skip to main content
10.1145/3372297.3423341acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

VAHunt: Warding Off New Repackaged Android Malware in App-Virtualization's Clothing

Authors Info & Claims
Published:02 November 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Repackaging popular benign apps with malicious payload used to be the most common way to spread Android malware. Nevertheless, since 2016, we have observed an alarming new trend to Android ecosystem: a growing number of Android malware samples abuse recent app-virtualization innovation as a new distribution channel. App-virtualization enables a user to run multiple copies of the same app on a single device, and tens of millions of users are enjoying this convenience. However, cybercriminals repackage various malicious APK files as plugins into an app-virtualization platform, which is flexible to launch arbitrary plugins without the hassle of installation. This new style of repackaging gains the ability to bypass anti-malware scanners by hiding the grafted malicious payload in plugins, and it also defies the basic premise embodied by existing repackaged app detection solutions.

As app-virtualization-based apps are not necessarily malware, in this paper, we aim to make a verdict on them prior to run time. Our in-depth study results in two key observations: 1) the proxy layer between plugin apps and the Android framework is the core of app-virtualization mechanism, and it reveals the feature of finite state transitions; 2) malware typically loads plugins stealthily and hides malicious behaviors. These insights motivate us to develop a two-layer detection approach, called VAHunt. First, we design a stateful detection model to identify the existence of an app-virtualization engine in APK files. Second, we perform data flow analysis to extract fingerprinting features to differentiate between malicious and benign loading strategies. Since October 2019, we have tested VAHunt in Antiy AVL Mobile Security, a leading mobile security company, to detect more than 139K app-virtualization-based samples. Compared with the ground truth, VAHunt achieves 0.7% false negatives and zero false positive. Our automated detection frees security analysts from the burden of reverse engineering.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

