In-Vivo Bytecode Instrumentation for Improving Privacy on Android Smartphones in Uncertain Environments

In this paper we claim that an efficient and readily applicable means to improve privacy of Android applications is: 1) to perform runtime monitoring by instrumenting the application bytecode and 2) in-vivo, i.e. directly on the smartphone. We present a tool chain to do this and present experimental results showing that this tool chain can run on smartphones in a reasonable amount of time and with a realistic effort. Our findings also identify challenges to be addressed before running powerful runtime monitoring and instrumentations directly on smartphones. We implemented two use-cases leveraging the tool chain: BetterPermissions, a fine-grained user centric permission policy system and AdRemover an advertisement remover. Both prototypes improve the privacy of Android systems thanks to in-vivo bytecode instrumentation.Comment: ISBN: 978-2-87971-111-

Sound and Precise Malware Analysis for Android via Pushdown Reachability and Entry-Point Saturation

We present Anadroid, a static malware analysis framework for Android apps. Anadroid exploits two techniques to soundly raise precision: (1) it uses a pushdown system to precisely model dynamically dispatched interprocedural and exception-driven control-flow; (2) it uses Entry-Point Saturation (EPS) to soundly approximate all possible interleavings of asynchronous entry points in Android applications. (It also integrates static taint-flow analysis and least permissions analysis to expand the class of malicious behaviors which it can catch.) Anadroid provides rich user interface support for human analysts which must ultimately rule on the "maliciousness" of a behavior. To demonstrate the effectiveness of Anadroid's malware analysis, we had teams of analysts analyze a challenge suite of 52 Android applications released as part of the Auto- mated Program Analysis for Cybersecurity (APAC) DARPA program. The first team analyzed the apps using a ver- sion of Anadroid that uses traditional (finite-state-machine-based) control-flow-analysis found in existing malware analysis tools; the second team analyzed the apps using a version of Anadroid that uses our enhanced pushdown-based control-flow-analysis. We measured machine analysis time, human analyst time, and their accuracy in flagging malicious applications. With pushdown analysis, we found statistically significant (p < 0.05) decreases in time: from 85 minutes per app to 35 minutes per app in human plus machine analysis time; and statistically significant (p < 0.05) increases in accuracy with the pushdown-driven analyzer: from 71% correct identification to 95% correct identification.Comment: Appears in 3rd Annual ACM CCS workshop on Security and Privacy in SmartPhones and Mobile Devices (SPSM'13), Berlin, Germany, 201

Automated Test Input Generation for Android: Are We There Yet?

Mobile applications, often simply called "apps", are increasingly widespread, and we use them daily to perform a number of activities. Like all software, apps must be adequately tested to gain confidence that they behave correctly. Therefore, in recent years, researchers and practitioners alike have begun to investigate ways to automate apps testing. In particular, because of Android's open source nature and its large share of the market, a great deal of research has been performed on input generation techniques for apps that run on the Android operating systems. At this point in time, there are in fact a number of such techniques in the literature, which differ in the way they generate inputs, the strategy they use to explore the behavior of the app under test, and the specific heuristics they use. To better understand the strengths and weaknesses of these existing approaches, and get general insight on ways they could be made more effective, in this paper we perform a thorough comparison of the main existing test input generation tools for Android. In our comparison, we evaluate the effectiveness of these tools, and their corresponding techniques, according to four metrics: code coverage, ability to detect faults, ability to work on multiple platforms, and ease of use. Our results provide a clear picture of the state of the art in input generation for Android apps and identify future research directions that, if suitably investigated, could lead to more effective and efficient testing tools for Android