Dangerous Skills Got Certified: Measuring the Trustworthiness of Skill Certification in Voice Personal Assistant Platforms

Long Cheng, Christin Wilson, Song Liao, Jeffrey Young, Daniel Dong, Hongxin Hu
{"title":"Dangerous Skills Got Certified: Measuring the Trustworthiness of Skill Certification in Voice Personal Assistant Platforms","authors":"Long Cheng, Christin Wilson, Song Liao, Jeffrey Young, Daniel Dong, Hongxin Hu","doi":"10.1145/3372297.3423339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With the emergence of the voice personal assistant (VPA) ecosystem, third-party developers are allowed to build new voice-apps are called skills in the Amazon Alexa platform and actions in the Google Assistant platform, respectively. For the sake of brevity, we use the term skills to describe voice-apps including Amazon skills and Google actions, unless we need to distinguish them for different VPA platforms. and publish them to the skills store, which greatly extends the functionalities of VPAs. Before a new skill becomes publicly available, that skill must pass a certification process, which verifies that it meets the necessary content and privacy policies. The trustworthiness of skill certification is of significant importance to platform providers, developers, and end users. Yet, little is known about how difficult it is for a policy-violating skill to get certified and published in VPA platforms. In this work, we study the trustworthiness of the skill certification in Amazon Alexa and Google Assistant platforms to answer three key questions: 1) Whether the skill certification process is trustworthy in terms of catching policy violations in third-party skills. 2) Whether there exist policy-violating skills published in their skills stores. 3) What are VPA users' perspectives on the skill certification and their vulnerable usage behavior when interacting with VPA devices? Over a span of 15 months, we crafted and submitted for certification 234 Amazon Alexa skills and 381 Google Assistant actions that intentionally violate content and privacy policies specified by VPA platforms. Surprisingly, we successfully got 234 (100%) policy-violating Alexa skills certified and 148 (39%) policy-violating Google actions certified. Our analysis demonstrates that policy-violating skills exist in the current skills stores, and thus users (children, in particular) are at risk when using VPA services. We conducted a user study with 203 participants to understand users' misplaced trust on VPA platforms. Unfortunately, user expectations are not being met by the skill certification in leading VPA platforms.","PeriodicalId":20481,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"43","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3372297.3423339","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 43

Abstract

With the emergence of the voice personal assistant (VPA) ecosystem, third-party developers are allowed to build new voice-apps are called skills in the Amazon Alexa platform and actions in the Google Assistant platform, respectively. For the sake of brevity, we use the term skills to describe voice-apps including Amazon skills and Google actions, unless we need to distinguish them for different VPA platforms. and publish them to the skills store, which greatly extends the functionalities of VPAs. Before a new skill becomes publicly available, that skill must pass a certification process, which verifies that it meets the necessary content and privacy policies. The trustworthiness of skill certification is of significant importance to platform providers, developers, and end users. Yet, little is known about how difficult it is for a policy-violating skill to get certified and published in VPA platforms. In this work, we study the trustworthiness of the skill certification in Amazon Alexa and Google Assistant platforms to answer three key questions: 1) Whether the skill certification process is trustworthy in terms of catching policy violations in third-party skills. 2) Whether there exist policy-violating skills published in their skills stores. 3) What are VPA users' perspectives on the skill certification and their vulnerable usage behavior when interacting with VPA devices? Over a span of 15 months, we crafted and submitted for certification 234 Amazon Alexa skills and 381 Google Assistant actions that intentionally violate content and privacy policies specified by VPA platforms. Surprisingly, we successfully got 234 (100%) policy-violating Alexa skills certified and 148 (39%) policy-violating Google actions certified. Our analysis demonstrates that policy-violating skills exist in the current skills stores, and thus users (children, in particular) are at risk when using VPA services. We conducted a user study with 203 participants to understand users' misplaced trust on VPA platforms. Unfortunately, user expectations are not being met by the skill certification in leading VPA platforms.
危险技能认证:衡量语音个人助理平台技能认证的可信度
随着语音个人助理(VPA)生态系统的出现,第三方开发者可以创建新的语音应用,在亚马逊Alexa平台中称为技能,在谷歌assistant平台中称为动作。为简洁起见,我们使用“技能”一词来描述语音应用程序,包括Amazon技能和谷歌操作,除非我们需要针对不同的VPA平台区分它们。并将它们发布到技能库,这极大地扩展了vpa的功能。在新技能公开可用之前,该技能必须通过认证过程,该过程验证它是否符合必要的内容和隐私策略。技能认证的可信度对于平台提供商、开发人员和最终用户来说非常重要。然而,对于违反策略的技能获得认证并在VPA平台上发布是多么困难,人们知之甚少。在这项工作中,我们研究了亚马逊Alexa和谷歌Assistant平台的技能认证的可信度,以回答三个关键问题:1)在发现第三方技能违反政策方面,技能认证过程是否值得信赖。2)其技能库中是否存在发布的违反策略的技能。3) VPA用户在与VPA设备交互时,对技能认证的看法和他们的脆弱性使用行为是什么?在15个月的时间里,我们精心设计并提交了234项亚马逊Alexa技能和381项故意违反VPA平台规定的内容和隐私政策的助手操作。令人惊讶的是,我们成功地通过了234个(100%)违反政策的Alexa技能认证和148个(39%)违反政策的b谷歌操作认证。我们的分析表明,当前的技能存储中存在违反策略的技能,因此用户(特别是儿童)在使用VPA服务时处于危险之中。我们对203名参与者进行了一项用户研究,以了解用户对VPA平台的错误信任。不幸的是,领先VPA平台的技能认证并不能满足用户的期望。
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