Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/2566486.2568046acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesthewebconfConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The company you keep: mobile malware infection rates and inexpensive risk indicators

Published: 07 April 2014 Publication History

Abstract

There is little information from independent sources in the public domain about mobile malware infection rates. The only previous independent estimate (0.0009%) [11], was based on indirect measurements obtained from domain-name resolution traces. In this paper, we present the first independent study of malware infection rates and associated risk factors using data collected directly from over 55,000 Android devices. We find that the malware infection rates in Android devices estimated using two malware datasets (0.28% and 0.26%), though small, are significantly higher than the previous independent estimate. Based on the hypothesis that some application stores have a greater density of malicious applications and that advertising within applications and cross-promotional deals may act as infection vectors, we investigate whether the set of applications used on a device can serve as an indicator for infection of that device. Our analysis indicates that, while not an accurate indicator of infection by itself, the application set does serve as an inexpensive method for identifying the pool of devices on which more expensive monitoring and analysis mechanisms should be deployed. Using our two malware datasets we show that this indicator performs up to about five times better at identifying infected devices than the baseline of random checks. Such indicators can be used, for example, in the search for new or previously undetected malware. It is therefore a technique that can complement standard malware scanning. Our analysis also demonstrates a marginally significant difference in battery use between infected and clean devices.

References

[1]
D. Barrera, J. Clark, D. McCarney, and P. C. van Oorschot. Understanding and improving app installation security mechanisms through empirical analysis of android. In Proc. the second ACM workshop on Security and privacy in smartphones and mobile devices, SPSM'12, pages 81--92. ACM, 2012.
[2]
I. Burguera, U. Zurutuza, and S. Nadjm-Tehrani. Crowdroid: behavior-based malware detection system for android. In Proc. the 1st ACM workshop on Security and privacy in smartphones and mobile devices, pages 15--26. ACM, 2011.
[3]
M. Chandramohan and H. B. K. Tan. Detection of mobile malware in the wild. Computer, 45(9):65--71, 2012.
[4]
P. H. Chia, Y. Yamamoto, and N. Asokan. Is this app safe?: a large scale study on application permissions and risk signals. In Proc. the 21st international conference on World Wide Web, WWW '12, pages 311--320. ACM, 2012.
[5]
Damballa Labs. Damballa threat report -- first half 2011. Technical report, 2011. https://www.damballa.com/downloads/r_pubs/Damballa_Threat_Report-First_Half_2011.pdf.
[6]
A. P. Felt, M. Finifter, E. Chin, S. Hanna, and D. Wagner. A survey of mobile malware in the wild. In Proc. the 1st ACM workshop on Security and privacy in smartphones and mobile devices, SPSM'11, pages 3--14. ACM, 2011.
[7]
J. Hoffmann, S. Neumann, and T. Holz. Mobile malware detection based on energy fingerprints - a dead end? In RAID, 2013.
[8]
H. Kim, J. Smith, and K. G. Shin. Detecting energy-greedy anomalies and mobile malware variants. In Proc. the 6th international conference on Mobile systems, applications, and services, MobiSys '08, pages 239--252. ACM, 2008.
[9]
K. Kostiainen, E. Reshetova, J.-E. Ekberg, and N. Asokan. Old, new, borrowed, blue: a perspective on the evolution of mobile platform security architectures. In First ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy, pages 13--24. ACM, 2011.
[10]
B. Krebs. Mobile Malcoders Pay to Google Play, Mar. 2013. http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/03/mobile-malcoders-pay-to-google-play/.
[11]
C. Lever, M. Antonakakis, B. Reeves, P. Traynor, and W. Lee. The core of the matter: Analyzing malicious traffic in cellular carriers. In Proc. the 2013 Network and Distributed Systems Security Conference (NDSS 2013). Internet Society, 2013.
[12]
Lookout Mobile. 2013 mobile threat predictions, Dec 2012. https://blog.lookout.com/blog/2012/12/13/2013-mobile-threat-predictions/.
[13]
Lookout Mobile. Lookout tours the current world of mobile threats. Lookout blog, June 2013. https://blog.lookout.com/blog/2013/06/05/world-current-of-mobile-threats/.
[14]
R. McGarvey. Threat of the week: Mobile malware, menace or myth? CreditUnion Times, Apr. 2013.
[15]
NQMobile. Mobile malware up 163% in 2012, getting even smarter in 2013. PRNEwsWire, 2013. http://ir.nq.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=243152&p=irol-newsArticle&id=1806588.
[16]
A. J. Oliner, A. P. Iyer, I. Stoica, E. Lagerspetz, and S. Tarkoma. Carat: Collaborative energy diagnosis for mobile devices. In Proc. 11th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, Nov 2013.
[17]
L. Page. Update from the CEO, Mar. 2013. http://googleblog.blogspot.fi/2013/03/update-from-ceo.html.
[18]
A. Pathak, A. Jindal, Y. C. Hu, and S. Midkiff. What is keeping my phone awake? Characterizing and detecting no-sleep energy bugs in smartphone apps. In Mobisys, 2012.
[19]
S. M. Patterson. Contrary to what you've heard, Android is almost impenetrable to malware, Oct 2013. http://qz.com/131436/contrary-to-what-youve-heard-android-is-almost-impenetrable-to-malware/.
[20]
V. Paxson. Bro:\ a system for detecting network intruders in real-time. In Computer Networks, volume 31, 1999.
[21]
G. Portokalidis, P. Homburg, K. Anagnostakis, and H. Bos. Paranoid android: versatile protection for smartphones. In Proc. the 26th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, ACSAC '10, pages 347--356, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
[22]
M. M. Sebring and R. A. Whitehurst. Expert systems in intrusion detection:\ a case study. In National Computer Security Conference, 1988.
[23]
M. Spreitzenbarth, F. Echtler, T. Schrek, F. C. Freiling, and J. Hoffman. MobileSandbox: looking deeper into android applications. In Proc. the 28th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC), 2013.
[24]
C. Sumner and R. Wald. Predicting susceptibility to social bots on twitter. BlackHat US presentation. https://media.blackhat.com/us-13/US-13-Sumner-Predicting-Susceptibility-to-Social-Bots-on-Twitter-Slides.pdf.
[25]
Trend Labs. Trojanized security tool serves as backdoor app, Mar 2011. http://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/trojanized-security-tool-serves-as-backdoor-app/.
[26]
H. T. T. Truong, E. Lagerspetz, P. Nurmi, A. J. Oliner, S. Tarkoma, N. Asokan, and S. Bhattacharya. The Company You Keep: Mobile Malware Infection Rates and Inexpensive Risk Indicators. CoRR, abs/1312.3245, 2013. http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.3245.
[27]
C. Wagner, S. Mitter, C. Körner, and M. Strohmaier. When social bots attack: Modeling susceptibility of users in online social networks. In 2nd workshop on Making Sense of Microposts at WWW2012, 2012.
[28]
L. Yang, V. Ganapathy, and L. Iftode. Enhancing mobile malware detection with social collaboration. In Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT), IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom), pages 572--576, 2011.
[29]
Y. Zhou and X. Jiang. Dissecting android malware: Characterization and evolution. In 2012 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pages 95--109, 2012.
[30]
Y. Zhou, Z. Wang, W. Zhou, and X. Jiang. Hey, you, get off of my market: Detecting malicious apps in official and alternative android markets. In Proc. the 2012 Network and Distributed Systems Security Conference (NDSS 2012), Feb. 2012.

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)An Improved Binary Owl Feature Selection in the Context of Android Malware DetectionComputers10.3390/computers1112017311:12(173)Online publication date: 30-Nov-2022
  • (2020)A Data-driven Characterization of Modern Android SpywareACM Transactions on Management Information Systems10.1145/338215811:1(1-38)Online publication date: 10-Apr-2020
  • (2020)EC2: Ensemble Clustering and Classification for Predicting Android Malware FamiliesIEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing10.1109/TDSC.2017.273914517:2(262-277)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2020
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. The company you keep: mobile malware infection rates and inexpensive risk indicators

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      WWW '14: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide web
      April 2014
      926 pages
      ISBN:9781450327442
      DOI:10.1145/2566486

      Sponsors

      • IW3C2: International World Wide Web Conference Committee

      In-Cooperation

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 07 April 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. android
      2. infection rate
      3. malware detection
      4. mobile malware

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Funding Sources

      Conference

      WWW '14
      Sponsor:
      • IW3C2

      Acceptance Rates

      WWW '14 Paper Acceptance Rate 84 of 645 submissions, 13%;
      Overall Acceptance Rate 1,899 of 8,196 submissions, 23%

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)12
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
      Reflects downloads up to 14 Feb 2025

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2022)An Improved Binary Owl Feature Selection in the Context of Android Malware DetectionComputers10.3390/computers1112017311:12(173)Online publication date: 30-Nov-2022
      • (2020)A Data-driven Characterization of Modern Android SpywareACM Transactions on Management Information Systems10.1145/338215811:1(1-38)Online publication date: 10-Apr-2020
      • (2020)EC2: Ensemble Clustering and Classification for Predicting Android Malware FamiliesIEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing10.1109/TDSC.2017.273914517:2(262-277)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2020
      • (2019)Exploiting Usage to Predict Instantaneous App PopularityACM Transactions on the Web10.1145/319967713:2(1-25)Online publication date: 2-Apr-2019
      • (2018)Predicting Impending Exposure to Malicious Content from User BehaviorProceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security10.1145/3243734.3243779(1487-1501)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2018
      • (2018)Mining sandboxes: Are we there yet?2018 IEEE 25th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER)10.1109/SANER.2018.8330231(445-455)Online publication date: Mar-2018
      • (2018)Towards Mining Comprehensive Android Sandboxes2018 23rd International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS)10.1109/ICECCS2018.2018.00014(51-60)Online publication date: Dec-2018
      • (2018)An Automated Permission Selection Framework for Android PlatformJournal of Grid Computing10.1007/s10723-018-9455-1Online publication date: 4-Aug-2018
      • (2017)How 1 million app calls can tell you a bit about malwareXRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students10.1145/312377824:1(17-19)Online publication date: 14-Sep-2017
      • (2017)The Evolution of Android Malware and Android Analysis TechniquesACM Computing Surveys10.1145/301742749:4(1-41)Online publication date: 13-Jan-2017
      • Show More Cited By

      View Options

      Login options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Figures

      Tables

      Media

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media