Secure connections are the backbone of the modern web, but a certificate is only as trustworthy as the validation process and issuance practices behind it. Recently, the Chrome Root Program and the CA/Browser Forum have taken decisive steps toward a more secure internet by adopting new security requirements for HTTPS certificate issuers.
These initiatives, driven by Ballots SC-080, SC-090, and SC-091, will sunset 11 legacy methods for Domain Control Validation. By retiring these outdated practices, which rely on weaker verification signals like physical mail, phone calls, or emails, we are closing potential loopholes for attackers and pushing the ecosystem toward automated, cryptographically verifiable security.
To allow affected website operators to transition smoothly, the deprecation will be phased in, with its full security value realized by March 2028.
This effort is a key part of our public roadmap, “Moving Forward, Together,” launched in 2022. Our vision is to improve security by modernizing infrastructure and promoting agility through automation. While "Moving Forward, Together" sets the aspirational direction, the recent updates to the TLS Baseline Requirements turn that vision into policy. This builds on our momentum from earlier this year, including the successful advocacy for the adoption of other security enhancing initiatives as industry-wide standards.
What’s Domain Control Validation?
Domain Control Validation is a security-critical process designed to ensure certificates are only issued to the legitimate domain operator. This prevents unauthorized entities from obtaining a certificate for a domain they do not control. Without this check, an attacker could obtain a valid certificate for a legitimate website and use it to impersonate that site or intercept web traffic.
Before issuing a certificate, a Certification Authority (CA) must verify that the requestor legitimately controls the domain. Most modern validation relies on “challenge-response” mechanisms, for example, a CA might provide a random value for the requestor to place in a specific location, like a DNS TXT record, which the CA then verifies.
Historically, other methods validated control through indirect means, such as looking up contact information in WHOIS records or sending an email to a domain contact. These methods have been proven vulnerable (example) and the recent efforts retire these weaker checks in favor of robust, automated alternatives.
Raising the floor of security
The recently passed CA/Browser Forum Server Certificate Working Group Ballots introduce a phased sunset of the following Domain Control Validation methods. Alternative existing methods offer stronger security assurances against attackers trying to obtain fraudulent certificates – and the alternative methods are getting stronger over time, too.
Sunsetted methods relying on email:
Sunsetted methods relying on phone:
Sunsetted method relying on a reverse lookup:
For everyday users, these changes are invisible - and that’s the point. But, behind the scenes, they make it harder for attackers to trick a CA into issuing a certificate for a domain they don’t control. This reduces the risk that stale or indirect signals, (like outdated WHOIS data, complex phone and email ecosystems, or inherited infrastructure) can be abused. These changes push the ecosystem toward standardized (e.g., ACME), modern, and auditable Domain Control Validation methods. They increase agility and resilience by encouraging site owners to transition to modern Domain Control Validation methods, creating opportunities for faster and more efficient certificate lifecycle management through automation.
These initiatives remove weak links in how trust is established on the internet. That leads to a safer browsing experience for everyone, not just users of a single browser, platform, or website.
Last year, Google's Android Red Team partnered with Arm to conduct an in-depth security analysis of the Mali GPU, a component used in billions of Android devices worldwide. This collaboration was a significant step in proactively identifying and fixing vulnerabilities in the GPU software and firmware stack.
While finding and fixing individual bugs is crucial, and progress continues on eliminating them entirely, making them unreachable by restricting attack surface is another effective and often faster way to improve security. This post details our efforts in partnership with Arm to further harden the GPU by reducing the driver's attack surface.
The Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) has become a critical and attractive target for attackers due to its complexity and privileged access to the system. The scale of this threat is significant: since 2021, the majority of Android kernel driver-based exploits have targeted the GPU. These exploits primarily target the interface between the User-Mode Driver (UMD) and the highly privileged Kernel-Mode Driver (KMD), where flaws can be exploited by malicious input to trigger memory corruption.
Our goal is to raise the bar on GPU security, ensuring the Mali GPU driver and firmware remain highly resilient against potential threats. We partnered with Arm to conduct an analysis of the Mali driver, used on approximately 45% of Android devices. This collaboration was crucial for understanding the driver’s attack surface and identifying areas that posed a security risk, but were not necessary for production use.
One of the key findings of our investigation was the opportunity to restrict access to certain GPU IOCTLs. IOCTLs act as the GPU kernel driver’s user input and output, as well as the attack surface. This approach builds on earlier kernel hardening efforts, such as those described in the 2016 post Protecting Android with More Linux Security. Mali ioctls can be broadly categorized as:
Our goal is to block access to deprecated and debug IOCTLs in production. Instrumentation IOCTLs are intended for use by profiling tools to monitor system GPU performance and are not intended to be directly used by applications in production. As such, access is restricted to shell or applications marked as debuggable. Production IOCTLs remain accessible to regular applications.
shell
debuggable
The approach is iterative and is a staged rollout for devices using the Mali GPU. This way, we were able to carefully monitor real-world usage and collect data to validate the policy, minimizing the risk of breaking legitimate applications before moving to broader adoption:
gpu_harden
allowxperm
gpu_debug
android:debuggable="true"
This approach allowed us to roll out the new security policy broadly while minimizing the impact on developers.
To help our partners and the broader ecosystem adopt similar hardening measures, this section provides a practical, step-by-step guide for implementing a robust SELinux policy to filter GPU ioctls. This example is based on the policy we implemented for the Mali GPU on Android devices.
