Automatically Detecting Checked-In Secrets in Android Apps: How Far Are We?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobile apps are predominantly integrated with cloud services to benefit from enhanced functionalities. Adopting authentication using secrets such as API keys is crucial to ensure secure mobile-cloud interactions. However, developers often overlook the proper storage of such secrets, opting to put them directly into their projects. These secrets are checked into the projects and can be easily extracted and exploited by malicious adversaries. While many researchers investigated the issue of checked-in secret in open-source projects, there is a notable research gap concerning checked-in secrets in Android apps deployed on platforms such as Google Play Store. Unlike open-source projects, the lack of direct access to the source code and the presence of obfuscation complicates the checked-in secret detection for Android apps. This motivates us to conduct an empirical analysis to measure and compare the performance of different checked-in secret detection tools on Android apps. We first conducted a literature review to find all the checked-in secret detection tools that can be applied to Android apps. Then, we evaluate three representative tools on 5,135 Android apps, comparing their performance and analyzing their limitations. Our experiment reveals 2,142 checked-in secrets affecting 2,115 Android apps. We also disclose that the current checked-in secret detection techniques suffer from key limitations. All of the evaluated tools can miss a significant number of checked-in secrets in Android apps. Nevertheless, we observed that the tools are complimentary, suggesting the possibility of developing a more effective checked-in secret detection tool by combining their insights. Additionally, we propose that analyzing string groups within methods containing checked-in secrets may provide a more effective strategy to overcome obfuscation challenges.
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 | 0.006 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".