Difuzer: Uncovering Suspicious Hidden Sensitive Operations in Android Apps

in 44th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2022) (2022, May 21)

One prominent tactic used to keep malicious behavior from being detected during dynamic test campaigns is logic bombs, where malicious operations are triggered only when specific conditions are satisfied ... [more ▼]

One prominent tactic used to keep malicious behavior from being detected during dynamic test campaigns is logic bombs, where malicious operations are triggered only when specific conditions are satisfied. Defusing logic bombs remains an unsolved problem in the literature. In this work, we propose to investigate Suspicious Hidden Sensitive Operations (SHSOs) as a step towards triaging logic bombs. To that end, we develop a novel hybrid approach that combines static analysis and anomaly detection techniques to uncover SHSOs, which we predict as likely implementations of logic bombs. Concretely, Difuzer identifies SHSO entry-points using an instrumentation engine and an inter-procedural data-flow analysis. Then, it extracts trigger-specific features to characterize SHSOs and leverages One-Class SVM to implement an unsupervised learning model for detecting abnormal triggers. We evaluate our prototype and show that it yields a precision of 99.02% to detect SHSOs among which 29.7% are logic bombs. Difuzer outperforms the state-of-the-art in revealing more logic bombs while yielding less false positives in about one order of magnitude less time. All our artifacts are released to the community. [less ▲]

A Deep Dive inside DREBIN: An Explorative Analysis beyond Android Malware Detection Scores

in ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security (2022), 25(2),

Machine learning (ML) advances have been extensively explored for implementing large-scale malware detection. When reported in the literature, performance evaluation of ML-based detectors generally ... [more ▼]

Machine learning (ML) advances have been extensively explored for implementing large-scale malware detection. When reported in the literature, performance evaluation of ML-based detectors generally focuses on highlighting the ratio of samples that are correctly or incorrectly classified, overlooking essential questions on why/how the learned models can be demonstrated as reliable. In the Android ecosystem, several recent studies have highlighted how evaluation setups can carry biases related to datasets or evaluation methodologies. Nevertheless, there is little work attempting to dissect the produced model to provide some understanding of its intrinsic characteristics. In this work, we fill this gap by performing a comprehensive analysis of a state-of-the-art Android Malware detector, namely DREBIN, which constitutes today a key reference in the literature. Our study mainly targets an in-depth understanding of the classifier characteristics in terms of (1) which features actually matter among the hundreds of thousands that DREBIN extracts, (2) whether the high scores of the classifier are dependent on the dataset age, (3) whether DREBIN's explanations are consistent within malware families, etc. Overall, our tentative analysis provides insights into the discriminatory power of the feature set used by DREBIN to detect malware. We expect our findings to bring about a systematisation of knowledge for the community. [less ▲]

ANCHOR: locating android framework-specific crashing faults

in Automated Software Engineering (2021)

Android framework-specific app crashes are hard to debug. Indeed, the callback-based event-driven mechanism of Android challenges crash localization techniques that are developed for traditional Java ... [more ▼]

Android framework-specific app crashes are hard to debug. Indeed, the callback-based event-driven mechanism of Android challenges crash localization techniques that are developed for traditional Java programs. The key challenge stems from the fact that the buggy code location may not even be listed within the stack trace. For example, our empirical study on 500 framework-specific crashes from an open benchmark has revealed that 37 percent of the crash types are related to bugs that are outside the stack traces. Moreover, Android programs are a mixture of code and extra-code artifacts such as the Manifest file. The fact that any artifact can lead to failures in the app execution creates the need to position the localization target beyond the code realm. In this paper, we propose Anchor, a two-phase suspicious bug location suggestion tool. Anchor specializes in finding crash-inducing bugs outside the stack trace. Anchor is lightweight and source code independent since it only requires the crash message and the apk file to locate the fault. Experimental results, collected via cross-validation and in-the- wild dataset evaluation, show that Anchor is effective in locating Android framework-specific crashing faults. [less ▲]

Revisiting Test Cases to Boost Generate-and-Validate Program Repair

in IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME) (2021, September)

On the Impact of Sample Duplication in Machine Learning based Android Malware Detection

in ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (2021), 30(3), 1-38

A Journey Through Android App Analysis: Solutions and Open Challenges

in International Symposium on Advanced Security on Software and Systems (2021, June)

Users can today download a wide variety of apps ranging from simple toy games to sophisticated business-critical apps. They rely on these apps daily to perform diverse tasks, some of them related to ... [more ▼]

Users can today download a wide variety of apps ranging from simple toy games to sophisticated business-critical apps. They rely on these apps daily to perform diverse tasks, some of them related to sensitive information such as their finance or health. Ensuring high-quality, reliable, and secure apps is thus key. In the TruX research group of the interdisciplinary center for Security, Reliability, and Trust (SnT) of the University of Luxembourg, we are working for about 10 years to deliver practical techniques, tools, and other artifacts (such as repositories) making the analysis of Android apps possible. In this paper, we will briefly introduce our key contributions in both (1) Android app static analysis to detect security issues, and (2) Android Malware Detection with machine learning. We will conclude by listing several open challenges that we are currently facing towards improving the analysis and security of Android apps. [less ▲]

RAICC: Revealing Atypical Inter-Component Communication in Android Apps

in 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) (2021, May)

Inter-Component Communication (ICC) is a key mechanism in Android. It enables developers to compose rich functionalities and explore reuse within and across apps. Unfortunately, as reported by a large ... [more ▼]

Inter-Component Communication (ICC) is a key mechanism in Android. It enables developers to compose rich functionalities and explore reuse within and across apps. Unfortunately, as reported by a large body of literature, ICC is rather "complex and largely unconstrained", leaving room to a lack of precision in apps modeling. To address the challenge of tracking ICCs within apps, state of the art static approaches such as Epicc, IccTA and Amandroid have focused on the documented framework ICC methods (e.g., startActivity) to build their approaches. In this work we show that ICC models inferred in these state of the art tools may actually be incomplete: the framework provides other atypical ways of performing ICCs. To address this limitation in the state of the art, we propose RAICC a static approach for modeling new ICC links and thus boosting previous analysis tasks such as ICC vulnerability detection, privacy leaks detection, malware detection, etc. We have evaluated RAICC on 20 benchmark apps, demonstrating that it improves the precision and recall of uncovered leaks in state of the art tools. We have also performed a large empirical investigation showing that Atypical ICC methods are largely used in Android apps, although not necessarily for data transfer. We also show that RAICC increases the number of ICC links found by 61.6% on a dataset of real-world malicious apps, and that RAICC enables the detection of new ICC vulnerabilities. [less ▲]

Revisiting the VCCFinder approach for the identification of vulnerability-contributing commits

in Empirical Software Engineering (2021), 26

Detecting vulnerabilities in software is a constant race between development teams and potential attackers. While many static and dynamic approaches have focused on regularly analyzing the software in its ... [more ▼]

Detecting vulnerabilities in software is a constant race between development teams and potential attackers. While many static and dynamic approaches have focused on regularly analyzing the software in its entirety, a recent research direction has focused on the analysis of changes that are applied to the code. VCCFinder is a seminal approach in the literature that builds on machine learning to automatically detect whether an incoming commit will introduce some vulnerabilities. Given the influence of VCCFinder in the literature, we undertake an investigation into its performance as a state-of-the-art system. To that end, we propose to attempt a replication study on the VCCFinder supervised learning approach. The insights of our failure to replicate the results reported in the original publication informed the design of a new approach to identify vulnerability-contributing commits based on a semi-supervised learning technique with an alternate feature set. We provide all artefacts and a clear description of this approach as a new reproducible baseline for advancing research on machine learning-based identification of vulnerability-introducing commits [less ▲]

What You See is What it Means! Semantic Representation Learning of Code based on Visualization

in ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (2021)

Recent successes in training word embeddings for NLP tasks have encouraged a wave of research on representation learning for sourcecode, which builds on similar NLP methods. The overall objective is then ... [more ▼]

Recent successes in training word embeddings for NLP tasks have encouraged a wave of research on representation learning for sourcecode, which builds on similar NLP methods. The overall objective is then to produce code embeddings that capture the maximumof program semantics. State-of-the-art approaches invariably rely on a syntactic representation (i.e., raw lexical tokens, abstractsyntax trees, or intermediate representation tokens) to generate embeddings, which are criticized in the literature as non-robustor non-generalizable. In this work, we investigate a novel embedding approach based on the intuition that source code has visualpatterns of semantics. We further use these patterns to address the outstanding challenge of identifying semantic code clones. Wepropose theWySiWiM(“What You See Is What It Means”) approach where visual representations of source code are fed into powerfulpre-trained image classification neural networks from the field of computer vision to benefit from the practical advantages of transferlearning. We evaluate the proposed embedding approach on the task of vulnerable code prediction in source code and on two variationsof the task of semantic code clone identification: code clone detection (a binary classification problem), and code classification (amulti-classification problem). We show with experiments on the BigCloneBench (Java), Open Judge (C) that although simple, ourWySiWiMapproach performs as effectively as state of the art approaches such as ASTNN or TBCNN. We also showed with datafrom NVD and SARD thatWySiWiMrepresentation can be used to learn a vulnerable code detector with reasonable performance(accuracy∼90%). We further explore the influence of different steps in our approach, such as the choice of visual representations or theclassification algorithm, to eventually discuss the promises and limitations of this research direction. [less ▲]

Where were the repair ingredients for Defects4j bugs?

in Empirical Software Engineering (2021), 26(6), 1--33