The core principle is to create a flexible, platform-level macro that allows each device to define its own specific lists of GPU ioctl commands to be restricted. This approach separates the general policy logic from the device-specific implementation.
ioctl
Official documentation detailing the added macro and GPU security policy is available at:
SELinux Hardening Macro: GPU Syscall Filtering
Android Security Change: Android 16 Behavior Changes
The first step is to use a generic macro that we built in the platform's system/sepolicy that can be used by any device. This macro establishes the framework for filtering different categories of ioctls.
system/sepolicy
In the file/sepolicy/public/te_macros, a new macro is created. This macro allows device-specific policies to supply their own lists of ioctls to be filtered. The macro is designed to:
/sepolicy/public/te_macros
appdomain
runas_app
With the platform macro in place, you can now create a device-specific implementation. This involves defining the exact ioctl commands used by your particular GPU driver.
ioctl_macros
device/your_company/your_device/sepolicy/ioctl_macros
mali_production_ioctls
mali_instrumentation_ioctls
mali_debug_ioctls
For example, you can define your IOCTL lists as follows:
define(`unpriv_gpu_ioctls', `0x0000, 0x0001, 0x0002') define(`restricted_ioctls', `0x1110, 0x1111, 0x1112') define(`instrumentation_gpu_ioctls', `0x2220, 0x2221, 0x2222')
Arm has provided official categorization of their IOCTLs in Documentation/ioctl-categories.rst of their r54p2 release. This list will continue to be maintained in future driver releases.
Now, you apply the policy to the GPU device node using the macro you created.
gpu.te
As with any SELinux policy development, the process should be iterative. This iterative process is consistent with best practices for SELinux policy development outlined in the Android Open Source Project documentation.
Attack surface reduction is an effective approach to security hardening, rendering vulnerabilities unreachable. This technique is particularly effective because it provides users strong protection against existing but also not-yet-discovered vulnerabilities, and vulnerabilities that might be introduced in the future. This effort spans across Android and Android OEMs, and required close collaboration with Arm. The Android security team is committed to collaborating with ecosystem partners to drive broader adoption of this approach to help harden the GPU.
Thank you to Jeffrey Vander Stoep for his valuable suggestions and extensive feedback on this post.
Chrome has been advancing the web’s security for well over 15 years, and we’re committed to meeting new challenges and opportunities with AI. Billions of people trust Chrome to keep them safe by default, and this is a responsibility we take seriously. Following the recent launch of Gemini in Chrome and the preview of agentic capabilities, we want to share our approach and some new innovations to improve the safety of agentic browsing.
The primary new threat facing all agentic browsers is indirect prompt injection. It can appear in malicious sites, third-party content in iframes, or from user-generated content like user reviews, and can cause the agent to take unwanted actions such as initiating financial transactions or exfiltrating sensitive data. Given this open challenge, we are investing in a layered defense that includes both deterministic and probabilistic defenses to make it difficult and costly for attackers to cause harm.
Designing safe agentic browsing for Chrome has involved deep collaboration of security experts across Google. We built on Gemini's existing protections and agent security principles and have implemented several new layers for Chrome.
We’re introducing a user alignment critic where the agent’s actions are vetted by a separate model that is isolated from untrusted content. We’re also extending Chrome’s origin-isolation capabilities to constrain what origins the agent can interact with, to just those that are relevant to the task. Our layered defense also includes user confirmations for critical steps, real-time detection of threats, and red-teaming and response. We’ll step through these layers below.
The main planning model for Gemini uses page content shared in Chrome to decide what action to take next. Exposure to untrusted web content means it is inherently vulnerable to indirect prompt injection. We use techniques like spotlighting that direct the model to strongly prefer following user and system instructions over what’s on the page, and we’ve upstreamed known attacks to train the Gemini model to avoid falling for them.
To further bolster model alignment beyond spotlighting, we’re introducing the User Alignment Critic — a separate model built with Gemini that acts as a high-trust system component. This architecture is inspired partially by the dual-LLM pattern as well as CaMeL research from Google DeepMind.
A flow chart that depicts the User Alignment Critic: a trusted component that vets each action before it reaches the browser.
The User Alignment Critic runs after the planning is complete to double-check each proposed action. Its primary focus is task alignment: determining whether the proposed action serves the user’s stated goal. If the action is misaligned, the Alignment Critic will veto it. This component is architected to see only metadata about the proposed action and not any unfiltered untrustworthy web content, thus ensuring it cannot be poisoned directly from the web. It has less context, but it also has a simpler job — just approve or reject an action.
This is a powerful, extra layer of defense against both goal-hijacking and data exfiltration within the action step. When an action is rejected, the Critic provides feedback to the planning model to re-formulate its plan, and the planner can return control to the user if there are repeated failures.
Site Isolation and the same-origin policy are fundamental boundaries in Chrome’s security model and we’re carrying forward these concepts into the agentic world. By their nature, agents must operate across websites (e.g. collecting ingredients on one site and filling a shopping cart on another). But if an unrestricted agent is compromised and can interact with arbitrary sites, it can create what is effectively a Site Isolation bypass. That can have a severe impact when the agent operates on a local browser like Chrome, with logged-in sites vulnerable to data exfiltration. To address this, we’re extending those principles with Agent Origin Sets. Our design architecturally limits the agent to only access data from origins that are related to the task at hand, or data that the user has chosen to share with the agent. This prevents a compromised agent from acting arbitrarily on unrelated origins.
