克隆还是亲戚?:了解类似Android应用的起源

Y. Ishii, Takuya Watanabe, Mitsuaki Akiyama, Tatsuya Mori
{"title":"克隆还是亲戚?:了解类似Android应用的起源","authors":"Y. Ishii, Takuya Watanabe, Mitsuaki Akiyama, Tatsuya Mori","doi":"10.1145/2875475.2875480","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since it is not hard to repackage an Android app, there are many cloned apps, which we call clones in this work. As previous studies have reported, clones are generated for bad purposes by malicious parties, e.g., adding malicious functions, injecting/replacing advertising modules, and piracy. Besides such clones, there are legitimate, similar apps, which we call \"relatives\" in this work. These relatives are not clones but are similar in nature; i.e., they are generated by the same app-building service or by the same developer using a same template. Given these observations, this paper aims to answer the following two research questions: (RQ1) How can we distinguish between clones and relatives? (RQ2) What is the breakdown of clones and relatives in the official and third-party marketplaces? To answer the first research question, we developed a scalable framework called APPraiser that systematically extracts similar apps and classifies them into clones and relatives. We note that our key algorithms, which leverage sparseness of the data, have the time complexity of O(n) in practice. To answer the second research question, we applied the APPraiser framework to the over 1.3 millions of apps collected from official and third-party marketplaces. Our analysis revealed the following findings: In the official marketplace, 79% of similar apps were attributed to relatives while, in the third-party marketplace, 50% of similar apps were attributed to clones. The majority of relatives are apps developed by prolific developers in both marketplaces. We also found that in the third-party market, of the clones that were originally published in the official market, 76% of them are malware.To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that clarified the breakdown of \"similar\" Android apps, and quantified their origins using a huge dataset equivalent to the size of official market.","PeriodicalId":393015,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on International Workshop on Security And Privacy Analytics","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clone or Relative?: Understanding the Origins of Similar Android Apps\",\"authors\":\"Y. Ishii, Takuya Watanabe, Mitsuaki Akiyama, Tatsuya Mori\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2875475.2875480\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since it is not hard to repackage an Android app, there are many cloned apps, which we call clones in this work. As previous studies have reported, clones are generated for bad purposes by malicious parties, e.g., adding malicious functions, injecting/replacing advertising modules, and piracy. Besides such clones, there are legitimate, similar apps, which we call \\\"relatives\\\" in this work. These relatives are not clones but are similar in nature; i.e., they are generated by the same app-building service or by the same developer using a same template. Given these observations, this paper aims to answer the following two research questions: (RQ1) How can we distinguish between clones and relatives? (RQ2) What is the breakdown of clones and relatives in the official and third-party marketplaces? To answer the first research question, we developed a scalable framework called APPraiser that systematically extracts similar apps and classifies them into clones and relatives. We note that our key algorithms, which leverage sparseness of the data, have the time complexity of O(n) in practice. To answer the second research question, we applied the APPraiser framework to the over 1.3 millions of apps collected from official and third-party marketplaces. Our analysis revealed the following findings: In the official marketplace, 79% of similar apps were attributed to relatives while, in the third-party marketplace, 50% of similar apps were attributed to clones. The majority of relatives are apps developed by prolific developers in both marketplaces. We also found that in the third-party market, of the clones that were originally published in the official market, 76% of them are malware.To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that clarified the breakdown of \\\"similar\\\" Android apps, and quantified their origins using a huge dataset equivalent to the size of official market.\",\"PeriodicalId\":393015,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on International Workshop on Security And Privacy Analytics\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on International Workshop on Security And Privacy Analytics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2875475.2875480\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on International Workshop on Security And Privacy Analytics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2875475.2875480","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

因为重新包装Android应用并不难,所以有很多克隆应用,我们称之为克隆。正如之前的研究所报道的那样,克隆是由恶意方出于不良目的而产生的,例如添加恶意功能,注入/替换广告模块以及盗版。除了这样的克隆,还有合法的,类似的应用程序,我们称之为“亲戚”。这些近亲不是克隆的,而是性质相似的;也就是说,它们是由相同的应用构建服务或由相同的开发人员使用相同的模板生成的。鉴于这些观察结果,本文旨在回答以下两个研究问题:(RQ1)我们如何区分克隆和近亲?(RQ2)在官方和第三方市场中,克隆游戏和同类游戏的细分情况如何?为了回答第一个研究问题,我们开发了一个可扩展的框架,称为“评标者”,它系统地提取类似的应用程序,并将它们分为克隆应用程序和亲缘应用程序。我们注意到,利用数据稀疏性的关键算法在实践中具有O(n)的时间复杂度。为了回答第二个研究问题,我们将评价者框架应用于从官方和第三方市场收集的130多万个应用程序。我们的分析结果如下:在官方市场中,79%的类似应用是由亲戚开发的,而在第三方市场中,50%的类似应用是由克隆产品开发的。大多数亲戚都是由两个市场的多产开发者开发的应用。我们还发现,在第三方市场中,最初在官方市场上发布的克隆产品中,有76%是恶意软件。据我们所知,这是第一个明确“类似”Android应用的细分,并使用相当于官方市场规模的庞大数据集量化它们的来源的工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clone or Relative?: Understanding the Origins of Similar Android Apps
Since it is not hard to repackage an Android app, there are many cloned apps, which we call clones in this work. As previous studies have reported, clones are generated for bad purposes by malicious parties, e.g., adding malicious functions, injecting/replacing advertising modules, and piracy. Besides such clones, there are legitimate, similar apps, which we call "relatives" in this work. These relatives are not clones but are similar in nature; i.e., they are generated by the same app-building service or by the same developer using a same template. Given these observations, this paper aims to answer the following two research questions: (RQ1) How can we distinguish between clones and relatives? (RQ2) What is the breakdown of clones and relatives in the official and third-party marketplaces? To answer the first research question, we developed a scalable framework called APPraiser that systematically extracts similar apps and classifies them into clones and relatives. We note that our key algorithms, which leverage sparseness of the data, have the time complexity of O(n) in practice. To answer the second research question, we applied the APPraiser framework to the over 1.3 millions of apps collected from official and third-party marketplaces. Our analysis revealed the following findings: In the official marketplace, 79% of similar apps were attributed to relatives while, in the third-party marketplace, 50% of similar apps were attributed to clones. The majority of relatives are apps developed by prolific developers in both marketplaces. We also found that in the third-party market, of the clones that were originally published in the official market, 76% of them are malware.To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that clarified the breakdown of "similar" Android apps, and quantified their origins using a huge dataset equivalent to the size of official market.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信