Technology

Here's the actual relevant part

These are security risks to be sure, and while these permissions are (mostly) on the surface, possibly defensible, together they do clearly represent an app trying to gather all of the data that it can.

However, a lot of info from this report is overblown. For example code compilation is sketchy to be sure, but without a privilege escalation attack, it can't do anything the app couldn't do with an update.

Also, there's some weird language in the report, like counting the green security issues in other apps (like tiktok) as if they were also a problem, despite the image showing that green here means it doesn't present that particular risk.

All of this to say, if you have temu, probably uninstall it. It's clearly collecting all the data it can get.

But it's unlikely to be the immediate threat that will have China taking over your phone like this report implies.

That.. is not a study by anyone who knows what they are talking about. It also does not mention fingerprints at all.

They seem to believe that the app can use permissions undeclared in the manifest file because they obviously think it's only for the store to show the permissions to the user. Android will not actually allow an app to use undeclared permissions. The most rational explanation is the codebase is shared with different version of the app (possibly not released) that had different manifests.

It also makes a big deal of checking if running as root. That is not evidence of having an escalation exploit. If they have an ability to get root before running the app why would they need to use the app to exploit it? They could just do whatever they wanted and avoid leaving traces in the app. Though I doubt they would root phones to just brick them. It's the kind of mischief you would expect from a kid writing viruses, not an intelligence agency or criminal enterprise.

Users who root their own phones are very unlikely to run temu as root. In fact a lot of apps related to shopping or banking try to detect root to refuse to work as your system is unsafely. In any case it's a very niche group to target.

To keep things short, that 'study' does not really look credible or written by actual experts.

The analysis shows it's spyware, which I don't question. But it's spyware in the bounds of Android security, doesn't hack anything, doesn't have access to anything it shouldn't, and uses normal Android permissions that you have to grant for it to have access to the data.

For example the article mentions it's making screenshots, but doesn't mention that it's only screenshots of itself. It can never see your other apps or access any of your data outside of it that you didn't give it permission to access.

Don't get me wrong, it's very bad and seems to siphon off any data it can get it's hands on. But it doesn't bypass any security, and many claims in the article are sensational and don't appear in the Grizzly report.

You're bang on the money.

If even half of what this article is suggesting were true, why wouldn't Temu use their 1337 hacker skills to steal money outright rather than disguising it as a shopping app?

Libmanwe-lib.so is a library file in machine language (compiled). A Google search reveals that it is exclusively mentioned in the context of PDD software—all five search results refer to PDD’s apps. According to this discussion on GitHub, “the malicious code of PDD is protected by two sets of VMPs (manwe, nvwa)”. Libmanwe is the library to use manwe.

An anonymous user uploaded a decompiled version of libmanwe-lib to GitHub. It reads like it is a list of methods to encrypt, decrypt or shift integer signals, which fits the above description as a VMP for the sake of hiding a program’s purpose.

In plain words, TEMU’s app employed a PDD proprietary measure to hide malicious code in an opaque bubble within the application’s executables

The article linked to the analysis and on a quick glance, it seems to be done entirely against the Android variant of the app. This makes sense because if the alleged actions are true, they’d never have gotten on to the App Store for iOS Apple users… or at least as of a couple months ago. Who knows what kind of vulnerability is exposed by Apple only doing limited cursory checks for 3rd party App Stores.

1. Dynamic compilation using runtime.exec(). A cryptically named function in the source code calls for “package compile”, using runtime.exec(). This means a new program is created by the app itself.—Compiling is the process of creating a computer executable from a human-readable code. The executable created by this function is not visible to security scans before or during installation of the app, or even with elaborate penetration testing. Therefore, TEMU’s app could have passed all the tests for approval into Google’s Play Store, despite having an open door built in for an unbounded use of exploitative methods. The local compilation even allows the software to make use of other data on the device that itself could have been created dynamically and with information from TEMU’s servers.