Samsung bans smart TV apps that share users' internet connections with strangers 26%

By Zack Whittaker58%

8/3/2026, 5:10:41 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Hasty Generalization, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 15.9% saturation with 142 hits. Analysis detected 1,424 faulty-reasoning hits from 894 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.6% and a BS Rank of 26% (19,613 of 26,281 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 74.60% of the article peer group.

Several popular Samsung smart TV apps contain code that share the owner’s internet connection with strangers, potentially putting millions of Samsung smart TVs at risk of hijacking, according to new security research published on Monday. 
Some of these apps claim to have been installed on hundreds of millions of smart TVs in people's homes, per the app developers. 
At least one of the smart TV apps was a simple Pac-Man game that Samsung had endorsed and prominently featured in its “Editor’s Choice” section on customers’ TV screens. 
These apps contain software that funnels outsiders’ web traffic through ordinary home and office internet connections, known as residential proxy networks (or “resproxies”), which are increasingly being linked to cybercrime. 
When opened, apps with resproxy code can turn the smart TV into an always-on tunnel for outsiders to funnel their web traffic through, known as an exit node  even when the app is no longer open. 
The security research by Norwegian cybersecurity company Mnemonic describes a perfect storm of problems that allows low-quality apps to proliferate across Samsung's app store, containing code that puts users at risk of having their internet connections tapped by a rogue app. 
Many of these apps are barebone shells, made from only a few lines of code, and are designed solely to load content from another website, such as a game. 
While such smart TV apps load content from another server, any review of these apps sees only the few lines of code within, and not necessarily the content itself. 
“What was reviewed is not necessarily what is running,” wrote Harrison Sand, an offensive security consultant at Mnemonic. 
After TechCrunch contacted Samsung with a request for comment about the research, the electronics giant said in an emailed statement that it was banning apps that share their users’ internet connections, and will remove apps that contain the functionality. 
“We have already restricted new app registrations that incorporate such proxy functionalities on our Smart TV platform,” said a Samsung spokesperson. 
“We are currently implementing strict platform-wide developer policies explicitly banning residential proxy SDKs, and we are working to identify and remove all apps currently available in our store that contain these components.” 
The move comes after LG said last month that it would ban apps that contain resproxy software after recent reporting found that around 42% of apps on the company's app store enlisted a smart TV into a proxy network. 
Inside a residential proxy network 
The research also offers a rare look inside a residential proxy network. 
Resproxy code can also be found in regular consumer phone apps, as well as other consumer electronics, like digital frames and Android streaming boxes, which then share that device’s internet connection. 
Any time a resproxy app or device connects to the internet, an outsider can also pay to use it. 
Resproxies are not inherently illegal. 
Some are used for evading censorship by routing internet traffic through ordinary looking residential homes. 
AI companies, for example, increasingly rely on resproxies to scrape data from multiple places on the internet in one go to train their AI models. 
But cybersecurity companies say resproxies have gained a reputation for allowing hackers and spies to carry out cyberattacks and data breaches while hiding their malicious activity. 
Cybersecurity companies find resproxies challenging to tackle because the network traffic looks like it’s coming from an ordinary household, rather than a malicious hacker located overseas, as they might expect. 
Moreover, the network traffic that flows through a user's device over resproxies is generally encrypted, which is generally impossible to unscramble and inspect. 
By rooting a Samsung smart TV's software, Mnemonic's Sand gained deep access to the television's internals and analyzed all of the network traffic that flowed in and out of the TV. 
This included any app that was sharing the smart TV's internet connection with someone else. 
He found the Pac-Man game contained resproxy code from Bright Data, an Israel-based company that provides proxy networks touting access to millions of residential networks around the world. 
The company also has a marketplace for selling access to scraped data sets. 
These datasets are derived from a network of enlisted smart TVs as exit nodes, which are used to download large amounts of public data from the web from multiple sources at once, often to circumvent systems designed to prevent scraping. 
Sand found that Bright Data's resproxy code loaded when opening the Pac-Man game, but noted that this did not automatically turn the Samsung smart TV into an exit node. 
Sand said the resproxy code is dormant until the user accepts a consent screen, which immediately activates the resproxy code to run in the background until the user deletes the app. 
Aside from the user themselves consenting to enlisting their device into a resproxy, Sand warned that a “simple code change on a web server” could instantly activate hundreds of millions of smart TVs into a potentially malicious botnet. 
With access to the network data flowing through his smart TV, Sand could see that much of it appeared to suggest the resproxy network was used for large-scale scraping of LinkedIn profiles, and for collecting AI training data. 
Sand said he only saw a tiny percentage of what was routed over Bright Data's network. 
Bright Data did not respond to a request for comment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.0%Zack Whittaker: 4.3%TechCrunch: 2.8%Confirmation Bias12.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.2%TechCrunch: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Zack Whittaker: 3.6%TechCrunch: 3.3%Availability Heuristic6.0%This article: 9.4%Zack Whittaker: 1.5%TechCrunch: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic9.4%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.6%TechCrunch: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Zack Whittaker: 0.9%TechCrunch: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias3.5%This article: 6.3%Zack Whittaker: 3.5%TechCrunch: 4.5%Framing Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.8%TechCrunch: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.4%Zack Whittaker: 1.1%TechCrunch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.6%Zack Whittaker: 0.6%TechCrunch: 4.6%Optimism Bias3.6%This article: 10.5%Zack Whittaker: 1.9%TechCrunch: 1.4%Pessimism Bias10.5%This article: 15.9%Zack Whittaker: 11.8%TechCrunch: 4.9%Negativity Bias15.9%This article: 2.3%Zack Whittaker: 1.3%TechCrunch: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Zack Whittaker: 1.4%TechCrunch: 3.1%Halo Effect3.2%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Zack Whittaker: 1.3%TechCrunch: 2.1%Recency Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.9%Zack Whittaker: 1.9%TechCrunch: 3.9%Appeal to Authority2.9%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 8.4%Zack Whittaker: 1.3%TechCrunch: 0.7%Slippery Slope8.4%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.1%Zack Whittaker: 5.5%TechCrunch: 5.6%Hasty Generalization15.1%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.4%Zack Whittaker: 1.1%TechCrunch: 1.0%Bandwagon4.4%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 3.2%TechCrunch: 2.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 3.5%Zack Whittaker: 0.8%TechCrunch: 0.6%Begging the Question3.5%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 3.3%TechCrunch: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.6%Zack Whittaker: 1.0%TechCrunch: 0.5%Burden of Proof3.6%This article: 1.7%Zack Whittaker: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.2%Appeal to Nature1.7%This article: 3.5%Zack Whittaker: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.3%Composition/Division3.5%This article: 7.2%Zack Whittaker: 1.1%TechCrunch: 2.2%Anecdotal7.2%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.9%Zack Whittaker: 1.5%TechCrunch: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.9%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.0%Zack Whittaker: 1.5%TechCrunch: 1.7%Unattributed Quote2.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 1.2%TechCrunch: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.4%Zack Whittaker: 3.4%TechCrunch: 4.0%Biased Writer Voice15.4%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 1.5%TechCrunch: 0.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Zack Whittaker: 2.7%TechCrunch: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.4%

894 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers36%attributed speech576writer words
Selected voice

Samsung

100%flagged-word coverage
92 attributed words29% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +42.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Samsung: 42.4%42.4%Biased Writer Voice-17.4 ptsWriter: 17.4%Samsung: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.