Android has a bit of a malware problem. The open ecosystem’s flexibility also makes it relatively easy for tainted apps to circulate on third-party app stores or malicious websites. Worse still, malware-ridden apps sneak into the official Play Store with disappointing frequency. After grappling with the issue for a decade, Google is calling in some reinforcements.
This week, Google announced a partnership with three antivirus firms—ESET, Lookout, and Zimperium—to create an App Defense Alliance. All three companies have done extensive Android malware research over the years, and have existing relationships with Google to report problems they find. But now they’ll use their scanning and threat detection tools to evaluate new Google Play submissions before the apps go live—with the goal of catching more malware before it hits the Play Store in the first place.
“On the malware side we haven’t really had a way to scale as much as we’ve wanted to scale,” says Dave Kleidermacher, Google’s vice president of Android security and privacy. “What the App Defense Alliance enables us to do is take the open ecosystem approach to the next level. We can share information not just ad hoc, but really integrate engines together at a digital level, so that we can have real-time response, expand the review of these apps, and apply that to making users more protected.”
It’s not often that you hear someone at Google—a company of seemingly limitless size and scope—talk about trouble operating a program at the necessary scale.
Each antivirus vendor in the alliance offers a different approach to scanning app files called binaries for red flags. The companies are looking for anything from trojans, adware, and ransomware to banking malware or even phishing campaigns. ESET’s engine uses a cloud-based repository of known malicious binaries along with pattern analysis and other signals to assess apps. Lookout has a trove of 80 million binaries and app telemetry that it uses to extrapolate potential malicious activity. And Zimperium uses a machine learning engine to build a profile of potentially bad behavior. As a commercial product, Zimperium’s scanner works on the device itself for analysis and remediation rather than relying on the cloud. For Google, the company will essentially give a rapid yes or no on whether apps need to be individually examined for malware.
As Tony Anscombe, ESET’s industry partnerships ambassador puts it, “Being part of a project like this with the Android team allows us to actually start protecting at the source. It’s much better than trying to clean up afterwards.”
Setting up those systems to scan new Google Play submissions wasn’t conceptually difficult—everything runs through a purpose-built application programming interface. The challenge was adapting the scanners to make sure they could handle the firehose of apps that will flow through for analysis—likely many thousands per day. ESET already integrates with Google’s malware-removing Chrome Cleanup tool, and has partnered with Alphabet-owned cybersecurity company Chronicle. But all of the App Defense Alliance member companies said the process to create the necessary infrastructure was extensive, and the early seeds of the alliance started more than two years ago.
“Google narrowed down the vendors that they wanted to engage with and everyone did a pretty elaborate proof of concept to see if there’s any added benefit, and if we find more bad stuff together than either of us is able to independently,” says Lookout CEO Jim Dolce. “We were sharing data over a period of a month—millions of binaries effectively. And the results were very positive.”
It remains to be seen whether the alliance will actually catch significantly more malicious apps before they hit Google Play than the company was flagging on its own. Independent researchers have found that many Android antivirus services aren’t particularly effective at catching malware. And all of the alliance members emphasize that increasing Google Play’s defense will only drive malware authors to get even more creative and aggressive about distributing tainted apps through other means. (Don’t forget that these companies all have malware scanners they want to sell you.) But Google’s Kleidermacher emphasizes that the company is confident that the alliance will make a real difference in protecting Android users.
“When you’re at the massive scale that we have in these platforms, when you can get even 1 percent incremental improvement it matters,” he says.
More companies gaining access to Google Play submissions also raises the possibility that hackers could look for vulnerabilities in the Play Store pipeline itself. But Kleidermacher notes that Google has stringent contracts with all of its vendors that cover not only the analysis load they’ll handle day to day, but how they’ll secure data and use the special API.
“We have an agreement in place and there are expectations on us as providers,” says Jon Paterson, Zimperium’s chief technology officer.
While there are no guarantees that the program will make a dent in the Google Play malware problem, it seems worth a try given that app screening and monitoring are a challenge for even the most stringent app stores, be it Google’s or Apple’s or dedicated government offerings. With 2.5 billion Android devices in the world—and a problem that it hasn’t yet solved on its own—Google doesn’t have much to lose in asking for a little help from its friends.
This story originally appeared on wired.com.
