Eight Years of Rider Measurement in the Android Malware Ecosystem: Evolution and Lessons Learned
January 24, 2018 Β· Declared Dead Β· π IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Guillermo Suarez-Tangil, Gianluca Stringhini
arXiv ID
1801.08115
Category
cs.CR: Cryptography & Security
Citations
72
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing
Last Checked
5 months ago
Abstract
Despite the growing threat posed by Android malware, the research community is still lacking a comprehensive view of common behaviors and trends exposed by malware families active on the platform. Without such view, the researchers incur the risk of developing systems that only detect outdated threats, missing the most recent ones. In this paper, we conduct the largest measurement of Android malware behavior to date, analyzing over 1.2 million malware samples that belong to 1.2K families over a period of eight years (from 2010 to 2017). We aim at understanding how the behavior of Android malware has evolved over time, focusing on repackaging malware. In this type of threats different innocuous apps are piggybacked with a malicious payload (rider), allowing inexpensive malware manufacturing. One of the main challenges posed when studying repackaged malware is slicing the app to split benign components apart from the malicious ones. To address this problem, we use differential analysis to isolate software components that are irrelevant to the campaign and study the behavior of malicious riders alone. Our analysis framework relies on collective repositories and recent advances on the systematization of intelligence extracted from multiple anti-virus vendors. We find that since its infancy in 2010, the Android malware ecosystem has changed significantly, both in the type of malicious activity performed by the malicious samples and in the level of obfuscation used by malware to avoid detection. We then show that our framework can aid analysts who attempt to study unknown malware families. Finally, we discuss what our findings mean for Android malware detection research, highlighting areas that need further attention by the research community.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Cryptography & Security
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
The Limitations of Deep Learning in Adversarial Settings
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Distillation as a Defense to Adversarial Perturbations against Deep Neural Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Spectre Attacks: Exploiting Speculative Execution
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
How To Backdoor Federated Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Evasion Attacks against Machine Learning at Test Time
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted