skip to main content
10.1145/2508859.2516676acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

AppIntent: analyzing sensitive data transmission in android for privacy leakage detection

Published:04 November 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Android phones often carry personal information, attracting malicious developers to embed code in Android applications to steal sensitive data. With known techniques in the literature, one may easily determine if sensitive data is being transmitted out of an Android phone. However, transmission of sensitive data in itself does not necessarily indicate privacy leakage; a better indicator may be whether the transmission is by user intention or not. When transmission is not intended by the user, it is more likely a privacy leakage. The problem is how to determine if transmission is user intended. As a first solution in this space, we present a new analysis framework called AppIntent. For each data transmission, AppIntent can efficiently provide a sequence of GUI manipulations corresponding to the sequence of events that lead to the data transmission, thus helping an analyst to determine if the data transmission is user intended or not. The basic idea is to use symbolic execution to generate the aforementioned event sequence, but straightforward symbolic execution proves to be too time-consuming to be practical. A major innovation in AppIntent is to leverage the unique Android execution model to reduce the search space without sacrificing code coverage. We also present an evaluation of AppIntent with a set of 750 malicious apps, as well as 1,000 top free apps from Google Play. The results show that AppIntent can effectively help separate the apps that truly leak user privacy from those that do not.

References

  1. Android instrumentationtestrunner. http://developer.android.com/reference/android/test/InstrumentationTestRunner.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Android intent. http://developer.android.com-/reference/android/content/Intent.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. anzhuoduanxin. http://dx.91.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Appintent demo: Anzhuoduanxin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRqWQk4ztmI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Appintent demo: Tapsnake. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4IvXzpYqzw.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Choco data constraint solver. http://www.emn.fr/z-info/choco-solver/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Google map. http://www.google.com/mobile/maps/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. soot analysis framework. http://www.sable.mcgill.ca/soot/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. S. Anand, M. Naik, H. Yang, and M. J. Harrold. Automated concolic testing of smartphone apps. In Proc. FSE, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. S. Anand, C. S. Pasareanu, and W. Visser. Jpf-se: A symbolic execution extension to java pathfinder. In TACAS 2007, pages 134--138, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. D. Babic, L. Martignoni, S. McCamant, and D. Song. Statically-directed dynamic automated test generation. In Proc. ISSTA, pages 12--22, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. Bartel, J. Klein, Y. Le Traon, and M. Monperrus. Dexpler: converting android dalvik bytecode to jimple for static analysis with soot. In Proc. SOAP, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. P. Bisht, T. Hinrichs, N. Skrupsky, and V. N. Venkatakrishnan. Waptec: whitebox analysis of web applications for parameter tampering exploit construction. In CCS, pages 575--586, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. P. Boonstoppel, C. Cadar, and D. R. Engler. Rwset: Attacking path explosion in constraint-based test generation. In TACAS, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. D. Brumley, J. Newsome, D. Song, H. Wang, and S. Jha. Towards automatic generation of vulnerability signatures. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. C. Cadar, D. Dunbar, and D. R. Engler. Klee: Unassisted and automatic generation of high-coverage tests for complex systems programs. In OSDI, pages 209--224, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. C. Cadar, V. Ganesh, P. M. Pawlowski, D. L. Dill, and D. R. Engler. Exe: automatically generating inputs of death. In CCS, pages 322--335, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. K. Z. Chen, N. Johnson, V. D'Silva, S. Dai, K. MacNamara, T. Magrino, E. X. Wu, M. Rinard, and D. Song. Contextual policy enforcement in android applications with permission event graphs. In Proc. NDSS, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. C. Y. Cho, D. Babic, P. Poosankam, K. Z. Chen, D. Song, and E. X. Wu. Mace: Model-inference-assisted concolic exploration for protocol and vulnerability discovery. In USENIX Security, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. M. Costa, M. Castro, L. Zhou, L. Zhang, and M. Peinado. Bouncer: securing software by blocking bad input. In SOSP, pages 117--130, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. M. Egele, C. Kruegel, E. Kirda, and G. Vigna. Pios: Detecting privacy leaks in ios applications. In NDSS, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 OSDI, pages 1--6, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. W. Enck, D. Octeau, P. McDaniel, and S. Chaudhuri. A Study of Android Application Security. In USENIX Security, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. S. R. Ganov, C. Killmar, S. Khurshid, and D. E. Perry. Test generation for graphical user interfaces based on symbolic execution. In AST, pages 33--40, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. S. R. Ganov, C. Killmar, S. Khurshid, and D. E. Perry. Event listener analysis and symbolic execution for testing gui applications. In ICFEM, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. P. Gilbert, B.