MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320150968 · doi:10.55708/js0201002

CAPEF: Context-Aware Policy Enforcement Framework for Android Applications

2022· article· en· W4320150968 on OpenAlexaff
Saad Inshi, Mahdi Elarbi, Rasel Chowdhury, Hakima Ould‐Slimane, Chamseddine Talhi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Research and Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSecurity and Verification in Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAndroid (operating system)EnforcementAndroid applicationContext (archaeology)HumanitiesComputer scienceEngineeringPolitical scienceComputer securityLibrary scienceArtGeographyOperating systemLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The notion of Context-Awareness of mobile applications is drawing more attention, where many applications need to adapt to physical environments of users and devices, such as location, time, connectivity, resources, etc. While these adaptive features can facilitate better communication and help users to access their information anywhere at any time, this however bring risks caused by the potential loss, misuse, or leak of users’ confidential information. Therefore, a flexible policy-based access control system is needed to monitor critical functions executed by Android applications, especially, those requiring access to user’s sensitive and crucial information. This paper introduces CAPEF, which is a policy specification framework that enforces context-aware inter-app security policies to mitigate privacy leakage across different Android applications. It also, provides an instrumentation framework to effectively enforce different behaviors based on automated context-aware policies to each Android application individually without modifying the underlying platform. Accordingly, the modified applications will be forced to communicate with our centralized policy engine to avoid any malware collusion that occur without the users’ awareness. Experiments conducted on CAPEF shows an effective performance on the size of the enforced application after the instrumentation. The average size added was 705 bytes, which is about 0.063% of the size of the original applications, which is significantly small compared to other existing enforcement approaches. Also, we have denoted that the size and the execution time of the policy increases whenever the policies become more complex.

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 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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering Research and SciencesSame topicSecurity and Verification in ComputingFrench-language works237,207