For each task on the web, a trustworthy gating function decides which origins proposed by the planner are relevant to the task. The design is to separate these into two sets, tracked for each session:
This delineation enforces that only data from a limited set of origins is available to the agent, and this data can only be passed on to the writable origins. This bounds the threat vector of cross-origin data leaks. This also gives the browser the ability to enforce some of that separation, such as by not even sending to the model data that is outside the readable set. This reduces the model’s exposure to unnecessary cross-site data. Like the Alignment Critic, the gating functions that calculate these origin sets are not exposed to untrusted web content. The planner can also use context from pages the user explicitly shared in that session, but it cannot add new origins without the gating function’s approval. Outside of web origins, the planning model may ingest other non-web content such as from tool calls, so we also delineate those into read-vs-write calls and similarly check that those calls are appropriate for the task.
Iframes from origins that aren’t related to the user’s task are not shown to the model.
Page navigations can happen in several ways: If the planner decides to navigate to a new origin that isn’t yet in the readable set, that origin is checked for relevancy by a variant of the User Alignment critic before Chrome adds it and starts the navigation. And since model-generated URLs could exfiltrate private information, we have a deterministic check to restrict them to known, public URLs. If a page in Chrome navigates on its own to a new origin, it’ll get vetted by the same critic.
Getting the balance right on the first iteration is hard without seeing how users’ tasks interact with these guardrails. We’ve initially implemented a simpler version of origin gating that just tracks the read-writeable set. We will tune the gating functions and other aspects of this system to reduce unnecessary friction while improving security. We think this architecture will provide a powerful security primitive that can be audited and reasoned about within the client, as it provides guardrails against cross-origin sensitive data exfiltration and unwanted actions.
We designed the agentic capabilities in Chrome to give the user both transparency and control when they need it most. As the agent works in a tab, it details each step in a work log, allowing the user to observe the agent's actions as they happen. The user can pause to take over or stop a task at any time.
This transparency is paired with several layers of deterministic and model-based checks to trigger user confirmations before the agent takes an impactful action. These serve as guardrails against both model mistakes and adversarial input by putting the user in the loop at key moments.
First, the agent will require a user confirmation before it navigates to certain sensitive sites, such as those dealing with banking transactions or personal medical information. This is based on a deterministic check against a list of sensitive sites. Second, it’ll confirm before allowing Chrome to sign-in to a site via Google Password Manager – the model does not have direct access to stored passwords. Lastly, before any sensitive web actions like completing a purchase or payment, sending messages, or other consequential actions, the agent will try to pause and either get permission from the user before proceeding or ask the user to complete the next step. Like our other safety classifiers, we’re constantly working to improve the accuracy to catch edge cases and grey areas.
Illustrative example of when the agent gets to a payment page, it stops and asks the user to complete the final step.
In addition to the structural defenses of alignment checks, origin gating, and confirmations, we have several processes to detect and respond to threats. While the agent is active, it checks every page it sees for indirect prompt injection. This is in addition to Chrome’s real-time scanning with Safe Browsing and on-device AI that detect more traditional scams. This prompt-injection classifier runs in parallel to the planning model’s inference, and will prevent actions from being taken based on content that the classifier determined has intentionally targeted the model to do something unaligned with the user’s goal. While it cannot flag everything that might influence the model with malicious intent, it is a valuable layer in our defense-in-depth.
To validate the security of this set of layered defenses, we’ve built automated red-teaming systems to generate malicious sandboxed sites that try to derail the agent in Chrome. We start with a set of diverse attacks crafted by security researchers, and expand on them using LLMs following a technique we adapted for browser agents. Our continuous testing prioritizes defenses against broad-reach vectors such as user-generated content on social media sites and content delivered via ads. We also prioritize attacks that could lead to lasting harm, such as financial transactions or the leaking of sensitive credentials. The attack success rate across these give immediate feedback to any engineering changes we make, so we can prevent regressions and target improvements. Chrome’s auto-update capabilities allow us to get fixes out to users very quickly, so we can stay ahead of attackers.
We have a long-standing commitment to working with the broader security research community to advance security together, and this includes agentic safety. We’ve updated our Vulnerability Rewards Program (VRP) guidelines to clarify how external researchers can focus on agentic capabilities in Chrome. We want to hear about any serious vulnerabilities in this system, and will pay up to $20,000 for those that demonstrate breaches in the security boundaries. The full details are available in VRP rules.
The upcoming introduction of agentic capabilities in Chrome brings new demands for browser security, and we've approached this challenge with the same rigor that has defined Chrome's security model from its inception. By extending some core principles like origin-isolation and layered defenses, and introducing a trusted-model architecture, we're building a secure foundation for Gemini’s agentic experiences in Chrome. This is an evolving space, and while we're proud of the initial protections we've implemented, we recognize that security for web agents is still an emerging domain. We remain committed to continuous innovation and collaboration with the security community to ensure Chrome users can explore this new era of the web safely.
Android uses the best of Google AI and our advanced security expertise to tackle mobile scams from every angle. Over the last few years, we’ve launched industry-leading features to detect scams and protect users across phone calls, text messages and messaging app chat notifications.