These ten enterprise M&A deals totaled over $40B in 2019
It would be hard to top the 2018 enterprise M&A total of a whopping $87 billion, and predictably this year didn’t come close. In fact, the top 10 enterprise M&A deals in 2019 were less than half last year’s, totaling $40.6 billion. This year’s biggest purchase was Salesforce buying Tableau for $15.7 billion, which would…
It would be hard to top the 2018 enterprise M&A total of a whopping $87 billion, and predictably this year didn’t come close. In fact, the top 10 enterprise M&A deals in 2019 were less than half last year’s, totaling $40.6 billion.
This year’s biggest purchase was Salesforce buying Tableau for $15.7 billion, which would have been good for third place last year behind IBM’s mega deal plucking Red Hat for $34 billion and Broadcom grabbing CA Technologies for $18.8 billion.
Contributing to this year’s quieter activity was the fact that several typically acquisitive companies — Adobe, Oracle and IBM — stayed mostly on the sidelines after big investments last year. It’s not unusual for companies to take a go-slow approach after a big expenditure year. Adobe and Oracle bought just two companies each with neither revealing the prices. IBM didn’t buy any.
Microsoft didn’t show up on this year’s list either, but still managed to pick up eight new companies. It was just that none was large enough to make the list (or even for them to publicly reveal the prices). When a publicly traded company doesn’t reveal the price, it usually means that it didn’t reach the threshold of being material to the company’s results.
As always, just because you buy it doesn’t mean it’s always going to integrate smoothly or well, and we won’t know about the success or failure of these transactions for some years to come. For now, we can only look at the deals themselves.
Jumia, DHL, and Alibaba will face off in African ecommerce 2.0
The business of selling consumer goods and services online is a relatively young endeavor across Africa, but ecommerce is set to boom. Over the last eight years, the sector has seen its first phase of big VC fundings, startup duels and attrition. To date, scaling e-commerce in Africa has straddled the line of challenge and…
The business of selling consumer goods and services online is a relatively young endeavor across Africa, but ecommerce is set to boom.
Over the last eight years, the sector has seen its first phase of big VC fundings, startup duels and attrition.
To date, scaling e-commerce in Africa has straddled the line of challenge and opportunity, perhaps more than any other market in the world. Across major African economies, many of the requisites for online retail — internet access, digital payment adoption, and 3PL delivery options — have been severely lacking.
Still, startups jumped into this market for the chance to digitize a share of Africa’s fast growing consumer spending, expected to top $2 billion by 2025.
African e-commerce 2.0 will include some old and new players, play out across more countries, place more priority on internet services, and see the entry of China.
But before highlighting several things to look out for in the future of digital-retail on the continent, a look back is beneficial.
Jumia vs. Konga
The early years for development of African online shopping largely played out in Nigeria (and to some extent South Africa). Anyone who visited Nigeria from 2012 to 2016 likely saw evidence of one of the continent’s early e-commerce showdowns. Nigeria had its own Coke vs. Pepsi-like duel — a race between ventures Konga and Jumia to out-advertise and out-discount each other in a quest to scale online shopping in Africa’s largest economy and most populous nation.
Traveling in Lagos traffic, large billboards for each startup faced off across the skyline, as their delivery motorcycles buzzed between stopped cars.
Covering each company early on, it appeared a battle of VC attrition. The challenge: who could continue to raise enough capital to absorb the losses of simultaneously capturing and creating an e-commerce market in notoriously difficult conditions.
In addition to the aforementioned challenges, Nigeria also had (and continues to have) shoddy electricity.
Both Konga — founded by Nigerian Sim Shagaya — and Jumia — originally founded by two Nigerians and two Frenchman — were forced to burn capital building fulfillment operations most e-commerce startups source to third parties.
That included their own delivery and payment services (KongaPay and JumiaPay). In addition to sales of goods from mobile-phones to diapers, both startups also began experimenting with verticals for internet based services, such as food-delivery and classifieds.
While Jumia and Konga were competing in Nigeria, there was another VC driven race for e-commerce playing out in South Africa — the continent’s second largest and most advanced economy.
E-tailers Takealot and Kalahari had been jockeying for market share since 2011 after raising capital in the hundreds of millions of dollars from investors Naspers and U.S. fund Tiger Global Management.
So how did things turn out in West and Southern Africa? In 2014, the lead investor of a flailing Kalahari — Naspers — facilitated a merger with Takealot (that was more of an acquisition). They nixed the Kalahari brand in 2016 and bought out Takelot’s largest investor, Tiger Global, in 2018. Takealot is now South Africa’s leading e-commerce site by market share, but only operates in one country.
