USENIX Security2018Top-tier venue
Discovering Flaws in Security-Focused Static Analysis Tools for Android using Systematic Mutation
Richard Bonett, Kaushal Kafle, Kevin Moran, Adwait Nadkarni, Denys Poshyvanyk
Abstract
Mobile application security has been one of the major areas of security research in the last decade. Numerous application analysis tools have been proposed in response to malicious, curious, or vulnerable apps. However, existing tools, and specifically, static analysis tools, trade soundness of the analysis for precision and performance, and are hence soundy. Unfortunately, the specific unsound choices or flaws in the design of these tools are often not known or well-documented, leading to a misplaced confidence among researchers, developers, and users. This paper proposes the Mutation-based soundness evaluation (µSE) framework, which systematically evaluates Android static analysis tools to discover, document, and fix, flaws, by leveraging the well-founded practice of mutation analysis. We implement µSE as a semi-automated framework, and apply it to a set of prominent Android static analysis tools that detect private data leaks in apps. As the result of an in-depth analysis of one of the major tools, we discover 13 undocumented flaws. More importantly, we discover that all 13 flaws propagate to tools that inherit the flawed tool. We successfully fix one of the flaws in cooperation with the tool developers. Our results motivate the urgent need for systematic discovery and documentation of unsound choices in soundy tools, and demonstrate the opportunities in leveraging mutation testing in achieving this goal.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 0c7e3412-3683-4489-b736-ac82edcb955cCited by top-tier papers11
- How effective are smart contract analysis tools? evaluating smart contract static analysis tools using bug injectionAsem Ghaleb, Karthik PattabiramanISSTA 2020 · 183 citations
- Share First, Ask Later (or Never?) Studying Violations of GDPR's Explicit Consent in Android AppsTrung Tin Nguyen, Michael Backes, Ninja Marnau, Ben StockUSENIX Security 2021 · 70 citations
- "False negative - that one is going to kill you": Understanding Industry Perspectives of Static Analysis based Security TestingAmit Seal Ami, Kevin Moran, Denys Poshyvanyk, Adwait NadkarniS&P 2024 · 40 citations
- Freely Given Consent?: Studying Consent Notice of Third-Party Tracking and Its Violations of GDPR in Android AppsTrung Tin Nguyen, Michael Backes, Ben StockCCS 2022 · 32 citations
- Understanding Open Ports in Android Applications: Discovery, Diagnosis, and Security AssessmentDaoyuan Wu, Debin Gao, Rocky K. C. Chang, En He et al.NDSS 2019 · 25 citations
Builds on2
Related papers
- PacDroid: A Pointer-Analysis-Centric Framework for Security Vulnerabilities in Android AppsMenglong Chen, Tian Tan, Minxue Pan, Yue LiICSE 2025 · 1 citation
- Bringing Balance to the Force: Dynamic Analysis of the Android Application FrameworkAbdallah Dawoud, Sven BugielNDSS 2021
- The impact of tool configuration spaces on the evaluation of configurable taint analysis for AndroidAustin Mordahl, Shiyi WeiISSTA 2021 · 13 citations
- DocFlow: Extracting Taint Specifications from Software DocumentationMarcos Tileria, Jorge Blasco, Santanu Kumar DashICSE 2024 · 5 citations
- Why Crypto-detectors Fail: A Systematic Evaluation of Cryptographic Misuse Detection TechniquesAmit Seal Ami, Nathan Cooper, Kaushal Kafle, Kevin Moran et al.S&P 2022
