lock out prying eyes. You'll have lost your handset, but not your much more valuable data. And just as every Windows user should have antivirus, antispyware and a firewall, no mobile device should be left unprotected.
Most major security software makers have tools for mobile platforms that fulfil these functions.
Comments
Matt Egan said: To be clear I was saying only that Norton is a good lock and wipe tool Not that it is the best or the only one
Scott Grainger said: Slightly OT I know but Dells profit-chasing habit of loading up its products with software unrequested by customers really bugs me Not everyone is computer savvy and Ive genuinely lost count of the number of friends Ive had to sort out where McAfees recurring billing is concerned If the product was any good the billing wouldnt perhaps matter too much but the product isnt any good and hasnt been for a long time But consumers look at a trusted name like Dell and then trust it when it comes to the pre-installed apps unaware of the fact that McAfee is resource-hogging bloatware and is only on the laptop or PC because the developer pays Dell to have it there McAfee is actually assiduous at product marketing in this way just ask all those who switch to BT Broadband what is the preferred AV firewall security suite BT has adopted But dont ask BT how much McAfee is paying it GrrrrrrrrrrPS I didnt think though that PCA had mentioned McAfee I thought it was Symantecs iteration of Norton -- another product Ive experienced in past times and wouldnt touch with the proverbial barge-pole ever again
Maccyroo said: I think that Android Users may disagree with your choice of best Lock and Wipe app Matt If you look at actual user feedback on Android Market Lookout is top choice I know Norton are more well known but its the ability of a product that counts the most especially when it comes to securityMany friends and colleagues have asked me over the past year why neither PC Advisor or Computer Shoppers last round up of Windows Internet Security suites both left out McAfee Arent they one of the topbest ones they asked meWell known yes but the detection rates and performance levels of the last two or three annual updates puts it far below less well known suites like ESET or Panda I assume that is why you chose not to cover them in your reviews Just because people know the name and companies like Dell include McAfee as a pre-installed component of the bloatware they force up on unsuspecting new customers doesnt mean the product is any good I used it for a few years and after trying 5 or6 different suites settled on Kaspersky as best for my needs
Scott Grainger said: Agree entirely the emphasis -- at this stage anyway -- really needs to be on theft protection even the worlds best AV is useless when that which its supposed to safeguard is no longer in its owners possession Not to quibble Matt but the AV-Test research didnt definitively demonstrate that commercialware is more effective than freeware it merely reported that a bunch of obscure freeware apps it had inexplicably decided to investigate were nothing like as good make that as erratically effective as the paid-for apps it elected to testI appreciate PCAs editorial schedule and lead times are always going to be a nightmare -- it is with any magazine and Ive run a fair few myself -- so it can be a while before the bright spark of any idea turns into an illuminating feature But Im more than happy like many another Android-using reader to wait for PCAs coverage on this or any other topic principally because PCA will do a good job and definitely an infinitely more credible one than AV-Test ever managed
Matt Egan said: Not arguing with any of that Well do a comparitative test of pay-for apps as soon as we can and the AV-Test research showed that pay-for apps are more effective than freebies But even Symantec - makers of Norton - publicly accepts that there are no more than a few hundred mobile threats and the risk isnt mature
Scott Grainger said: A timely reminder and a wake-up call to many But its unfortunate that the recent AV-Test survey is quoted both here and elsewhere on PCA as if its authoritative and definitive It isnt Put it like thisWere PCA to analyse the performance of paid-for and freeware AV apps for the home or office computer it would look at market leaders It might include a few lesser known apps too But PCA would know that for its survey to have any credibility then Kaspersky Symantec Norton AVG ZoneAlarm and Avast must come under the microscopeAV-Test however rounded up a bunch of freeware most people have never heard of and because theyve never heard of them wouldnt install anyway -- provenance is all as AV-Test itself knows full wellOn which basis AV-Test should -- were it doing any kind of professional job here -- looked at AVGs entirely free Mobilation for Android But it didnt AVG Mobilation was released in March this year and AV-Tests research project undertaken six months later with results published last week So uh what this prestigious research body wasnt aware in September 2011 of the existence of AVGs offering as from March 2011 Unbelievable No wonder that in the wider Android community the AV-Test report is regarded with derision a botched research exercise which having excluded AVG from its test has the dangerous potential to mislead many into thinking that no free Android antivirus actually works rather than just the seven obscurities dredged up from God-knows-where by AV-TestI now see that PCA is reviewing Nortons new mobile security suite a 29 newly released offering from Symantec Well yes it sounds OK but a comparison of this relatively expensive new software with the now well established and entirely free mobile security suite from AVG would surely have been appropriateAVG has locked horns with Norton many a time in PC anti-virus research projects over the years and the AVG product has many a time out-performed Norton Its not asking too much of PCA to see if the Norton v AVG situation out there in PC land differs significantly from the situation now in Android land PS Just a disclaimer I have no connection with AVG other than to have its free mobile security suite on my HTC Desire HD I use Avast on my desktop and laptops I gave up on a wayward bloated Norton not long after Peter Norton ceased to have any connection with the product -- so thats many many a long year ago