A Plugin for Cross-Language Static Analysis for Vulnerability Detection in Android Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many applications are being written in more than one language to take advantage of the features that different languages provide such as native code support, improved performance, and language-specific libraries. However, there are few static analysis tools currently available to analyze the source code of such multilingual applications. Existing work on cross-language (Java and C/C++) analysis fails to detect cross-language buffer overflow vulnerabilities. In this work, we are addressing how to do cross-language analysis between Java and C/C++. Specifically, we propose an approach to do data flow analysis between Java and C/C++ to detect buffer overflow. We have developed PilaiPidi, a tool that can automatically analyze the data flow in projects written in Java and C/C++. Using our approach, we were able to detect real-world buffer overflow vulnerabilities, which are of cross-language nature, in six different well-known Android applications, and out of these, developers have confirmed 11 vulnerabilities in three applications. This tool is also integrated as a plugin for JetBrains IDEs, specifically for IntelliJ IDEA and Android Studio, due to its practical usefulness in source code analysis for improving Android application security.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".