These efforts are making a real difference in the lives of Android users. According to a recent YouGov survey1 commissioned by Google, Android users were 58% more likely than iOS users to report they had not received any scam texts in the prior week2.
But our work doesn’t stop there. Scammers are continuously evolving, using more sophisticated social engineering tactics to trick users into sharing their phone screen while on the phone to visit malicious websites, reveal sensitive information, send funds or download harmful apps. One popular scam involves criminals impersonating banks or other trusted institutions on the phone to try to manipulate victims into sharing their screen in order to reveal banking information or make a financial transfer.
To help combat these types of financial scams, we launched a pilot earlier this year in the UK focused on in-call protections for financial apps.
How the in-call scam protection works on Android
When you launch a participating financial app while screen sharing and on a phone call with a number that is not saved in your contacts, your Android device3 will automatically warn you about the potential dangers and give you the option to end the call and to stop screen sharing with just one tap. The warning includes a 30-second pause period before you’re able to continue, which helps break the ‘spell’ of the scammer's social engineering, disrupting the false sense of urgency and panic commonly used to manipulate you into a scam.
The UK pilot of Android’s in-call scam protections has already helped thousands of users end calls that could have cost them a significant amount of money. Following this success, and alongside recently launched pilots with financial apps in Brazil and India, we’ve now expanded this protection to most major UK banks. We’ve also started to pilot this protection with more app types, including peer-to-peer (P2P) payment apps. Today, we’re taking the next step in our expansion by rolling out a pilot of this protection in the United States4 with a number of popular fintechs like Cash App and banks, including JPMorganChase. We are committed to collaborating across the ecosystem to help keep people safe from scams. We look forward to learning from these pilots and bringing these critical safeguards to even more users in the future.
Google/YouGov survey, July-August, n=5,100 (1,700 each in the US, Brazil and India), with adults who use their smartphones daily and who have been exposed to a scam or fraud attempt on their smartphone. Survey data have been weighted to smartphone population adults in each country. ↩
Among users who use the default texting app on their smartphone. ↩
Compatible with Android 11+ devices ↩
US users of the US versions of the apps; rollout begins Dec. 2025 ↩
Technology should bring people closer together, not create walls. Being able to communicate and connect with friends and family should be easy regardless of the phone they use. That’s why Android has been building experiences that help you stay connected across platforms.
As part of our efforts to continue to make cross-platform communication more seamless for users, we've made Quick Share interoperable with AirDrop, allowing for two-way file sharing between Android and iOS devices, starting with the Pixel 10 Family. This new feature makes it possible to quickly share your photos, videos, and files with people you choose to communicate with, without worrying about the kind of phone they use.
Most importantly, when you share personal files and content, you need to trust that it stays secure. You can share across devices with confidence knowing we built this feature with security at its core, protecting your data with strong safeguards that have been tested by independent security experts.
We built Quick Share’s interoperability support for AirDrop with the same rigorous security standards that we apply to all Google products. Our approach to security is proactive and deeply integrated into every stage of the development process. This includes:
This Secure by Design philosophy ensures that all of our products are not just functional but also fundamentally secure.
This feature is also protected by a multi-layered security approach to ensure a safe sharing experience from end-to-end, regardless of what platform you’re on.
A key element of our security strategy for the interoperability layer between Quick Share and AirDrop is the use of the memory-safe Rust programming language. Recognized by security agencies around the world, including the NSA and CISA, Rust is widely considered the industry benchmark for building secure systems because it eliminates entire classes of memory-safety vulnerabilities by design.
Rust is already a cornerstone of our broader initiative to eliminate memory safety bugs across Android. Its selection for this feature was deliberate, driven by the unique security challenges of cross-platform communication that demanded the most robust protections for memory safety.
The core of this feature involves receiving and parsing data sent over a wireless protocol from another device. Historically, when using a memory-unsafe language, bugs in data parsing logic are one of the most common sources of high-severity security vulnerabilities. A malformed data packet sent to a parser written in a memory-unsafe language can lead to buffer overflows and other memory corruption bugs, creating an opportunity for code execution.
This is precisely where Rust provides a robust defense. Its compiler enforces strict ownership and borrowing rules at compile time, which guarantees memory safety. Rust removes entire classes of memory-related bugs. This means our implementation is inherently resilient against attackers attempting to use maliciously crafted data packets to exploit memory errors.
To ensure a seamless experience for both Android and iOS users, Quick Share currently works with AirDrop's "Everyone for 10 minutes" mode. This feature does not use a workaround; the connection is direct and peer-to-peer, meaning your data is never routed through a server, shared content is never logged, and no extra data is shared. As with "Everyone for 10 minutes" mode on any device when you’re sharing between non-contacts, you can ensure you're sharing with the right person by confirming their device name on your screen with them in person.
This implementation using "Everyone for 10 minutes” mode is just the first step in seamless cross-platform sharing, and we welcome the opportunity to work with Apple to enable “Contacts Only” mode in the future.
After conducting our own secure product development, internal threat modeling, privacy reviews, and red team penetration tests, we engaged with NetSPI, a leading third-party penetration testing firm, to further validate the security of this feature and conduct an independent security assessment. The assessment found the interoperability between Quick Share and AirDrop is secure, is “notably stronger” than other industry implementations and does not leak any information.
Based on these internal and external assessments, we believe our implementation provides a strong security foundation for cross-platform file sharing for both Android and iOS users. We will continue to evaluate and enhance the implementation’s security in collaboration with additional third-party partners.
