MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884079571 · doi:10.1016/j.diin.2018.04.012

Automated forensic analysis of mobile applications on Android devices

2018· article· en· W2884079571 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Investigation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceAndroid (operating system)Taint checkingDigital forensicsStatic analysisScalabilityMobile deviceBytecodeParsingSQL injectionDatabaseJavaOperating systemWorld Wide WebProgramming languageSearch engine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is not uncommon that mobile phones are involved in criminal activities, e.g., the surreptitious collection of credit card information. Forensic analysis of mobile applications plays a crucial part in order to gather evidences against criminals. However, traditional forensic approaches, which are based on manual investigation, are not scalable to the large number of mobile applications. On the other hand, dynamic analysis is hard to automate due to the burden of setting up the proper runtime environment to accommodate OS differences and dependent libraries and activate all feasible program paths. We propose a fully automated tool, Fordroid for the forensic analysis of mobile applications on Android. Fordroid conducts inter-component static analysis on Android APKs and builds control flow and data dependency graphs. Furthermore, Fordroid identifies what and where information written in local storage with taint analysis. Data is located by traversing the graphs. This addresses several technique challenges, which include inter-component string propagation, string operations (e.g., append) and API invocations. Also, Fordroid identifies how the information is stored by parsing SQL commands, i.e., the structure of database tables. Finally, we selected 100 random Android applications consisting of 2841 components from four categories for evaluation. Analysis of all apps took 64 h. Fordroid discovered 469 paths in 36 applications that wrote sensitive information (e.g., GPS) to local storage. Furthermore, Fordroid successfully located where the information was written for 458 (98%) paths and identified the structure of all (22) database tables.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it