Copy of CCS2020_fpe099_LumanShi - Pat Weeden.mov

mov

193.1 MB

References

  1. Li Li, Daoyuan Li, Tegawendë F. Bissyandë, Jacques Klein, Yves Le Traon, David Lo, and Lorenzo Cavallaro. Understanding Android App Piggybacking: A Systematic Study of Malicious Code Grafting. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 12(6), June 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Kobra Khanmohammadi, Neda Ebrahimi, Abdelwahab Hamou-Lhadj, and Raphaël Khoury. Empirical Study of Android Repackaged Applications. Empirical Software Engineering, 24(6), December 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Li Li, Tegawende F. Bissyande, and Jacques Klein. Rebooting Research on Detecting Repackaged Android Apps: Literature Review and Benchmark. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, February 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. LBE Tech. How Parallel Space helps you run multiple accounts on Android. http://blog.parallelspace-app.com/how-parallel-space-helps-you-run-multiple-accounts-on-android/, July 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. asLody. VirtualApp. https://github.com/asLody/VirtualApp, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Qihoo360. DroidPlugin. https://github.com/DroidPluginTeam/DroidPlugin, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. JohnC. Mobile App Virtualization: Why the Best Architecture (Should) Always Win. https://sierraware.com/blog/?p=75, May 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Dan Price. How to Run Multiple Copies of the Same App on Android. https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/run-multiple-app-copies-android/, December 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Joe Birch. Modularizing Android Applications. https://medium.com/google-developer-experts/modularizing-android-applications-9e2d18f244a0, August 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Jianqiang Bao. Android App-Hook and Plug-In Technology. CRC Press, 1st edition, September 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Google. Enable multidex for apps with over 64K methods. https://developer.android.com/studio/build/multidex, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Cong Zheng and Tongbo Luo. PluginPhantom: New Android Trojan Abuses "DroidPlugin" Framework. https://dwz.cn/tsm8kSF4, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Tom Spring. Apps Carrying HummingBad Variant Booted From Google Play. https://threatpost.com/hummingbad-variant-booted-from-google-play/123280/, January 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Tongbo Luo, Cong Zheng, Zhi Xu, and Xin Ouyang. Anti-Plugin: Don't Let Your App Play as an Android Plugin. BlackHat Asia, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Cong Zheng, Wenjun Hu, and Zhi Xu. Android Plugin Becomes a Catastrophe to Android Ecosystem. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Radical and Experiential Security (RESEC'18), 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Lei Zhang, Zhemin Yang, Yuyu He, Mingqi Li, Sen Yang, Min Yang, Yuan Zhang, and Zhiyun Qian. App in the Middle: Demystify Application Virtualization in Android and its Security Threats. In Proceedings of the 45th International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems (SIGMETRICS'19), 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Luman Shi, Jianming Fu, Zhengwei Guo, and Jiang Ming. "Jekyll and Hyde" is Risky: Shared-Everything Threat Mitigation in Dual-Instance Apps. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services (Mobisys'19), 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Deshun Dai, Ruixuan Li, Junwei Tang, Ali Davanian, and Heng Yin. Parallel Space Traveling: A Security Analysis of App-Level Virtualization in Android. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies (SACMAT'20), 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Wu Zhou, Yajin Zhou, Xuxian Jiang, and Peng Ning. Detecting Repackaged Smartphone Applications in Third-Party Android Marketplaces. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy (CODASPY'12), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Wu Zhou, Yajin Zhou, Michael Grace, Xuxian Jiang, and Shihong Zou. Fast, Scalable Detection of Piggybacked Mobile Applications. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy (CODASPY'13), 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Jonathan Crussell, Clint Gibler, and Hao Chen. AnDarwin: Scalable Detection of Semantically Similar Android Applications. In Jason Crampton, Sushil Jajodia, and Keith Mayes, editors, Proceedings of the 18th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS'13), 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Kai Chen, Peng Liu, and Yingjun Zhang. Achieving Accuracy and Scalability Simultaneously in Detecting Application Clones on Android Markets. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'14), 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Fangfang Zhang, Heqing Huang, Sencun Zhu, Dinghao Wu, and Peng Liu. ViewDroid: Towards Obfuscation-Resilient Mobile Application Repackaging Detection. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on Security and Privacy in Wireless & Mobile Networks (WiSec'14), 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Zhiyong Shan, Iulian Neamtiu, and Raina Samuel. Self-Hiding Behavior in Android Apps: Detection and Characterization. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'18), 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Steven Arzt, Siegfried Rasthofer, Christian Fritz, Eric Bodden, Alexandre Bartel, Jacques Klein, Yves Le Traon, Damien Octeau, and Patrick McDaniel. FlowDroid: Precise Context, Flow, Field, Object-sensitive and Lifecycle-aware Taint Analysis for Android Apps. In Proceedings of the 35th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI'14), 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Antiy AVL Mobile Security. Guarding the Security of Mobile Intelligence Era. https://www.avlsec.com/en/home, [online].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Jim Smith and Ravi Nair. Virtual Machines: Versatile Platforms for Systems and Processes (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Computer Architecture and Design). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. VMware. VMware Workstation. https://www.vmware.com/, [online].