skip to main content
10.1145/2480362.2480706acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Slicing droids: program slicing for smali code

Published:18 March 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

The popularity of mobile devices like smartphones and tablets has increased significantly in the last few years with many millions of sold devices. This growth also has its drawbacks: attackers have realized that smartphones are an attractive target and in the last months many different kinds of malicious software (short: malware) for such devices have emerged. This worrisome development has the potential to hamper the prospering ecosystem of mobile devices and the potential for damage is huge.

Considering these aspects, it is evident that malicious apps need to be detected early on in order to prevent further distribution and infections. This implies that it is necessary to develop techniques capable of detecting malicious apps in an automated way. In this paper, we present SAAF, a Static Android Analysis Framework for Android apps. SAAF analyzes smali code, a disassembled version of the DEX format used by Android's Java VM implementation. Our goal is to create program slices in order to perform data-flow analyses to backtrack parameters used by a given method. This helps us to identify suspicious code regions in an automated way. Several other analysis techniques such as visualization of control flow graphs or identification of ad-related code are also implemented in SAAF. In this paper, we report on program slicing for Android and present results obtained by using this technique to analyze more than 136,000 benign and about 6,100 malicious apps.

References

  1. H. Agrawal and J. R. Horgan. Dynamic Program Slicing. SIGPLAN Not., 25(6), June 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. F. E. Allen and J. Cocke. A program data flow analysis procedure. Commun. ACM, 19(3), Mar. 1976. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Android Developers. Platform Versions, June 2012. http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. M. Becher, F. C. Freiling, J. Hoffmann, T. Holz, S. Uellenbeck, and C. Wolf. Mobile Security Catching Up? Revealing the Nuts and Bolts of the Security of Mobile Devices. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. E. Chu. 10 Billion Android Market downloads and counting, Dec. 2011. http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2011/12/10-billion-android-market-downloads-and.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. A. Desnos and G. Gueguen. Android: From reversing to decompilation. In Proc. of Black Hat Abu Dhabi, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. K. O. Elish, D. Yao, and B. G. Ryder. User-Centric Dependence Analysis For Identifying Malicious Mobile Apps. In Workshop on Mobile Security Technologies, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. W. Enck, P. Gilbert, B. gon Chun, L. P. Cox, J. Jung, P. McDaniel, and A. N. Sheth. TaintDroid: An Information-Flow Tracking System for Realtime Privacy Monitoring on Smartphones. In USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), October 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. W. Enck, D. Octeau, P. McDaniel, and S. Chaudhuri. A Study of Android Application Security. In USENIX Security Symposium, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. A. P. Felt, E. Chin, S. Hanna, D. Song, and D. Wagner. Android Permissions Demystified. In ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. L. D. Fosdick and L. J. Osterweil. Data flow analysis in software reliability. ACM Comput. Surv., 8(3), Sept. 1976. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Gartner Inc. Gartner Smartphone Marketshare 2012 Q1, May 2012. http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=2017015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. C. Gibler, J. Crussell, J. Erickson, and H. Chen. AndroidLeaks: Automatically Detecting Potential Privacy Leaks in Android Applications on a Large Scale. Trust and Trustworthy Computing, June 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. M. Grace, W. Zhou, X. Jiang, and A.-R. Sadeghi. Unsafe exposure analysis of mobile in-app advertisements. ACM Conference on Security and Privacy in Wireless and Mobile Networks, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. M. Grace, Y. Zhou, Q. Zhang, S. Zou, and X. Jiang. RiskRanker: Scalable and Accurate Zero-day Android Malware Detection. International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications and Services, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Juniper Networks Inc. 2011 Mobile Threats Report, February 2012. http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/additional-resources/jnpr-2011-mobile-threats-report.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. J. Kim, Y. Yoon, and K. Yi. ScanDal: Static Analyzer for Detecting Privacy Leaks in Android Applications. Workshop on Mobile Security Technologies (MoST), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. J. King, A. Lampinen, and A. Smolen. Privacy: Is There An App For That? Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. J. Kleinberg. The Wireless Epidemic. Nature, 449(20), 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. P. Lantz. droidbox - Android Application Sandbox, February 2011. http://code.google.com/p/droidbox/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. N. Leavitt. Malicious Code Moves to Mobile Devices. IEEE Computer, 33(12), 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. N. Leavitt. Mobile Phones: The Next Frontier for Hackers? IEEE Computer, 38(4), 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. A. Moser, C. Kruegel, and E. Kirda. Limits of Static Analysis for Malware Detection. In Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC), Dec. 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. C. Mullaney. A Million-Dollar Mobile Botnet, Feb. 2012. http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/androidbmaster-million-dollar-mobile-botnet.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. J. Oberheide and F. Jahanian. When Mobile is Harder Than Fixed (and Vice Versa): Demystifying Security Challenges in Mobile Environments. In Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications (HotMobile), February 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. G. Ramalingam. The undecidability of aliasing. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 16(5), Sept. 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. R. Stevens, C. Gibler, J. Crussell, J. Erickson, and H. Chen. Investigating User Privacy in Android Ad Libraries. Workshop on Mobile Security Technologies (MoST), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. B. Stone-Gross, R. Abman, R. A. Kemmerer, C. Kruegel, and D. G. Steigerwald. The Underground Economy of Fake Antivirus Software. In Workshop on Economics of Information Security (WEIS), 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. W. Zhou, Y. Zhou, X. Jiang, and P. Ning. Droidmoss: Detecting repackaged smartphone applications in third-party android marketplaces. ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Y. Zhou, Z. Wang, W. Zhou, and X. Jiang. Hey, You, Get Off of My Market: Detecting Malicious Apps in Official and Alternative Android Markets. Symposium on Network and Distributed System Security, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

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
    SAC '13: Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing
    March 2013
    2124 pages
    ISBN:9781450316569
    DOI:10.1145/2480362

    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 March 2013

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    SAC '13 Paper Acceptance Rate255of1,063submissions,24%Overall Acceptance Rate1,650of6,669submissions,25%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader