MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412404454 · doi:10.1109/tifs.2025.3589008

FOADA: Toward Robust Open-World Mobile App Fingerprinting

2025· article· en· W4412404454 on OpenAlexaff
Jiajun Gong, Guotao Meng, Siyuan Liang, Tao Wang, Ee‐Chien Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smartphone users are susceptible to a privacy leakage attack called App Fingerprinting (AF), where traffic analysis is used to infer the apps in use. Despite packet encryption, AF attacks leverage packet size and timing information to identify apps, posing a privacy threat. However, existing attacks fail when a few apps are used concurrently, causing unsegmented traffic with app multiplexing and overlapping. The key reason is that they cannot accurately identify active time boundaries for the apps. This paper presents a novel AF attack, FOADA, the first to accurately predict both the location and label of a target app in traffic. FOADA approaches AF as an object detection problem, training a deep learning model to estimate boundary positions and classify traffic segments. Accurate boundary predictions help the model focus on the most relevant traffic segment, enhancing its classification performance. FOADA excels in handling noisy app traffic. With app multiplexing, it achieves an F1-score of 0.96 for predicting only app labels and an F1-score of 0.92 for predicting both app labels and their locations. FOADA surpasses the state-of-the-art attack PacketPrint, which achieves F1-scores of 0.80 and 0.48 in these two scenarios, respectively. The inference time of FOADA is 2,000 times faster than PacketPrint.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.817

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and SecuritySame topicUser Authentication and Security SystemsFrench-language works237,207