An Automated Approach for Privacy Leakage Identification in IoT Apps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a fully automated static analysis approach and a tool, Taint-Things, for the identification of tainted flows in SmartThings IoT apps. Taint-Things accurately identifies all tainted flows reported by one of the state-of-the-art tools with at least 4 times improved performance. Our approach reports potential vulnerable tainted flows in a form of a concise security slice, where the relevant parts of the code are given with the lines affecting the sensitive information, which could provide security auditors with an effective and precise tool to pinpoint security issues in SmartThings apps under test. We also present and test ways to add precision to Taint-Things by adding extra sensitivities; we provide different approaches for flow, path and context sensitive analyses through modules that can be added to Taint-Things. We present experiments to evaluate Taint-Things by running it on a SmartThings app dataset as well as testing for precision and recall on a set generated by a mutation framework to see how much coverage is achieved without adding false positives. This shows an improvement in performance both in terms of speed up to 4 folds, as well as improving the precision avoiding false positives by providing a higher level of flow and path sensitivity analysis in comparison with one of state of the art tools.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".