skip to main content
10.1145/2660267.2660287acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

AutoCog: Measuring the Description-to-permission Fidelity in Android Applications

Published:03 November 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

The booming popularity of smartphones is partly a result of application markets where users can easily download wide range of third-party applications. However, due to the open nature of markets, especially on Android, there have been several privacy and security concerns with these applications. On Google Play, as with most other markets, users have direct access to natural-language descriptions of those applications, which give an intuitive idea of the functionality including the security-related information of those applications. Google Play also provides the permissions requested by applications to access security and privacy-sensitive APIs on the devices. Users may use such a list to evaluate the risks of using these applications. To best assist the end users, the descriptions should reflect the need for permissions, which we term description-to-permission fidelity. In this paper, we present a system AutoCog to automatically assess description-to-permission fidelity of applications. AutoCog employs state-of-the-art techniques in natural language processing and our own learning-based algorithm to relate description with permissions. In our evaluation, AutoCog outperforms other related work on both performance of detection and ability of generalization over various permissions by a large extent. On an evaluation of eleven permissions, we achieve an average precision of 92.6% and an average recall of 92.0%. Our large-scale measurements over 45,811 applications demonstrate the severity of the problem of low description-to-permission fidelity. AutoCog helps bridge the long-lasting usability gap between security techniques and average users.

References

  1. Android Captures Record 81 Percent Share of Global Smartphone Shipments in Q3 2013. http://blogs.strategyanalytics.com/WSS/post/2013/10/31/Android-Captures-Record-81-Percent-Share-of- Global-Smartphone-Shipments-in-Q3--2013.aspx.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. K. W. Y. Au, Y. F. Zhou, Z. Huang, and D. Lie. Pscout: analyzing the android permission specification. In ACM CCS, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. K. Benton, L. J. Camp, and V. Garg. Studying the effectiveness of android application permissions requests. In IEEE PERCOM Workshops, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. S. Bugiel, L. Davi, A. Dmitrienko, T. Fischer, A.-R. Sadeghi, and B. Shastry. Towards taming privilege-escalation attacks on android. In NDSS Symposium, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. P. H. Chia, Y. Yamamoto, and N. Asokan. Is this app safe?: A large scale study on application permissions and risk signals. In ACM WWW, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. E. Chin, A. P. Felt, K. Greenwood, and D. Wagner. Analyzing inter-application communication in android. In ACM MobiSys, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. M. Dietz, S. Shekhar, Y. Pisetsky, A. Shu, and D. S. Wallach. Quire: Lightweight provenance for smart phone operating systems. In USENIX Security Symposium, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Q. Do, D. Roth, M. Sammons, Y. Tu, and V. Vydiswaran. Robust, light-weight approaches to compute lexical similarity. Computer Science Research and Technical Reports, University of Illinois, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. W. Enck, P. Gilbert, B. Chun, L. Cox, J. Jung, P. McDaniel, and A. Sheth. Taintdroid: An information-flow tracking system for realtime privacy monitoring on smartphones. In USENIX OSDI, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. A. Felt, M. Finifter, E. Chin, S. Hanna, and D. Wagner. A survey of mobile malware in the wild. In ACM SPSM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. A. P. Felt, E. Chin, S. Hanna, D. Song, and D. Wagner. Android permissions demystified. In ACM CCS, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. P. Felt, S. Egelman, and D. Wagner. I've got 99 problems, but vibration ain't one: A survey of smartphone users' concerns. In ACM SPSM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. P. Felt, K. Greenwood, and D. Wagner. The effectiveness of application permissions. In USENIX WebApps, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. A. P. Felt, E. Ha, S. Egelman, A. Haney, E. Chin, and D. Wagner. Android permissions: User attention, comprehension, and behavior. In ACM SOUPS, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. A. P. Felt, H. J. Wang, A. Moshchuk, S. Hanna, and E. Chin. Permission re-delegation: Attacks and defenses. In USENIX Security Symposium, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. E. Gabrilovich and S. Markovitch. Computing semantic relatedness using wikipedia-based explicit semantic analysis. In IJCAI, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. W. Han, Z. Fang, L. T. Yang, G. Pan, and Z. Wu. Collaborative policy administration. IEEE TPDS, 25(2):498{507, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. 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 ACM CCS, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. M. G. Kendall. Rank correlation methods. 1948.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. K. Kennedy, E. Gustafson, and H. Chen. Quantifying the effects of removing permissions from android applications. In IEEE MoST, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. T. Kiss and J. Strunk. Unsupervised multilingual sentence boundary detection. Computational Linguistics, 32(4):485--525, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. C. Lim, N. Singh, and S. Yajnik. A log mining approach to failure analysis of enterprise telephony systems. In IEEE DSN, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. J. Lin, S. Amini, J. I. Hong, N. Sadeh, J. Lindqvist, and J. Zhang. Expectation and purpose: understanding users' mental models of mobile app privacy through crowdsourcing. In ACM Ubicomp, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. R. Mihalcea, C. Corley, and C. Strapparava. Corpus-based and knowledge-based measures of text semantic similarity. In AAAI, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. D. L. Olson and D. Delen. Advanced data mining techniques. Springer, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. R. Pandita, X. Xiao, W. Yang, W. Enck, and T. Xie. Whyper: Towards automating risk assessment of mobile applications. In USENIX Security, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. R. Pandita, X. Xiao, H. Zhong, T. Xie, S. Oney, and A. Paradkar. Inferring method specifications from natural language api descriptions. In IEEE ICSE, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. R. Potharaju, N. Jain, and C. Nita-Rotaru. Juggling the jigsaw: Towards automated problem inference from network trouble tickets. In USENIX NSDI, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. T. Qiu, Z. Ge, D. Pei, J. Wang, and J. Xu. What happened in my network: mining network events from router syslogs. In ACM SIGCOMM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. J. C. Reynar and A. Ratnaparkhi. A maximum entropy approach to identifying sentence boundaries. In Proceedings of the fifth conference on Applied natural language processing, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. R. Socher, J. Bauer, C. D. Manning, and A. Y. Ng. Parsing with compositional vector grammars. In Proceedings of the ACL, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. L. K. Yan and H. Yin. Droidscope: seamlessly reconstructing the os and dalvik semantic views for dynamic android malware analysis. In USENIX Security Symposium, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. 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. In NDSS, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. AutoCog: Measuring the Description-to-permission Fidelity in 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
      CCS '14: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
      November 2014
      1592 pages
      ISBN:9781450329576
      DOI:10.1145/2660267

      Copyright © 2014 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: 3 November 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CCS '14 Paper Acceptance Rate114of585submissions,19%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