skip to main content
10.1145/3322640.3326729acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicailConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

MagnetDroid: security-oriented analysis for bridging privacy and law for Android applications

Authors Info & Claims
Published:17 June 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

MagnetDroid is a novel artificial intelligence framework that integrates a security ontology, a multi-agent organisation, and a logical reasoning procedure to help build a bridge between the worlds of Android application analysis and law, with respect to privacy. Our contribution helps identify violations of the law by Android applications, as well as predict legal consequences. The resulting implementation of MagnetDroid can be useful to privacy-concerned users in order to acknowledge problems with the privacy of the applications they use, to application developers/publishers to help them identify which problems to fix, and to lawyers in order to provide an additional level of interpretation for any court when considering the privacy of Android applications.

References

  1. {n.d.}. 2018 UK Data Protection Act. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/contents/enacted Available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/contents/enacted.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. {n.d.}. Android Market Share. https://www.statista.com/statistics/266136/global-market-share-held-by-smartphone-operating-systems Available at https://www.statista.com/statistics/266136/global-market-share-held-by-smartphone-operating-systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. {n.d.}. The Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/506/made Available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/506/made.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. {n.d.}. Security | Android Open Source Project. https://source.android.com/security Available at https://source.android.com/security.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. {n.d.}. The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8446 Available at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8446.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Steven Arzt, Siegfried Rasthofer, Christian Fritz, Eric Bodden, Alexandre Bartel, Jacques Klein, Yves Le Traon, Damien Octeau, and Patrick McDaniel. 2014. Flowdroid: Precise context, flow, field, object-sensitive and lifecycle-aware taint analysis for android apps. Acm Sigplan Notices 49, 6 (2014), 259--269. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Alexandre Bartel, Jacques Klein, Yves Le Traon, and Martin Monperrus. 2012. Dexpler: converting android dalvik bytecode to jimple for static analysis with soot. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN International Workshop on State of the Art in Java Program analysis. ACM, 27--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Trevor Bench-Capon. 1997. Argument in Artificial Intelligence and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 5, 4 (Dec 1997), 249--261. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Trevor Bench-Capon and Marek Sergot. 1989. Towards a Rule Based Representation of Open Texture in Law. In Computing Power and Legal Reasoning, Charles Walter (Ed.). Greenwood Press, Chapter 6, 39--60.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Michael Bierma, Eric Gustafson, Jeremy Erickson, David Fritz, and Yung Ryn Choe. 2014. Andlantis: Large-scale Android dynamic analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.7751 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Stefano Bromuri and Kostas Stathis. 2008. Situating cognitive agents in GOLEM. Engineering environment-mediated multi-agent systems (2008), 115--134.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Keith L. Clark. 1977. Negation as Failure. In Logic and Data Bases, Symposium on Logic and Data Bases, Centre d'études et de recherches de Toulouse, France, 1977. (Advances in Data Base Theory), Hervé Gallaire and Jack Minker (Eds.). Plemum Press, New York, 293--322.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. D. Cooper, S. Santesson, S. Farrell, S. Boeyen, R. Housley, and W. Polk. 2008. Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile. RFC 5280. RFC Editor. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5280.txt http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5280.txt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Anthony Desnos et al. 2011. Androguard. URL: https://github.com/androguard/androguard (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Manuel Egele, Theodoor Scholte, Engin Kirda, and Christopher Kruegel. 2012. A survey on automated dynamic malware-analysis techniques and tools. ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 44, 2 (2012), 6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. William Enck, Peter Gilbert, Seungyeop Han, Vasant Tendulkar, Byung-Gon Chun, Landon P Cox, Jaeyeon Jung, Patrick McDaniel, and Anmol N Sheth. 2014. TaintDroid: an information-flow tracking system for realtime privacy monitoring on smartphones. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS) 32, 2 (2014), 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. 2016. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union L119 (4 May 2016), 1--88. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2016:119:TOCGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Sascha Fahl, Marian Harbach, Thomas Muders, Lars Baumgärtner, Bernd Freisleben, and Matthew Smith. 2012. Why Eve and Mallory love Android: An analysis of Android SSL (in) security. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Computer and communications security. ACM, 50--61. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Yu Feng, Saswat Anand, Isil Dillig, and Alex Aiken. 2014. Apposcopy: Semantics-based detection of android malware through static analysis. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, 576--587. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Andrea Gianazza, Federico Maggi, Aristide Fattori, Lorenzo Cavallaro, and Stefano Zanero. 2014. Puppetdroid: A user-centric ui exerciser for automatic dynamic analysis of similar android applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.4826 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Lance J Hoffman. 2012. Building in big brother: the cryptographic policy debate. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Hideaki Ishii and Roberto Tempo. 2014. The PageRank problem, multiagent consensus, and web aggregation: A systems and control viewpoint. IEEE Control Systems 34, 3 (2014), 34--53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Antonis C. Kakas, Paolo Mancarella, Fariba Sadri, Kostas Stathis, and Francesca Toni. 2008. Computational Logic Foundations of KGP Agents. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 33 (2008), 285--348. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. S Karthika, S Gunanandhini, and Mr A Vijayanarayanan. 2013. Android Based Effective and Efficient Search Engine Retrieval System Using Ontology. IJREAT International Journal of Research in Engineering & Advanced Technology 1, 1 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Martina Lindorfer, Matthias Neugschwandtner, Lukas Weichselbaum, Yanick Fratantonio, Victor Van Der Veen, and Christian Platzer. 2014. Andrubis--1,000,000 apps later: A view on current Android malware behaviors. In Building Analysis Datasets and Gathering Experience Returns for Security (BADGERS), 2014 Third International Workshop on. IEEE, 3--17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Federico Maggi, Andrea Valdi, and Stefano Zanero. 2013. AndroTotal: a flexible, scalable toolbox and service for testing mobile malware detectors. In Proceedings of the Third ACM workshop on Security and privacy in smartphones & mobile devices. ACM, 49--54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Bodo Möller, Thai Duong, and Krzysztof Kotowicz. 2014. This POODLE bites: exploiting the SSL 3.0 fallback. Security Advisory (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Juan Antonio Morente-Molinera, Robin Wikström, Enrique Herrera-Viedma, and Christer Carlsson. 2016. A linguistic mobile decision support system based on fuzzy ontology to facilitate knowledge mobilization. Decision Support Systems 81 (2016), 66--75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Nils J. Nilsson. 1994. Teleo-reactive Programs for Agent Control. J. Artif. Int. Res. 1, 1 (Jan. 1994), 139--158. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. 1997. A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 175--211.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Claudio Rizzo, Lorenzo Cavallaro, and Johannes Kinder. 2018. BabelView: Evaluating the Impact of Code Injection Attacks in Mobile Webviews. In Research in Attacks, Intrusions, and Defenses, Michael Bailey, Thorsten Holz, Manolis Stamatogiannakis, and Sotiris Ioannidis (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 25--46.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Pedro Sánchez, Bárbara Álvarez, Ramón Martínez, and Andrés Iborra. 2017. Embedding statecharts into Teleo-Reactive programs to model interactions between agents. Journal of Systems and Software 131 (2017), 78--97. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Ferial Shayeganfar, Amin Anjomshoaa, and A Min Tjoa. 2008. A smart indoor navigation solution based on building information model and google android. In International Conference on Computers for Handicapped Persons. Springer, 1050--1056. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Kerry-Louise Skillen, Liming Chen, Chris D Nugent, Mark P Donnelly, and Ivar Solheim. 2012. A user profile ontology based approach for assisting people with dementia in mobile environments. In Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2012 Annual International Conference of the IEEE. IEEE, 6390--6393.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. David Sounthiraraj, Justin Sahs, Garret Greenwood, Zhiqiang Lin, and Latifur Khan. 2014. Smv-hunter: Large scale, automated detection of ssl/tls man-in-the-middle vulnerabilities in android apps. In In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSSâĂŹ14. Citeseer.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Kostas Stathis. 2000. A Game-based Architecture for Developing Interactive Components in Computational Logic. Journal of Functional and Logic Programming 2000, 5 (March 2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Kostas Stathis and Marek Sergot. 1996. Games as a Metaphor for Interactive Systems. In People and Computers XI, Martina Angela Sasse, R. Jim Cunningham, and Russel L. Winder (Eds.). Springer London, London, 19--33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Kimberly Tam, Salahuddin J Khan, Aristide Fattori, and Lorenzo Cavallaro. 2015. CopperDroid: Automatic Reconstruction of Android Malware Behaviors.. In NDSS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Francesca Toni, Mary Grammatikou, Stella Kafetzoglou, Leonidas Lymberopoulos, Symeon Papavassileiou, Dorian Gaertner, Maxime Morge, Stefano Bromuri, Jarred McGinnis, Kostas Stathis, Vasa Curcin, Moustafa Ghanem, and Li Guo. 2008. The ArguGRID Platform: An Overview. In Grid Economics and Business Models, Jörn Altmann, Dirk Neumann, and Thomas Fahringer (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 217--225. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Edgaras Valincius, Hai H Nguyen, and Jeff Z Pan. 2015. A Power Consumption Benchmark Framework for Ontology Reasoning on Android Devices.. In ORE. 80--86.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Johann Vincent, Christine Porquet, Maroua Borsali, and Harold Leboulanger. 2011. Privacy protection for smartphones: an ontology-based firewall. In IFIP International Workshop on Information Security Theory and Practices. Springer, 371--380. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Douglas Walton. 2005. Argumentation methods for artificial intelligence in law. Springer Science & Business Media. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Mark Witkowski and Kostas Stathis. 2004. A Dialectic Architecture for Computational Autonomy. In Agents and Computational Autonomy, Matthias Nickles, Michael Rovatsos, and Gerhard Weiss (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 261--273. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Michelle Y Wong and David Lie. 2016. IntelliDroid: A Targeted Input Generator for the Dynamic Analysis of Android Malware.. In NDSS, Vol. 16. 21--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Lok-Kwong Yan and Heng Yin. 2012. DroidScope: Seamlessly Reconstructing the OS and Dalvik Semantic Views for Dynamic Android Malware Analysis.. In USENIX security symposium. 569--584. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Roberto Yus, Carlos Bobed, Guillermo Esteban, Fernando Bobillo, and Eduardo Mena. 2013. Android goes Semantic: DL Reasoners on Smartphones.. In Ore. Citeseer, 46--52.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Min Zheng, Mingshen Sun, and John CS Lui. 2014. DroidTrace: A ptrace based Android dynamic analysis system with forward execution capability. In Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC), 2014 International. IEEE, 128--133.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. MagnetDroid: security-oriented analysis for bridging privacy and law for Android 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
        ICAIL '19: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
        June 2019
        312 pages
        ISBN:9781450367547
        DOI:10.1145/3322640

        Copyright © 2019 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: 17 June 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate69of169submissions,41%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)7
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader