Biblio

We present a scalable dynamic analysis framework that allows for the automatic evaluation of the privacy behaviors of Android apps. We use our system to analyze mobile apps’ compliance with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), one of the few stringent privacy laws in the U.S. Based on our automated analysis of 5,855 of the most popular free children’s apps, we found that a majority are potentially in violation of COPPA, mainly due to their use of thirdparty SDKs. While many of these SDKs offer configuration options to respect COPPA by disabling tracking and behavioral advertising, our data suggest that a majority of apps either do not make use of these options or incorrectly propagate them across mediation SDKs. Worse, we observed that 19% of children’s apps collect identifiers or other personally identifiable information (PII) via SDKs whose terms of service outright prohibit their use in child-directed apps. Finally, we show that efforts by Google to limit tracking through the use of a resettable advertising ID have had little success: of the 3,454 apps that share the resettable ID with advertisers, 66% transmit other, non-resettable, persistent identifiers as well, negating any intended privacy-preserving properties of the advertising ID.

First standardized by the IETF in the 1990's, SSL/TLS is the most widely-used encryption protocol on the Internet. This makes it imperative to study its usage across different platforms and applications to ensure proper usage and robustness against attacks and vulnerabilities. While previous efforts have focused on the usage of TLS in the desktop ecosystem, there have been no studies of TLS usage by mobile apps at scale. In our study, we use anonymized data collected by the Lumen mobile measurement app to analyze TLS usage by Android apps in the wild. We analyze and fingerprint handshake messages to characterize the TLS APIs and libraries that apps use, and evaluate their weaknesses. We find that 84% of apps use the default TLS libraries provided by the operating system, and the remaining apps use other TLS libraries for various reasons such as using TLS extensions and features that are not supported by the Android TLS libraries, some of which are also not standardized by the IETF. Our analysis reveals the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, demonstrating that the path to improving TLS security in the mobile platform is not straightforward. Based on work published at: Abbas Razaghpanah, Arian Akhavan Niaki, Narseo Vallina-Rodriguez, Srikanth Sundaresan, Johanna Amann, and Phillipa Gill. 2017. Studying TLS Usage in Android Apps. In Proceedings of CoNEXT '17. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3143361.3143400

Transport Layer Security (TLS), has become the de-facto standard for secure Internet communication. When used correctly, it provides secure data transfer, but used incorrectly, it can leave users vulnerable to attacks while giving them a false sense of security. Numerous efforts have studied the adoption of TLS (and its predecessor, SSL) and its use in the desktop ecosystem, attacks, and vulnerabilities in both desktop clients and servers. However, there is a dearth of knowledge of how TLS is used in mobile platforms. In this paper we use data collected by Lumen, a mobile measurement platform, to analyze how 7,258 Android apps use TLS in the wild. We analyze and fingerprint handshake messages to characterize the TLS APIs and libraries that apps use, and also evaluate weaknesses. We see that about 84% of apps use default OS APIs for TLS. Many apps use third-party TLS libraries; in some cases they are forced to do so because of restricted Android capabilities. Our analysis shows that both approaches have limitations, and that improving TLS security in mobile is not straightforward. Apps that use their own TLS configurations may have vulnerabilities due to developer inexperience, but apps that use OS defaults are vulnerable to certain attacks if the OS is out of date, even if the apps themselves are up to date. We also study certificate verification, and see low prevalence of security measures such as certificate pinning, even among high-risk apps such as those providing financial services, though we did observe major third-party tracking and advertisement services deploying certificate pinning.