To complement this deep technical audit, we also sought expert third-party perspective on our approach from Dan Boneh, a renowned security expert and professor at Stanford University:
“Google’s work on this feature, including the use of memory safe Rust for the core communications layer, is a strong example of how to build secure interoperability, ensuring that cross-platform information sharing remains safe. I applaud the effort to open more secure information sharing between platforms and encourage Google and Apple to work together more on this."
This is just the first step as we work to improve the experience and expand it to more devices. We look forward to continuing to work with industry partners to make connecting and communicating across platforms a secure, seamless experience for all users.
Last year, we wrote about why a memory safety strategy that focuses on vulnerability prevention in new code quickly yields durable and compounding gains. This year we look at how this approach isn’t just fixing things, but helping us move faster.
The 2025 data continues to validate the approach, with memory safety vulnerabilities falling below 20% of total vulnerabilities for the first time.
Updated data for 2025. This data covers first-party and third-party (open source) code changes to the Android platform across C, C++, Java, Kotlin, and Rust. This post is published a couple of months before the end of 2025, but Android’s industry-standard 90-day patch window means that these results are very likely close to final. We can and will accelerate patching when necessary.
We adopted Rust for its security and are seeing a 1000x reduction in memory safety vulnerability density compared to Android’s C and C++ code. But the biggest surprise was Rust's impact on software delivery. With Rust changes having a 4x lower rollback rate and spending 25% less time in code review, the safer path is now also the faster one.
In this post, we dig into the data behind this shift and also cover:
Developing an operating system requires the low-level control and predictability of systems programming languages like C, C++, and Rust. While Java and Kotlin are important for Android platform development, their role is complementary to the systems languages rather than interchangeable. We introduced Rust into Android as a direct alternative to C and C++, offering a similar level of control but without many of their risks. We focus this analysis on new and actively developed code because our data shows this to be an effective approach.
When we look at development in systems languages (excluding Java and Kotlin), two trends emerge: a steep rise in Rust usage and a slower but steady decline in new C++.
Net lines of code added: Rust vs. C++, first-party Android code.This chart focuses on first-party (Google-developed) code (unlike the previous chart that included all first-party and third-party code in Android.) We only include systems languages, C/C++ (which is primarily C++), and Rust.
The chart shows that the volume of new Rust code now rivals that of C++, enabling reliable comparisons of software development process metrics. To measure this, we use the DORA1 framework, a decade-long research program that has become the industry standard for evaluating software engineering team performance. DORA metrics focus on:
Cross-language comparisons can be challenging. We use several techniques to ensure the comparisons are reliable.
Code review is a time-consuming and high-latency part of the development process. Reworking code is a primary source of these costly delays. Data shows that Rust code requires fewer revisions. This trend has been consistent since 2023. Rust changes of a similar size need about 20% fewer revisions than their C++ counterparts.
In addition, Rust changes currently spend about 25% less time in code review compared to C++. We speculate that the significant change in favor of Rust between 2023 and 2024 is due to increased Rust expertise on the Android team.
While less rework and faster code reviews offer modest productivity gains, the most significant improvements are in the stability and quality of the changes.
Stable and high-quality changes differentiate Rust. DORA uses rollback rate for evaluating change stability. Rust's rollback rate is very low and continues to decrease, even as its adoption in Android surpasses C++.
For medium and large changes, the rollback rate of Rust changes in Android is ~4x lower than C++. This low rollback rate doesn't just indicate stability; it actively improves overall development throughput. Rollbacks are highly disruptive to productivity, introducing organizational friction and mobilizing resources far beyond the developer who submitted the faulty change. Rollbacks necessitate rework and more code reviews, can also lead to build respins, postmortems, and blockage of other teams. Resulting postmortems often introduce new safeguards that add even more development overhead.
In a self-reported survey from 2022, Google software engineers reported that Rust is both easier to review and more likely to be correct. The hard data on rollback rates and review times validates those impressions.
Historically, security improvements often came at a cost. More security meant more process, slower performance, or delayed features, forcing trade-offs between security and other product goals. The shift to Rust is different: we are significantly improving security and key development efficiency and product stability metrics.
With Rust support now mature for building Android system services and libraries, we are focused on bringing its security and productivity advantages elsewhere.
These examples highlight Rust's role in reducing security risks, but memory-safe languages are only one part of a comprehensive memory safety strategy. We continue to employ a defense-in-depth approach, the value of which was clearly demonstrated in a recent near-miss.
We recently avoided shipping our very first Rust-based memory safety vulnerability: a linear buffer overflow in CrabbyAVIF. It was a near-miss. To ensure the patch received high priority and was tracked through release channels, we assigned it the identifier CVE-2025-48530. While it’s great that the vulnerability never made it into a public release, the near-miss offers valuable lessons. The following sections highlight key takeaways from our postmortem.
A key finding is that Android’s Scudo hardened allocator deterministically rendered this vulnerability non-exploitable due to guard pages surrounding secondary allocations. While Scudo is Android’s default allocator, used on Google Pixel and many other devices, we continue to work with partners to make it mandatory. In the meantime, we will issue CVEs of sufficient severity for vulnerabilities that could be prevented by Scudo.
In addition to protecting against overflows, Scudo’s use of guard pages helped identify this issue by changing an overflow from silent memory corruption into a noisy crash. However, we did discover a gap in our crash reporting: it failed to clearly show that the crash was a result of an overflow, which slowed down triage and response. This has been fixed, and we now have a clear signal when overflows occur into Scudo guard pages.
Operating system development requires unsafe code, typically C, C++, or unsafe Rust (for example, for FFI and interacting with hardware), so simply banning unsafe code is not workable. When developers must use unsafe, they should understand how to do so soundly and responsibly
To that end, we are adding a new deep dive on unsafe code to our Comprehensive Rust training. This new module, currently in development, aims to teach developers how to reason about unsafe Rust code, soundness and undefined behavior, as well as best practices like safety comments and encapsulating unsafe code in safe abstractions.
Better understanding of unsafe Rust will lead to even higher quality and more secure code across the open source software ecosystem and within Android. As we'll discuss in the next section, our unsafe Rust is already really quite safe. It’s exciting to consider just how high the bar can go.
This near-miss inevitably raises the question: "If Rust can have memory safety vulnerabilities, then what’s the point?"
The point is that the density is drastically lower. So much lower that it represents a major shift in security posture. Based on our near-miss, we can make a conservative estimate. With roughly 5 million lines of Rust in the Android platform and one potential memory safety vulnerability found (and fixed pre-release), our estimated vulnerability density for Rust is 0.2 vuln per 1 million lines (MLOC).
Our historical data for C and C++ shows a density of closer to 1,000 memory safety vulnerabilities per MLOC. Our Rust code is currently tracking at a density orders of magnitude lower: a more than 1000x reduction.
Memory safety rightfully receives significant focus because the vulnerability class is uniquely powerful and (historically) highly prevalent. High vulnerability density undermines otherwise solid security design because these flaws can be chained to bypass defenses, including those specifically targeting memory safety exploits. Significantly lowering vulnerability density does not just reduce the number of bugs; it dramatically boosts the effectiveness of our entire security architecture.
The primary security concern regarding Rust generally centers on the approximately 4% of code written within unsafe{} blocks. This subset of Rust has fueled significant speculation, misconceptions, and even theories that unsafe Rust might be more buggy than C. Empirical evidence shows this to be quite wrong.
unsafe{}
Our data indicates that even a more conservative assumption, that a line of unsafe Rust is as likely to have a bug as a line of C or C++, significantly overestimates the risk of unsafe Rust. We don’t know for sure why this is the case, but there are likely several contributing factors:
Historically, we had to accept a trade-off: mitigating the risks of memory safety defects required substantial investments in static analysis, runtime mitigations, sandboxing, and reactive patching. This approach attempted to move fast and then pick up the pieces afterwards. These layered protections were essential, but they came at a high cost to performance and developer productivity, while still providing insufficient assurance.
While C and C++ will persist, and both software and hardware safety mechanisms remain critical for layered defense, the transition to Rust is a different approach where the more secure path is also demonstrably more efficient. Instead of moving fast and then later fixing the mess, we can move faster while fixing things. And who knows, as our code gets increasingly safe, perhaps we can start to reclaim even more of that performance and productivity that we exchanged for security, all while also improving security.
Thank you to the following individuals for their contributions to this post:
Finally, a tremendous thank you to the Android Rust team, and the entire Android organization for your relentless commitment to engineering excellence and continuous improvement.
The DevOps Research and Assessment (DORA) program is published by Google Cloud. ↩
For years, Android has been on the frontlines in the battle against scammers, using the best of Google AI to build proactive, multi-layered protections that can anticipate and block scams before they reach you. Android’s scam defenses protect users around the world from over 10 billion suspected malicious calls and messages every month2. In addition, Google continuously performs safety checks to maintain the integrity of the RCS service. In the past month alone, this ongoing process blocked over 100 million suspicious numbers from using RCS, stopping potential scams before they could even be sent.
To show how our scam protections work in the real world, we asked users and independent security experts to compare how well Android and iOS protect you from these threats. We're also releasing a new report that explains how modern text scams are orchestrated, helping you understand the tactics fraudsters use and how to spot them.
Survey shows Android users’ confidence in scam protections
Google and YouGov3 surveyed 5,000 smartphone users across the U.S., India, and Brazil about their scam experiences. The findings were clear: Android users reported receiving fewer scam texts and felt more confident that their device was keeping them safe.
YouGov study findings on users’ experience with scams on Android and iOS
In a recent evaluation by Counterpoint Research5, a global technology market research firm, Android smartphones were found to have the most AI-powered protections. The independent study compared the latest Pixel, Samsung, Motorola, and iPhone devices, and found that Android provides comprehensive AI-driven safeguards across ten key protection areas, including email protections, browsing protections, and on-device behavioral protections. By contrast, iOS offered AI-powered protections in only two categories. You can see the full comparison in the visual below.
Cybersecurity firm Leviathan Security Group conducted a funded evaluation6 of scam and fraud protection on the iPhone 17, Moto Razr+ 2025, Pixel 10 Pro, and Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7. Their analysis found that Android smartphones, led by the Pixel 10 Pro, provide the highest level of default scam and fraud protection.The report particularly noted Android's robust call screening, scam detection, and real-time scam warning authentication capabilities as key differentiators. Taken together, these independent expert assessments conclude that Android’s AI-driven safeguards provide more comprehensive and intelligent protection against mobile scams.
Why Android users see fewer scams
Android’s proactive protections work across the platform to help you stay ahead of threats with the best of Google AI.
Here’s how they work:
These safeguards are built directly into the core of Android, alongside other features like real-time app scanning in Google Play Protect and enhanced Safe Browsing in Chrome using LLMs. With Android, you can trust that you have intelligent, multi-layered protection against scams working for you.
Android is always evolving to keep you one step ahead of scams
In a world of evolving digital threats, you deserve to feel confident that your phone is keeping you safe. That’s why we use the best of Google AI to build intelligent protections that are always improving and work for you around the clock, so you can connect, browse, and communicate with peace of mind.
See these protections in action in our new infographic and learn more about phone call scams in our 2025 Phone by Google Scam Report.
1: Data from Global Anti-Scam Alliance, October 2025 ↩
2: This total comprises all instances where a message or call was proactively blocked or where a user was alerted to potential spam or scam activity. ↩
3: Google/YouGov survey, July-August, n=5,100 (1,700 each in the US, Brazil and India), with adults who use their smartphones daily and who have been exposed to a scam or fraud attempt on their smartphone. Survey data have been weighted to smartphone population adults in each country. ↩
4: Among users who use the default texting app on their smartphone ↩
5: Google/Counterpoint Research, “Assessing the State of AI-Powered Mobile Security”, Oct. 2025; based on comparing the Pixel 10 Pro, iPhone 17 Pro, Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra, OnePlus 13, Motorola Razr+ 2025. Evaluation based on no-cost smartphone features enabled by default. Some features may not be available in all countries. ↩
6: Google/Leviathan Security Group, “October 2025 Mobile Platform Security & Fraud Prevention Assessment”, Oct. 2025; based on comparing the Pixel 10 Pro, iPhone 17 Pro, Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7 and Motorola Razr+ 2025. Evaluation based on no-cost smartphone features enabled by default. Some features may not be available in all countries. ↩ ↩
7: Accuracy may vary. Availability varies. ↩ ↩ ↩
One year from now, with the release of Chrome 154 in October 2026, we will change the default settings of Chrome to enable “Always Use Secure Connections”. This means Chrome will ask for the user's permission before the first access to any public site without HTTPS.
The “Always Use Secure Connections” setting warns users before accessing a site without HTTPS
Chrome Security's mission is to make it safe to click on links. Part of being safe means ensuring that when a user types a URL or clicks on a link, the browser ends up where the user intended. When links don't use HTTPS, an attacker can hijack the navigation and force Chrome users to load arbitrary, attacker-controlled resources, and expose the user to malware, targeted exploitation, or social engineering attacks. Attacks like this are not hypothetical—software to hijack navigations is readily available and attackers have previously used insecure HTTP to compromise user devices in a targeted attack.
Since attackers only need a single insecure navigation, they don't need to worry that many sites have adopted HTTPS—any single HTTP navigation may offer a foothold. What's worse, many plaintext HTTP connections today are entirely invisible to users, as HTTP sites may immediately redirect to HTTPS sites. That gives users no opportunity to see Chrome's "Not Secure" URL bar warnings after the risk has occurred, and no opportunity to keep themselves safe in the first place.
To address this risk, we launched the “Always Use Secure Connections” setting in 2022 as an opt-in option. In this mode, Chrome attempts every connection over HTTPS, and shows a bypassable warning to the user if HTTPS is unavailable. We also previously discussed our intent to move towards HTTPS by default. We now think the time has come to enable “Always Use Secure Connections” for all users by default.
For more than a decade, Google has published the HTTPS transparency report, which tracks the percentage of navigations in Chrome that use HTTPS. For the first several years of the report, numbers saw an impressive climb, starting at around 30-45% in 2015, and ending up around the 95-99% range around 2020. Since then, progress has largely plateaued.
HTTPS adoption expressed as a percentage of main frame page loads
This rise represents a tremendous improvement to the security of the web, and demonstrates that HTTPS is now mature and widespread. This level of adoption is what makes it possible to consider stronger mitigations against the remaining insecure HTTP.
While it may at first seem that 95% HTTPS means that the problem is mostly solved, the truth is that a few percentage points of HTTP navigations is still a lot of navigations. Since HTTP navigations remain a regular occurrence for most Chrome users, a naive approach to warning on all HTTP navigations would be quite disruptive. At the same time, as the plateau demonstrates, doing nothing would allow this risk to persist indefinitely. To balance these risks, we have taken steps to ensure that we can help the web move towards safer defaults, while limiting the potential annoyance warnings will cause to users.
One way we're balancing risks to users is by making sure Chrome does not warn about the same sites excessively. In all variants of the "Always Use Secure Connections" settings, so long as the user regularly visits an insecure site, Chrome will not warn the user about that site repeatedly. This means that rather than warn users about 1 out of 50 navigations, Chrome will only warn users when they visit a new (or not recently visited) site without using HTTPS.
To further address the issue, it's important to understand what sort of traffic is still using HTTP. The largest contributor to insecure HTTP by far, and the largest contributor to variation across platforms, is insecure navigations to private sites. The graph above includes both those to public sites, such as example.com, and navigations to private sites, such as local IP addresses like 192.168.0.1, single-label hostnames, and shortlinks like intranet/. While it is free and easy to get an HTTPS certificate that is trusted by Chrome for a public site, acquiring an HTTPS certificate for a private site unfortunately remains complicated. This is because private names are "non-unique"—private names can refer to different hosts on different networks. There is no single owner of 192.168.0.1 for a certification authority to validate and issue a certificate to.
example.com
192.168.0.1
intranet/
HTTP navigations to private sites can still be risky, but are typically less dangerous than their public site counterparts because there are fewer ways for an attacker to take advantage of these HTTP navigations. HTTP on private sites can only be abused by an attacker also on your local network, like on your home wifi or in a corporate network.
