skip to main content
10.1145/2435349.2435379acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescodaspyConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

AppsPlayground: automatic security analysis of smartphone applications

Published:18 February 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Today's smartphone application markets host an ever increasing number of applications. The sheer number of applications makes their review a daunting task. We propose AppsPlayground for Android, a framework that automates the analysis smartphone applications. AppsPlayground integrates multiple components comprising different detection and automatic exploration techniques for this purpose. We evaluated the system using multiple large scale and small scale experiments involving real benign and malicious applications. Our evaluation shows that AppsPlayground is quite effective at automatically detecting privacy leaks and malicious functionality in applications.

References

  1. Qemu. http://www.qemu.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbot. http://abbot.sourceforge.net/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Larry Apfelbaum and John Doyle. Model Based Testing. In Software Quality Week Conference, pages 296--300, 1997. URL http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.86.1342.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. AutoIt. http://www.autoitscript.com/site/autoit/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Edmund M. Clarke, Orna Grumberg, and Doron A. Peled. Model Checking. The MIT Press, January 1999. ISBN 0262032708. URL http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/0262032708.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Manuel Egele, Christopher Kruegel, Engin Kirda, and Giovanni Vigna. PiOS: Detecting Privacy Leaks in iOS Applications. In ISOC Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS), February 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. William Enck, Peter Gilbert, Byung-Gon Chun, Landon P. Cox, Jaeyeon Jung, Patrick McDaniel, and Anmol N. Sheth. TaintDroid: An Information-Flow Tracking System for Realtime Privacy Monitoring on Smartphones. In Proceedings of the 9th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), Vancouver, BC, October 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. William Enck, Damien Octeau, Patrick McDaniel, and Swarat Chaudhuri. A Study of Android Application Security. In Proceedings of the 20th USENIX Security Symposium, San Francisco, CA, August 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. P. Hornyack, S. Han, J. Jung, S. Schechter, and D. Wetherall. "These aren't the Droids you're looking for": Retrofitting Android to protect data from imperious applications. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 2011), 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Cuixiong Hu and Iulian Neamtiu. Automating gui testing for android applications. In Proceeding of the 6th international workshop on Automation of software test, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Y.W. Huang, S.K. Huang, T.P. Lin, and C.H. Tsai. Web application security assessment by fault injection and behavior monitoring. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 148--159, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. John P. John, Alexander Moshchuk, Steven D. Gribble, and Arvind Krishnamurthy. Studying spamming botnets using Botlab. In Proceedings of the 6th USENIX symposium on Networked systems design and implementation, pages 291--306, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2009. USENIX Association. URL http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1558977.1558997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Jaeyeon Jung, Anmol Sheth, Ben Greenstein, David Wetherall, Gabriel Maganis, and Tadayoshi Kohno. Privacy oracle: a system for finding application leaks with black box differential testing. In CCS'08: Proceedings of the 15th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pages 279--288, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM. ISBN 978-1-59593-810-7. doi: 10.1145/1455770.1455806. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1455770.1455806. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Kasperskey Lab. First SMS Trojan detected for smartphones running Android. http://www.kaspersky.com/news?id=207576158, August 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. James C. King. Symbolic execution and program testing. Commun. ACM, 19(7):385--394, July 1976. ISSN 0001-0782. doi: 10.1145/360248.360252. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/360248.360252. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Lookout. Update: Security Alert: DroidDream Malware Found in Official Android Market. http://blog.mylookout.com/blog/2011/03/01/security-alert-malware-found-in-official-android-market-droiddream/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. A. M. Memon, M. E. Pollack, and M. L. Soffa. Hierarchical GUI test case generation using automated planning. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 27(2):144-155, February 2001. ISSN 00985589. doi: 10.1109/32.908959. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/32.908959. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. A.M. Memon. An event-flow model of gui-based applications for testing. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, 17(3):137--157, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Atif Memon, Ishan Banerjee, and Adithya Nagarajan. GUI Ripping: Reverse Engineering of Graphical User Interfaces for Testing. Reverse Engineering, Working Conference on, pages 260+, 2003. ISSN 1095--1350. doi: 10.1109/WCRE.2003.1287256. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WCRE.2003.1287256. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Jon Oberheide. Dissecting android's bouncer, June 2012. https://blog.duosecurity.com/2012/06/dissecting-androids-bouncer/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. A. Pretschner, O. Slotosch, E. Aiglstorfer, and S. Kriebel. Model-based testing for real. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 5(2):140--157, March 2004. ISSN 1433-2779. doi: 10.1007/s10009-003-0128-3. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10009-003-0128-3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. T. Raffetseder, C. Kruegel, and E. Kirda. Detecting system emulators. Information Security, pages 1--18, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. S. Raghavan and H. Garcia-Molina. Crawling the hidden web. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pages 129--138, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Robotium. http://code.google.com/p/robotium/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. P. Saxena, D. Akhawe, S. Hanna, F. Mao, S. McCamant, and D. Song. A symbolic execution framework for javascript. In Security and Privacy (SP), 2010 IEEE Symposium on, pages 513--528. IEEE, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Koushik Sen, Darko Marinov, and Gul Agha. CUTE: a concolic unit testing engine for C. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 30(5):263-272, September 2005. doi:10.1145/1095430.1081750. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1095430.1081750. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Yi-Min Wang, Doug Beck, Xuxian Jiang, and Roussi Roussev. Automated Web Patrol with Strider HoneyMonkeys: Finding Web Sites that Exploit Browser Vulnerabilities. In IN NDSS, 2006. URL http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.100.224.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Ryan Whitwam. Circumventing google's bouncer, android's anti-malware system, June 2012. http://www.extremetech.com/computing/130424-circumventing-googles-bouncer-androids-anti-malware-system.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Carsten Willems, Thorsten Holz, and Felix Freiling. Toward Automated Dynamic Malware Analysis Using CWSandbox. IEEE Security and Privacy, 5(2):32--39, March 2007. ISSN 1540-7993. doi:10.1109/MSP.2007.45. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2007.45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. L-K Yan and H Yin. DroidScope: Seamlessly Reconstructing the OS and Dalvik. In Proceedings of USENIX Security Symposium. USENIX Association, 2012. URL http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1558977.1558997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. C. Zheng, S. Zhu, S. Dai, G. Gu, X. Gong, X. Han, and W. Zou. Smartdroid: an automatic system for revealing ui-based trigger conditions in android applications. In Proceedings of the second ACM workshop on Security and privacy in smartphones and mobile devices, pages 93--104. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Yajin Zhou and Xuxian Jiang. Dissecting android malware: Characterization and evolution. Security and Privacy, IEEE Symposium on, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. AppsPlayground: automatic security analysis of smartphone applications

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CODASPY '13: Proceedings of the third ACM conference on Data and application security and privacy
          February 2013
          400 pages
          ISBN:9781450318907
          DOI:10.1145/2435349
          • General Chairs:
          • Elisa Bertino,
          • Ravi Sandhu,
          • Program Chair:
          • Lujo Bauer,
          • Publications Chair:
          • Jaehong Park

          Copyright © 2013 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 18 February 2013

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          CODASPY '13 Paper Acceptance Rate24of107submissions,22%Overall Acceptance Rate149of789submissions,19%

          Upcoming Conference

          CODASPY '24

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader