Securing Applications against Side-channel Attacks through Resource Access Veto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apps on modern mobile operating systems can access various system resources with, or without, an explicit user permission. Although the OS generally maintains strict separation between apps, an app can still get access to another app’s private information, such as the user input, through numerous side-channels. For example, keystrokes and swipe gestures from a victim app can be inferred indirectly from the accelerometer or gyroscope output, allowing a zero-permission app to learn sensitive inputs such as passwords from the victim’s app. Current mobile OSes allow an app to defend itself in such situations only in some exceptional cases—e.g., by blocking screenshot captures in Android. In this article, we propose a general mechanism for apps to defend themselves from any unwanted implicit or explicit interference from other concurrently running apps. Our AppVeto solution enables an app developer to easily configure an app’s requirements for a safe environment; a foreground app can request the OS to disallow access—i.e., to enable veto powers—to selected side-channel-prone resources to all other running apps for a certain (short) duration, e.g., no access to the accelerometer during password input. In a sense, we enable a finer-grained access control policy than the current runtime permission model. We implement AppVeto on Android using the Xposed framework and Procedure Linkage Table hooking techniques, without changing Android APIs. Furthermore, we show that AppVeto imposes negligible overhead, while being effective against several well-known side-channel attacks—implemented via both Android Java and/or Native APIs.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".