In Nigeria, by 2016 Jumia had outpaced its rival Konga in Alexa ratings (6 vs 14), while out-raising Konga (with backing of Goldman Sachs) to become Africa’s first VC backed, startup unicorn. By early 2018, Konga was purchased in a distressed acquisition and faded away as a competitor to Jumia.
Jumia went on to expand online goods and services verticals into 14 Africa countries (though it recently exited a few) and in April 2019 raised over $200 million in an NYSE IPO — the first on a major exchange for a VC-backed startup operating in Africa.
Jumia’s had bumpy road since going public — losing significant share-value after a short-sell attack earlier in 2019 — but the continent’s leading e-commerce company still has heap of capital and generates $100 million in revenues (even with losses).
Airbnb’s New Year’s Eve guest volume shows its falling growth rate
Hello and welcome back to our regular morning look at private companies, public markets and the gray space in between. It’s finally 2020, the year that should bring us a direct listing from home-sharing giant Airbnb, a technology company valued at tens of billions of dollars. The company’s flotation will be a key event in…
Hello and welcome back to our regular morning look at private companies, public markets and the gray space in between.
It’s finally 2020, the year that should bring us a direct listing from home-sharing giant Airbnb, a technology company valued at tens of billions of dollars. The company’s flotation will be a key event in this coming year’s technology exit market. Expect the NYSE and Nasdaq to compete for the listing, bankers to queue to take part, and endless media coverage.
Given that that’s ahead, we’re going to take periodic looks at Airbnb as we tick closer to its eventual public market debut. And that means that this morning we’re looking back through time to see how fast the company has grown by using a quirky data point.
Airbnb releases a regular tally of its expected “guest stays” for New Year’s Eve each year, including 2019. We can therefore look back in time, tracking how quickly (or not) Airbnb’s New Year Eve guest tally has risen. This exercise will provide a loose, but fun proxy for the company’s growth as a whole.
Before we look into the figures themselves, keep in mind that we are looking at a guest figure which is at best a proxy for revenue. We don’t know the revenue mix of the guest stays, for example, meaning that Airbnb could have seen a 10% drop in per-guest revenue this New Year’s Eve — even with more guest stays — and we’d have no idea.
So, the cliche about grains of salt and taking, please.
But as more guests tends to mean more rentals which points towards more revenue, the New Year’s Eve figures are useful as we work to understand how quickly Airbnb is growing now compared to how fast it grew in the past. The faster the company is expanding today, the more it’s worth. And given recent news that the company has ditched profitability in favor of boosting its sales and marketing spend (leading to sharp, regular deficits in its quarterly results), how fast Airbnb can grow through higher spend is a key question for the highly-backed, San Francisco-based private company.
- 2009: 1,400
- 2010: 6,000 (+329%)
- 2011: 3,1000 (+417%)
- 2012: 108,000 (248%)
- 2013: 250,000 (+131%)
- 2014: 540,000 (+116%)
- 2015: 1,100,000 (+104%)
- 2016: 2,000,000 (+82%)
- 2017: 3,000,000 (+50%)
- 2018: 3,700,000 (+23%)
- 2019: 4,500,000 (+22%)
In chart form, that looks like this:
Let’s talk about a few things that stand out. First is that the company’s growth rate managed to stay over 100% for as long as it did. In case you’re a SaaS fan, what Airbnb pulled off in its early years (again, using this fun proxy for revenue growth) was far better than a triple-triple-double-double-double.
Next, the company’s growth rate in percentage terms has slowed dramatically, including in 2019. At the same time the firm managed to re-accelerate its gross guest growth in 2019. In numerical terms, Airbnb added 1,000,000 New Year’s Eve guest stays in 2017, 700,000 in 2018, and 800,000 in 2019. So 2019’s gross adds was not a record, but it was a better result than its year-ago tally.
- Bose to shut all retail stores in Australia in move towards online shopping – 9News
- บลจ.วี บริหารกอง “WE-GTECH8M” ให้ผลตอบแทน 8% เร็วกว่าเป้า – ข่าวหุ้นธุรกิจออนไลน์
- Güncel altın fiyatları 16 Ocak: Gram ve çeyrek altın kaç lira oldu? – Sözcü
- 去年12月建材家居卖场销售额超九百亿，全年累计超万亿 – 新京报
- Perfect Chocolate Cheesecake with Oreo Crust