Biblio

Recent research suggests that 88% of Android applications that use Java cryptographic APIs make at least one mistake, which results in an insecure implementation. It is unclear, however, if these mistakes originate from code written by application or third-party library developers. Understanding the responsible party for a misuse case is important for vulnerability disclosure. In this paper, we bridge this knowledge gap and introduce source attribution to the analysis of cryptographic API misuse. We developed BinSight, a static program analyzer that supports source attribution, and we analyzed 132K Android applications collected in years 2012, 2015, and 2016. Our results suggest that third-party libraries are the main source of cryptographic API misuse. In particular, 90% of the violating applications, which contain at least one call-site to Java cryptographic API, originate from libraries. When compared to 2012, we found the use of ECB mode for symmetric ciphers has significantly decreased in 2016, for both application and third-party library code. Unlike application code, however, third-party libraries have significantly increased their reliance on static encryption keys for symmetric ciphers and static IVs for CBC mode ciphers. Finally, we found that the insecure RC4 and DES ciphers were the second and the third most used ciphers in 2016.

The availability of sophisticated source attribution techniques raises new concerns about privacy and anonymity of photographers, activists, and human right defenders who need to stay anonymous while spreading their images and videos. Recently, the use of seam-carving, a content-aware resizing method, has been proposed to anonymize the source camera of images against the well-known photoresponse nonuniformity (PRNU)-based source attribution technique. In this paper, we provide an analysis of the seam-carving-based source camera anonymization method by determining the limits of its performance introducing two adversarial models. Our analysis shows that the effectiveness of the deanonymization attacks depend on various factors that include the parameters of the seam-carving method, strength of the PRNU noise pattern of the camera, and an adversary's ability to identify uncarved image blocks in a seam-carved image. Our results show that, for the general case, there should not be many uncarved blocks larger than the size of 50×50 pixels for successful anonymization of the source camera.