Biblio

Self-Adaptive Systems (SAS) are revolutionizing many aspects of our society. From server clusters to autonomous vehicles, SAS are becoming more ubiquitous and essential to our world. Security is frequently a priority for these systems as many SAS conduct mission-critical operations, or work with sensitive information. Fortunately, security is being more recognized as an indispensable aspect of virtually all aspects of computing systems, in all phases of software development. Despite the growing prominence in security, from computing education to vulnerability detection systems, it is just another concern of creating good software. Despite how critical security is, it is a quality attribute like other aspects such as reliability, stability, or adaptability in a SAS.

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.