If you exclude navigations to private sites, then the distribution becomes much tighter across platforms. In particular, Linux jumps from 84% HTTPS to nearly 97% HTTPS when limiting the analysis to public sites only. Windows increases from 95% to 98% HTTPS, and both Android and Mac increase to over 99% HTTPS.
In recognition of the reduced risk HTTP to private sites represents, last year we introduced a variant of “Always Use Secure Connections” for public sites only. For users who frequently access private sites (such as those in enterprise settings, or web developers), excluding warnings on private sites significantly reduces the volume of warnings those users will see. Simultaneously, for users who do not access private sites frequently, this mode introduces only a small reduction in protection. This is the variant we intend to enable for all users next year.
“Always Use Secure Connections,” available at chrome://settings/security
In Chrome 141, we experimented with enabling “Always Use Secure Connections” for public sites by default for a small percentage of users. We wanted to validate our expectations that this setting keeps users safer without burdening them with excessive warnings.
Analyzing the data from the experiment, we confirmed that the number of warnings seen by any users is considerably lower than 3% of navigations—in fact, the median user sees fewer than one warning per week, and the ninety-fifth percentile user sees fewer than three warnings per week..
Once “Always Use Secure Connections” is the default and additional sites migrate away from HTTP, we expect the actual warning volume to be even lower than it is now. In parallel to our experiments, we have reached out to a number of companies responsible for the most HTTP navigations, and expect that they will be able to migrate away from HTTP before the change in Chrome 154. For many of these organizations, transitioning to HTTPS isn't disproportionately hard, but simply has not received attention. For example, many of these sites use HTTP only for navigations that immediately redirect to HTTPS sites—an insecure interaction which was previously completely invisible to users.
Another current use case for HTTP is to avoid mixed content blocking when accessing devices on the local network. Private addresses, as discussed above, often do not have trusted HTTPS certificates, due to the difficulties of validating ownership of a non-unique name. This means most local network traffic is over HTTP, and cannot be initiated from an HTTPS page—the HTTP traffic counts as insecure mixed content, and is blocked. One common use case for needing to access the local network is to configure a local network device, e.g. the manufacturer might host a configuration portal at config.example.com, which then sends requests to a local device to configure it.
config.example.com
Previously, these types of pages needed to be hosted without HTTPS to avoid mixed content blocking. However, we recently introduced a local network access permission, which both prevents sites from accessing the user’s local network without consent, but also allows an HTTPS site to bypass mixed content checks for the local network once the permission has been granted. This can unblock migrating these domains to HTTPS.
We will enable the "Always Use Secure Connections" setting in its public-sites variant by default in October 2026, with the release of Chrome 154. Prior to enabling it by default for all users, in Chrome 147, releasing in April 2026, we will enable Always Use Secure Connections in its public-sites variant for the over 1 billion users who have opted-in to Enhanced Safe Browsing protections in Chrome.
While it is our hope and expectation that this transition will be relatively painless for most users, users will still be able to disable the warnings by disabling the "Always Use Secure Connections" setting.
If you are a website developer or IT professional, and you have users who may be impacted by this feature, we very strongly recommend enabling the "Always Use Secure Connections" setting today to help identify sites that you may need to work to migrate. IT professionals may find it useful to read our additional resources to better understand the circumstances where warnings will be shown, how to mitigate them, and how organizations that manage Chrome clients (like enterprises or educational institutions) can ensure that Chrome shows the right warnings to meet those organizations' needs.
While we believe that warning on insecure public sites represents a significant step forward for the security of the web, there is still more work to be done. In the future, we hope to work to further reduce barriers to adoption of HTTPS, especially for local network sites. This work will hopefully enable even more robust HTTP protections down the road.
Empowering cyber defenders with AI is critical to tilting the cybersecurity balance back in their favor as they battle cybercriminals and keep users safe. To help accelerate adoption of AI for cybersecurity workflows, we partnered with Airbus at DEF CON 33 to host the GenSec Capture the Flag (CTF), dedicated to human-AI collaboration in cybersecurity. Our goal was to create a fun, interactive environment, where participants across various skill levels could explore how AI can accelerate their daily cybersecurity workflows.
The CTF also offered a valuable opportunity for the community to use Sec-Gemini, Google’s experimental Cybersecurity AI, as an optional assistant available in the UI alongside major LLMs. And we received great feedback on Sec-Gemini, with 77% of respondents saying that they had found Sec-Gemini either “very helpful” or “extremely helpful” in assisting them with solving the challenges.
We want to thank the DEF CON community for the enthusiastic participation and for making this inaugural event a resounding success. The community feedback during the event has been invaluable for understanding how to improve Sec-Gemini, and we are already incorporating some of the lessons learned into the next iteration.
We are committed to advancing the AI cybersecurity frontier and will continue working with the community to build tools that help protect people online. Stay tuned as we plan to share more research and key learnings from the CTF with the broader community.
Follow