分析分析仪:FlowDroid/IccTA, AmanDroid和DroidSafe

Lina Qiu, Yingying Wang, J. Rubin
{"title":"分析分析仪:FlowDroid/IccTA, AmanDroid和DroidSafe","authors":"Lina Qiu, Yingying Wang, J. Rubin","doi":"10.1145/3213846.3213873","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Numerous static analysis techniques have recently been proposed for identifying information flows in mobile applications. These techniques are compared to each other, usually on a set of syntactic benchmarks. Yet, configurations used for such comparisons are rarely described. Our experience shows that tools are often compared under different setup, rendering the comparisons irreproducible and largely inaccurate. In this paper, we provide a large, controlled, and independent comparison of the three most prominent static analysis tools: FlowDroid combined with IccTA, Amandroid, and DroidSafe. We evaluate all tools using common configuration setup and the same set of benchmark applications. We compare the results of our analysis to the results reported in previous studies, identify main reasons for inaccuracy in existing tools, and provide suggestions for future research.","PeriodicalId":20542,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"83","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analyzing the analyzers: FlowDroid/IccTA, AmanDroid, and DroidSafe\",\"authors\":\"Lina Qiu, Yingying Wang, J. Rubin\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3213846.3213873\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Numerous static analysis techniques have recently been proposed for identifying information flows in mobile applications. These techniques are compared to each other, usually on a set of syntactic benchmarks. Yet, configurations used for such comparisons are rarely described. Our experience shows that tools are often compared under different setup, rendering the comparisons irreproducible and largely inaccurate. In this paper, we provide a large, controlled, and independent comparison of the three most prominent static analysis tools: FlowDroid combined with IccTA, Amandroid, and DroidSafe. We evaluate all tools using common configuration setup and the same set of benchmark applications. We compare the results of our analysis to the results reported in previous studies, identify main reasons for inaccuracy in existing tools, and provide suggestions for future research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20542,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"83\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3213846.3213873\",\"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 27th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3213846.3213873","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 83

摘要

最近提出了许多静态分析技术来识别移动应用程序中的信息流。这些技术通常在一组语法基准上相互比较。然而,用于这种比较的配置很少被描述。我们的经验表明,工具经常在不同的设置下进行比较,导致比较不可复制且很大程度上不准确。在本文中,我们对三种最著名的静态分析工具:FlowDroid与IccTA、Amandroid和DroidSafe进行了大规模、受控和独立的比较。我们使用通用配置设置和同一组基准测试应用程序来评估所有工具。我们将我们的分析结果与以往的研究结果进行比较,找出现有工具不准确的主要原因,并对未来的研究提出建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Analyzing the analyzers: FlowDroid/IccTA, AmanDroid, and DroidSafe
Numerous static analysis techniques have recently been proposed for identifying information flows in mobile applications. These techniques are compared to each other, usually on a set of syntactic benchmarks. Yet, configurations used for such comparisons are rarely described. Our experience shows that tools are often compared under different setup, rendering the comparisons irreproducible and largely inaccurate. In this paper, we provide a large, controlled, and independent comparison of the three most prominent static analysis tools: FlowDroid combined with IccTA, Amandroid, and DroidSafe. We evaluate all tools using common configuration setup and the same set of benchmark applications. We compare the results of our analysis to the results reported in previous studies, identify main reasons for inaccuracy in existing tools, and provide suggestions for future research.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信