The impact of tool configuration spaces on the evaluation of configurable taint analysis for Android
Austin Mordahl, Shiyi Wei
Abstract
The most popular static taint analysis tools for Android allow users to change the underlying analysis algorithms through configuration options. However, the large configuration spaces make it difficult for developers and users alike to understand the full capabilities of these tools, and studies to-date have only focused on individual configurations. In this work, we present the first study that evaluates the configurations in Android taint analysis tools, focusing on the two most popular tools, FlowDroid and DroidSafe. First, we perform a manual code investigation to better understand how configurations are implemented in both tools. We formalize the expected effects of configuration option settings in terms of precision and soundness partial orders which we use to systematically test the configuration space. Second, we create a new dataset of 756 manually classified flows across 18 open-source real-world apps and conduct large-scale experiments on this dataset and micro-benchmarks. We observe that configurations make significant tradeoffs on the performance, precision, and soundness of both tools. The studies to-date would reach different conclusions on the tools' capabilities were they to consider configurations or use real-world datasets. In addition, we study the individual options through a statistical analysis and make actionable recommendations for users to tune the tools to their own ends. Finally, we use the partial orders to test the tool configuration spaces and detect 21 instances where options behaved in unexpected and incorrect ways, demonstrating the need for rigorous testing of configuration spaces. CCS CONCEPTS • Software and its engineering → Automated static analysis; • General and reference → Empirical studies.
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 36a01963-1adb-489d-9e5b-40fa85991e0bCited by top-tier papers6
- Comparison and Evaluation on Static Application Security Testing (SAST) Tools for JavaKaixuan Li, Sen Chen, Lingling Fan, Ruitao Feng et al.FSE 2023 · 43 citations
- ECSTATIC: An Extensible Framework for Testing and Debugging Configurable Static AnalysisAustin Mordahl, Zenong Zhang, Dakota Soles, Shiyi WeiICSE 2023 · 7 citations
- Reducing the Memory Footprint of IFDS-Based Data-Flow Analyses using Fine-Grained Garbage CollectionDongjie He, Yujiang Gui, Yaoqing Gao, Jingling XueISSTA 2023 · 6 citations
- Understanding Industry Perspectives of Static Application Security Testing (SAST) EvaluationYuan Li, Peisen Yao, Kan Yu, Chengpeng Wang et al.FSE 2025 · 1 citation
- Is Call Graph Pruning Really Effective?: An Empirical Re-evaluationMohammad Rafieian, Vlad Birsan, Kunal Katiyar, Dylan Zhong et al.ICSE 2026 · 1 citation
Related papers
- Boosting the Performance of Alias-Aware IFDS Analysis with CFL-Based Environment TransformersHaofeng Li, Chenghang Shi, Jie Lu, Lian Li et al.OOPSLA 2024 · 6 citations
- An Extensive Empirical Study of Nondeterministic Behavior in Static Analysis ToolsMiao Miao, Austin Mordahl, Dakota Soles, Alice Beideck et al.ICSE 2025 · 1 citation
- ViaLin: Path-Aware Dynamic Taint Analysis for AndroidKhaled Ahmed, Yingying Wang, Mieszko Lis, Julia RubinFSE 2023 · 7 citations
- ConfTainter: Static Taint Analysis For Configuration OptionsTeng Wang, Haochen He, Xiaodong Liu, Shanshan Li et al.ASE 2023 · 12 citations
- PacDroid: A Pointer-Analysis-Centric Framework for Security Vulnerabilities in Android AppsMenglong Chen, Tian Tan, Minxue Pan, Yue LiICSE 2025 · 1 citation