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Fabrice Bellard. QEMU, a Fast and Portable Dynamic Translator. In Proceedings of the 2005 Annual Conference on USENIX Annual Technical Conference (ATC'05), 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Michael Backes, Sven Bugiel, Christian Hammer, Oliver Schranz, and Philipp von Styp-Rekowsky. Boxify: Full-fledged App Sandboxing for Stock Android. In Proceedings of the 24th USENIX Conference on Security Symposium (USENIX Security'15), 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Antonio Bianchi, Yanick Fratantonio, Christopher Kruegel, and Giovanni Vigna. NJAS: Sandboxing Unmodified Applications in non-rooted Devices Running stock Android. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM CCS Workshop on Security and Privacy in Smartphones and Mobile Devices (SPSM'15), 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Chaoting Xuan, Gong Chen, and Erich Stuntebeck. DroidPill: Pwn Your Daily-Use Apps. In Proceedings of the 12nd ACM ASIA Conference on Computer and Communications Security (ASIACCS'17), 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Thi Van Anh Pham, Italo Ivan Dacosta Petrocelli, Eleonora Losiouk, John Stephan, Kévin Huguenin, and Jean-Pierre Hubaux. HideMyApp: Hiding the Presence of Sensitive Apps on Android. In Proceedings of the 28th USENIX Conference on Security Symposium (USENIX Security'19), 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Sebastian Poeplau, Yanick Fratantonio, Antonio Bianchi, Christopher Kruegel, and Giovanni Vigna. Execute This! Analyzing Unsafe and Malicious Dynamic Code Loading in Android Applications. In Proceedings of the 21th Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS'14), 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhengyang Qu, Shahid Alam, Yan Chen, Xiaoyong Zhou, Wangjun Hong, and Ryan Riley. DyDroid: Measuring Dynamic Code Loading and Its Security Implications in Android Applications. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN'17), 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Pew Research Center. An Analysis of Android App Permissions. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/11/10/an-analysis-of-android-app-permissions/, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Jianjun Huang, Xiangyu Zhang, Lin Tan, Peng Wang, and Bin Liang. AsDroid: Detecting Stealthy Behaviors in Android Applications by User Interface and Program Behavior Contradiction. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'14), 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Mohsin Junaid, Jiang Ming, and David Kung. StateDroid: Stateful Detection of Stealthy Attacks in Android Apps via Horn-Clause Verification. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC'18), 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Google. Intents and Intent Filters. https://developer.android.com/guide/components/intents-filters, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Android AAPT. https://androidaapt.com/, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Android dexdump. http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/xenial/man1/dexdump.1.html, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Chris Chao-Chun Cheng, Chen Shi, Neil Zhenqiang Gong, and Yong Guan. EviHunter: Identifying Digital Evidence in the Permanent Storage of Android Devices via Static Analysis. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS'18), 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Google. Google Developer Content Policy. https://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Swati Khandelwal. Nasty Android Malware that Infected Millions Returns to Google Play Store. https://thehackernews.com/2017/01/hummingbad-android-malware.html, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Rafia Shaikh. Chinese Ad Company That Turned Out to Be a Cyber Crime Group Is Back with "a Whale of a Tale". https://wccftech.com/hummingwhale-android-malware/, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Cong Zheng, Wenjun Hu, and Zhi Xu. A New Trend in Android Adware: Abusing Android Plugin Frameworks. https://researchcenter.paloaltonetworks.com/2017/03/unit42-new-trend-android-adware-abusing-android-plugin-frameworks/, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Aswathi B.L. Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy and the relationship between them. http://www.lifenscience.com/bioinformatics/sensitivity-specificity-accuracy-and, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Joe. Java Clone, Shallow Copy and Deep Copy. https://javapapers.com/core-java/java-clone-shallow-copy-and-deep-copy/, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Google. SafetyNet Attestation API. https://developer.android.com/training/safetynet/attestation, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Lei Xue, Xiapu Luo, Le Yu, Shuai Wang, and Dinghao Wu. Adaptive Unpacking of Android Apps. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'17), 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Yue Duan, Mu Zhang, Abhishek Vasisht Bhaskar, Heng Yin, Xiaorui Pan, Tongxin Li, Xueqiang Wang, and XiaoFeng Wang. Things You May Not Know About Android (Un) Packers: A Systematic Study based on Whole-System Emulation. In Proceedings of the 25th Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS'18), 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Yueqian Zhang, Xiapu Luo, and Haoyang Yin. DexHunter: Toward Extracting Hidden Code from Packed Android Applications. In Proceedings of the 20th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS'15), 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Shengqu Xi, Shao Yang, Xusheng Xiao, Yuan Yao, Yayuan Xiong, Fengyuan Xu, Haoyu Wang, Peng Gao, Zhuotao Liu, Feng Xu, and Jian Lu. DeepIntent: Deep Icon-Behavior Learning for Detecting Intention-Behavior Discrepancy in Mobile Apps. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS'19), 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. rovo89. Xposed Module Repository. https://repo.xposed.info/, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Avast Threat Intelligence Team. Malware posing as dual instance app steals users' Twitter credentials. https://blog.avast.com/malware-posing-as-dual-instance-app-steals-users-twitter-credentials, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. VAHunt: Warding Off New Repackaged Android Malware in App-Virtualization's Clothing

    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
      CCS '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
      October 2020
      2180 pages
      ISBN:9781450370899
      DOI:10.1145/3372297

      Copyright © 2020 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: 2 November 2020

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,261of6,999submissions,18%

      Upcoming Conference

      CCS '24
      ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
      October 14 - 18, 2024
      Salt Lake City , UT , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader