Examining the relationship between security metrics and user ratings of mobile apps: a case study

Daniel E. Krutz, Nuthan Munaiah, Andrew Meneely, Samuel A. Malachowsky
{"title":"Examining the relationship between security metrics and user ratings of mobile apps: a case study","authors":"Daniel E. Krutz, Nuthan Munaiah, Andrew Meneely, Samuel A. Malachowsky","doi":"10.1145/2993259.2993260","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The success or failure of a mobile application (`app') is largely determined by user ratings. Users frequently make their app choices based on the ratings of apps in comparison with similar, often competing apps. Users also expect apps to continually provide new features while maintaining quality, or the ratings drop. At the same time apps must also be secure, but is there a historical trade-off between security and ratings? Or are app store ratings a more all-encompassing measure of product maturity? We used static analysis tools to collect security-related metrics in 38,466 Android apps from the Google Play store. We compared the rate of an app's permission misuse, number of requested permissions, and Androrisk score, against its user rating. We found that high-rated apps have statistically significantly higher security risk metrics than low-rated apps. However, the correlations are weak. This result supports the conventional wisdom that users are not factoring security risks into their ratings in a meaningful way. This could be due to several reasons including users not placing much emphasis on security, or that the typical user is unable to gauge the security risk level of the apps they use everyday.","PeriodicalId":268579,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the International Workshop on App Market Analytics","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the International Workshop on App Market Analytics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2993259.2993260","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

The success or failure of a mobile application (`app') is largely determined by user ratings. Users frequently make their app choices based on the ratings of apps in comparison with similar, often competing apps. Users also expect apps to continually provide new features while maintaining quality, or the ratings drop. At the same time apps must also be secure, but is there a historical trade-off between security and ratings? Or are app store ratings a more all-encompassing measure of product maturity? We used static analysis tools to collect security-related metrics in 38,466 Android apps from the Google Play store. We compared the rate of an app's permission misuse, number of requested permissions, and Androrisk score, against its user rating. We found that high-rated apps have statistically significantly higher security risk metrics than low-rated apps. However, the correlations are weak. This result supports the conventional wisdom that users are not factoring security risks into their ratings in a meaningful way. This could be due to several reasons including users not placing much emphasis on security, or that the typical user is unable to gauge the security risk level of the apps they use everyday.
检查安全指标与手机应用用户评级之间的关系:一个案例研究
手机应用的成败很大程度上取决于用户评分。用户通常会根据应用与同类应用(通常是竞争应用)的评分来选择应用。用户还希望应用在保持质量的同时不断提供新功能,否则评分会下降。与此同时,应用程序也必须是安全的,但安全性和评级之间是否存在历史权衡?还是说应用商店评级是衡量产品成熟度的一个更全面的指标?我们使用静态分析工具收集来自Google Play商店的38,466款Android应用的安全相关参数。我们比较了应用的权限滥用率、请求权限数量和andrisk评分,以及用户评级。我们发现,高评级应用的安全风险指标在统计上明显高于低评级应用。然而,相关性很弱。这一结果支持了传统观点,即用户没有以有意义的方式将安全风险考虑到他们的评级中。这可能是由于几个原因,包括用户不太重视安全性,或者普通用户无法衡量他们每天使用的应用程序的安全风险水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信