Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Eduardo Blázquez

dblp:303/6718 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
0009-0008-0367-4314ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Security and privacy · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Network and information security
2 papers
Web and mobile security · 68% Privacy and data protection · 22% Systems and software security · 10%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Program analysis · 50% Empirical software engineering · 50%

Topics — the 9 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Web and mobile security
mobile security
1.322024
Mules and Permission Laundering in Android: Dissecting Custom Permissions in the Wild · IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 2024
Trouble Over-The-Air: An Analysis of FOTA Apps in the Android Ecosystem · SP 2021
Privacy and data protection
mobile privacy
0.922024
Mules and Permission Laundering in Android: Dissecting Custom Permissions in the Wild · IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 2024
Trouble Over-The-Air: An Analysis of FOTA Apps in the Android Ecosystem · SP 2021
Web and mobile security › mobile security
android permission system
0.812024
Mules and Permission Laundering in Android: Dissecting Custom Permissions in the Wild · IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 2024
Web and mobile security › mobile security
android security
0.812024
Mules and Permission Laundering in Android: Dissecting Custom Permissions in the Wild · IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 2024
Web and mobile security › mobile security
pre-installed app analysis
0.512021
Trouble Over-The-Air: An Analysis of FOTA Apps in the Android Ecosystem · SP 2021
Systems and software security
vulnerability discovery
0.512021
Trouble Over-The-Air: An Analysis of FOTA Apps in the Android Ecosystem · SP 2021
Empirical software engineering › mining software repositories › mobile app analysis
android app analysis
0.212024
Mules and Permission Laundering in Android: Dissecting Custom Permissions in the Wild · IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 2024
Program analysis
static analysis
0.212024
Mules and Permission Laundering in Android: Dissecting Custom Permissions in the Wild · IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 2024
Privacy and data protection
privacy-preserving data analysis
0.112021
Trouble Over-The-Air: An Analysis of FOTA Apps in the Android Ecosystem · SP 2021

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

static analysis · 2.0large-scale empirical study · 1.5telemetry analysis · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Mules and Permission Laundering in Android: Dissecting Custom Permissions in the Wild
abstract
Android implements a permission system to regulate apps' access to system resources and sensitive user data. One salient feature of this system is its extensibility: apps can define their own custom permissions to expose features and data to other apps. However, little is known about how widespread the usage of custom permissions is, and what is the impact that these permissions can have on users' privacy and security. In this paper, we empirically study the usage of custom permissions at large scale, using a dataset of 2.2M pre-installed and app-store-downloaded apps. We find the usage of custom permissions to be widespread, and seemingly growing over time. Despite this prevalence, we find that custom permissions are virtually invisible to end users, and their purpose mostly undocumented. This lack of transparency can lead to serious security and privacy problems: we show that custom permissions can facilitate access to permission-protected system resources to apps that lack those permissions without user awareness. To detect this practice, we design and implement two static analysis tools, and highlight multiple concerning cases spotted in the wild. We conclude this study with a discussion of potential solutions to mitigate the privacy and security risks of custom permissions.
Julien Gamba, Álvaro Feal, Eduardo Blázquez, Vinuri Bandara, Abbas Razaghpanah, Juan Tapiador, Narseo Vallina-Rodriguez
IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput.3
2021 Trouble Over-The-Air: An Analysis of FOTA Apps in the Android Ecosystem
abstract
Android firmware updates are typically managed by the so-called FOTA (Firmware Over-the-Air) apps. Such apps are highly privileged and play a critical role in maintaining devices secured and updated. The Android operating system offers standard mechanisms—available to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs)—to implement their own FOTA apps but such vendor-specific implementations could be a source of security and privacy issues due to poor software engineering practices. This paper performs the first large-scale and systematic analysis of the FOTA ecosystem through a dataset of 2,013 FOTA apps detected with a tool designed for this purpose over 422,121 pre-installed apps. We classify the different stakeholders developing and deploying FOTA apps on the Android update ecosystem, showing that 43% of FOTA apps are developed by third parties. We report that some devices can have as many as 5 apps implementing FOTA capabilities. By means of static analysis of the code of FOTA apps, we show that some apps present behaviors that can be considered privacy intrusive, such as the collection of sensitive user data (e.g., geolocation linked to unique hardware identifiers), and a significant presence of third-party trackers. We also discover implementation issues leading to critical vulnerabilities, such as the use of public AOSP test keys both for signing FOTA apps and for update verification, thus allowing any update signed with the same key to be installed. Finally, we study telemetry data collected from real devices by a commercial security tool. We demonstrate that FOTA apps are responsible for the installation of non-system apps (e.g., entertainment apps and games), including malware and Potentially Unwanted Programs (PUP). Our findings suggest that FOTA development practices are misaligned with Google’s recommendations.
Eduardo Blázquez, Sergio Pastrana, Álvaro Feal, Julien Gamba, Platon Kotzias, Narseo Vallina-Rodriguez, Juan Tapiador
SP1