-G. Chun, L. P. Cox, and J. Jung. Vision: automated security validation of mobile apps at app markets. In Proc. MCS), 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. P. Godefroid. Compositional dynamic test generation. In POPL, pages 47--54, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. P. Godefroid, N. Klarlund, and K. Sen. Dart: directed automated random testing. In PLDI, pages 213--223, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. M. C. Grace, W. Zhou, X. Jiang, and A.-R. Sadeghi. Unsafe exposure analysis of mobile in-app advertisements. In WiSec, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. 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 CCS, pages 639--652, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. A. Kieyzun, P. J. Guo, K. Jayaraman, and M. D. Ernst. Automatic creation of sql injection and cross-site scripting attacks. In ICSE, pages 199--209, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. L. Lu, V. Yegneswaran, P. Porras, and W. Lee. Blade: an attack-agnostic approach for preventing drive-by malware infections. In Proc. CCS, pages 440--450, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. K.-K. Ma, K. Y. Phang, J. S. Foster, and M. Hicks. Directed symbolic execution. In Proc. SAS, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. D. Molnar, X. C. Li, and D. A. Wagner. Dynamic test generation to find integer bugs in x86 binary linux programs. In USENIX Security, pages 67--82, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. G. Patrice, Y. L. Michael, and A. M. David. Automated whitebox fuzz testing. In NDSS, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. N. Rungta, E. G. Mercer, and W. Visser. Efficient testing of concurrent programs with abstraction-guided symbolic execution. In Proc. SPIN, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. R. Santelices and M. J. Harrold. Exploiting program dependencies for scalable multiple-path symbolic execution. In Proc. ISSTA, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. P. Saxena, D. Akhawe, S. Hanna, F. Mao, S. McCamant, and D. Song. A symbolic execution framework for javascript. Security and Privacy, IEEE Symposium on, 0:513--528, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. K. Sen, D. Marinov, and G. Agha. Cute: a concolic unit testing engine for c. In ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE, pages 263--272, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. O. Tripp, M. Pistoia, S. J. Fink, M. Sridharan, and O. Weisman. Taj: effective taint analysis of web applications. In PLDI, pages 87--97, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. N. Vachharajani, M. J. Bridges, J. Chang, R. Rangan, G. Ottoni, J. A. Blome, G. A. Reis, M. Vachharajani, and D. I. August. Rifle: An architectural framework for user-centric information-flow security. In MICRO, pages 243--254, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. T. Wang, T. Wei, Z. Lin, and W. Zou. Intscope: Automatically detecting integer overflow vulnerability in x86 binary using symbolic execution. In NDSS, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. T. Xie, N. Tillmann, P. de Halleux, and W. Schulte. Fitness-guided path exploration in dynamic symbolic execution. In Proc. DSN, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Y. Zhang, M. Yang, B. Xu, Z. Yang, G. Gu, P. Ning, X. Wang, and B. Zang. Vetting undesirable behaviors in android apps with permission use analysis. In CCS, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. C. Zheng, S. Zhu, S. Dai, G. Gu, X. Gong, and W. Zou. Smartdroid: An automatic system for revealing ui-based trigger conditions in android applications. In Proc. SPSM, October 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Y. Zhou and X. Jiang. Dissecting android malware: Characterization and evolution. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. AppIntent: analyzing sensitive data transmission in android for privacy leakage detection

            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 '13: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC conference on Computer & communications security
              November 2013
              1530 pages
              ISBN:9781450324779
              DOI:10.1145/2508859

              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: 4 November 2013

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              CCS '13 Paper Acceptance Rate105of530submissions,20%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