2012
DOI: 10.21236/ada579929
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modeling and Enhancing Android's Permission System

Abstract: Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Several works have recently shown that Android's security architecture cannot prevent many undesired behaviors that compromise the integrity of applications and the privacy of their data. This paper makes two main contributions t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similarly, prior work has also focused on benign but vulnerable Android applications, and proposed techniques to detect or fix vulnerabilities such as cryptographic API misuse API [30,34,35,97] or unprotected application interfaces [16,37,57]. Moreover, these techniques have often been deployed as modifications to Android's permission enforcement [12,13,17,26,32,33,37,40,45,77,83,85,93,96,112], SDK tools [7,36,104], or inline reference monitors [9,10,18,52,105]. While this paper demonstrates the evaluation of only a small subset of these tools with SE, our experiments demonstrate that SE has the potential to impact nearly all of them.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, prior work has also focused on benign but vulnerable Android applications, and proposed techniques to detect or fix vulnerabilities such as cryptographic API misuse API [30,34,35,97] or unprotected application interfaces [16,37,57]. Moreover, these techniques have often been deployed as modifications to Android's permission enforcement [12,13,17,26,32,33,37,40,45,77,83,85,93,96,112], SDK tools [7,36,104], or inline reference monitors [9,10,18,52,105]. While this paper demonstrates the evaluation of only a small subset of these tools with SE, our experiments demonstrate that SE has the potential to impact nearly all of them.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Privilege escalation attacks have been extensively studied in the context of Android applications, starting with [12,29]. Fragkaki et al formalized protection against privilege escalation in Android applications as a noninterference property, which is then enforced by a dynamic reference monitor [14]. Bugliesi et al presented a stronger security notion and discussed a static type system for Android applications, which provably enforces protection against privilege escalation [8].…”
Section: Contributionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our approach has been implemented and a working prototype, called Safe Component Provider (SCP), is publicly available 11 . The prototype includes two elements: SCPcore and SCPlib.…”
Section: A Prototypementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [12], authors propose a set of fine-grained permissions 14 www.smartcampuslab.it and present RefineDroid, a tool that automatically infers them from apps by means of static analysis techniques. Also the authors of [11] propose a refinement of the existing Android permissions. In particular, they focus on a subset of critical permissions and analyse the most common pattern involving them.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%