skip to main content
10.1145/2884781.2884855acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Toward a framework for detecting privacy policy violations in android application code

Published:14 May 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Mobile applications frequently access sensitive personal information to meet user or business requirements. Because such information is sensitive in general, regulators increasingly require mobile-app developers to publish privacy policies that describe what information is collected. Furthermore, regulators have fined companies when these policies are inconsistent with the actual data practices of mobile apps. To help mobile-app developers check their privacy policies against their apps' code for consistency, we propose a semi-automated framework that consists of a policy terminology-API method map that links policy phrases to API methods that produce sensitive information, and information flow analysis to detect misalignments. We present an implementation of our framework based on a privacy-policy-phrase ontology and a collection of mappings from API methods to policy phrases. Our empirical evaluation on 477 top Android apps discovered 341 potential privacy policy violations.

References

  1. FTC report on Credit Karma and Fandango. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/03/fandango-credit-karma-settle-ftc-charges-they-deceived-consumers, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. FTC report on Snapchat. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/06/ftc-testifies-geolocation-privacy, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Developer economics q1 2015: State of the developer nation. https://www.developereconomics.com/reports/developer-economics-q1-2015/, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Permissions. https://developer.android.com/preview/features/runtime-permissions.html, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Smartphone os market share, q1 2015. http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. S. Arzt, S. Rasthofer, C. Fritz, E. Bodden, A. Bartel, J. Klein, Y. Le Traon, D. Octeau, and P. 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, pages 259--269, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. K. W. Y. Au, Y. F. Zhou, Z. Huang, and D. Lie. Pscout: analyzing the android permission specification. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pages 217--228. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. E. Bello-Ogunu and M. Shehab. Permitme: integrating android permissioning support in the ide. In Proceedings of the 2014 Workshop on Eclipse Technology eXchange, pages 15--20. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. J. Bhatia and T. Breaux. Towards an information type lexicon for privacy policies. In 8th IEEE International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Law (RELAW), pages 19--24, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. J. Bradshaw, A. Uszok, R. Jeffers, N. Suri, P. Hayes, M. Burstein, A. Acquisti, B. Benyo, M. Breedy, M. Carvalho, et al. Representation and reasoning for daml-based policy and domain services in kaos and nomads. In Proceedings of the second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pages 835--842. ACM, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. T. Breaux and F. Schaub. Scaling requirements extraction to the crowd: Experiments on privacy policies. In 22nd IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE'14), pages 163--172, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. T. D. Breaux, H. Hibshi, and A. Rao. Eddy, a formal language for specifying and analyzing data flow specifications for conflicting privacy requirements. Requirements Engineering, 19(3):281--307, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. H. Chen, F. Perich, T. Finin, and A. Joshi. Soupa: Standard ontology for ubiquitous and pervasive applications. In Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Networking and Services, 2004. MOBIQUITOUS 2004. The First Annual International Conference on, pages 258--267. IEEE, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. J. Cohen. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20:37--46, 1960.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. W. Enck, P. Gilbert, B.-G. 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 Proceedings of the 9th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, OSDI'10, pages 1--6, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. A. P. Felt, E. Chin, S. Hanna, D. Song, and D. Wagner. Android permissions demystified. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pages 627--638. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. A. P. Fuchs, A. Chaudhuri, and J. S. Foster. Scandroid: Automated security certification of android applications. Manuscript, Univ. of Maryland, http://www.cs.umd.edu/avik/projects/scandroidascaa, 2(3), 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. F. L. Gandon and N. M. Sadeh. Semantic web technologies to reconcile privacy and context awareness. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 1(3):241--260, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. J. Godfrey and C. Bernard. State of the app economy 2014. 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. M. Grüninger and M. S. Fox. Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies. 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. K. D. Harris. Privacy on the Go: Recommendations for the Mobile Ecosystem. 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. L. Kagal, T. Finin, M. Paolucci, N. Srinivasan, K. Sycara, and G. Denker. Authorization and privacy for semantic web services. Intelligent Systems, IEEE, 19(4):50--56, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. P. G. Kelley, L. F. Cranor, and N. Sadeh. Privacy as part of the app decision-making process. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 3393--3402. ACM, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. L. Lu, Z. Li, Z. Wu, W. Lee, and G. Jiang. Chex: Statically vetting android apps for component hijacking vulnerabilities. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 229--240, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. C. D. Manning, P. Raghavan, H. Schütze, et al. Introduction to information retrieval, volume 1. Cambridge university press Cambridge, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. S. Matsumoto and K. Sakurai. A proposal for the privacy leakage verification tool for android application developers. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication, page 54. ACM, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. S. Papadopoulos and A. Popescu. Privacy awareness and user empowerment in online social networking settings. http://www.computer.org/web/computingnow/archive/january2015, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. G. Petronella. Analyzing Privacy of Android Apps. PhD thesis, Politecnico di Milano, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. S. Rasthofer, S. Arzt, and E. Bodden. A machine-learning approach for classifying and categorizing android sources and sinks. In 2014 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS), 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. J. R. Reidenberg, J. Bhatia, T. D. Breaux, and T. B. Norton. Automated comparisons of ambiguity in privacy policies and the impact of regulation. Journal of Legal Studies, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. J. R. Reidenberg, T. Breaux, L. F. Cranor, B. French, A. Grannis, J. T. Graves, F. Liu, A. M. McDonald, T. B. Norton, R. Ramanath, et al. Disagreeable privacy policies: Mismatches between meaning and usersŠ understanding. 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. M. Rowan and J. Dehlinger. Encouraging privacy by design concepts with privacy policy auto-generation in eclipse (page). In Proceedings of the 2014 Workshop on Eclipse Technology eXchange, pages 9--14. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. J. Saldana. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. SAGE Publications, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. K. Tam, S. J. Khan, A. Fattori, and L. Cavallaro. Copperdroid: Automatic reconstruction of android malware behaviors. In 22nd Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. A. Uszok, J. M. Bradshaw, J. Lott, M. Breedy, L. Bunch, P. Feltovich, M. Johnson, and H. Jung. New developments in ontology-based policy management: Increasing the practicality and comprehensiveness of kaos. In Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, 2008. POLICY 2008. IEEE Workshop on, pages 145--152. IEEE, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. T. Vidas, N. Christin, and L. Cranor. Curbing android permission creep. In Proceedings of the Web, volume 2, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. S. Wadkar and T. Breaux. Towards an information ontology for personal privacy. Technical report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. T. Warren. Google touts 1 billion active android users per month. http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/25/5841924/google-android-users-1-billion-stats/, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Z. Yang and M. Yang. Leakminer: Detect information leakage on android with static taint analysis. In Proceedings of the 2012 Third World Congress on Software Engineering, pages 101--104, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. R. Yin. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Y. Zhang, M. Yang, B. Xu, Z. Yang, G. Gu, P. Ning, X. S. Wang, and B. Zang. Vetting undesirable behaviors in android apps with permission use analysis. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC conference on Computer & communications security, pages 611--622. ACM, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. L. X. Zhao. Privacy sensitive resource access monitoring for android systems. Master's thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Toward a framework for detecting privacy policy violations in android application code

      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
        ICSE '16: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering
        May 2016
        1235 pages
        ISBN:9781450339001
        DOI:10.1145/2884781

        Copyright © 2016 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: 14 May 2016

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate276of1,856submissions,15%

        Upcoming Conference

        ICSE 2025

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader