As users increasingly turn to large language model (LLM) based web agents to automate online tasks, agents may encounter dark patterns: deceptive user interface designs that manipulate users into making unintended decisions. Although dark patterns primarily target human users, their potentially harmful impacts on LLM-based generalist web agents remain unexplored. In this paper, we present the first study that investigates the impact of dark patterns on the decision-making process of LLM-based generalist web agents. To achieve this, we introduce LiteAgent, a lightweight framework that automatically prompts agents to execute tasks while capturing comprehensive logs and screen-recordings of their interactions. We also present TrickyArena, a controlled environment comprising web applications from domains such as e-commerce, streaming services, and news platforms, each containing diverse and realistic dark patterns that can be selectively enabled or disabled. Using LiteAgent and TrickyArena, we conduct multiple experiments to assess the impact of both individual and combined dark patterns on web agent behavior. We evaluate six popular LLM-based generalist web agents across three LLMs and discover that when there is a single dark pattern present, agents are susceptible to it an average of 41% of the time. We also find that modifying dark pattern UI attributes through visual design changes or HTML code adjustments and introducing multiple dark patterns simultaneously can influence agent susceptibility. This study emphasizes the need for holistic defense mechanisms in web agents, encompassing both agent-specific protections and broader web safety measures.

Wearable devices are becoming increasingly important, helping us stay healthy and connected. There are a variety of app-based wearable platforms that can be used to manage these devices. The apps on wearable devices often work with a companion app on users’ smartphones. The wearable device and the smartphone typically use two separate permission models that work synchronously to protect sensitive data. However, this design creates an opaque view of the management of permission-protected data, resulting in over-privileged data access without the user’s explicit consent. In this paper, we performed the first systematic analysis of the interaction between the Android and Wear OS permission models. Our analysis is two-fold. First, through taint analysis, we showed that cross-device flows of permission-protected data happen in the wild, demonstrating that 28 apps (out of the 150 we studied) on Google Play have sensitive data flows between the wearable app and its companion app. We found that these data flows occur without the users’ explicit consent, introducing the risk of violating user expectations. Second, we conducted an in-lab user study to assess users’ understanding of permissions when subject to cross-device communication (n = 63). We found that 66.7% of the users are unaware of the possibility of cross-device sensitive data flows, which impairs their understanding of permissions in the context of wearable devices and puts their sensitive data at risk. We also showed that users are vulnerable to a new class of attacks that we call cross-device permission phishing attacks on wearable devices. Lastly, we performed a preliminary study on other watch platforms (i.e., Apple’s watchOS, Fitbit, Garmin OS) and found that all these platforms suffer from similar privacy issues. As countermeasures for the potential privacy violations in cross-device apps, we suggest improvements in the system prompts and the permission model to enable users to make better-informed decisions, as well as on app markets to identify malicious cross-device data flows.

IoT devices implement firmware update mechanisms to fix security issues and deploy new features. These mechanisms are often triggered and mediated by mobile companion apps running on the users’ smartphones. While it is crucial to update devices, these mechanisms may cause critical security flaws if they are not implemented correctly. Given their relevance, in this paper, we perform a systematic security analysis of the firmware update mechanisms adopted by IoT devices via their companion apps. First, we define a threat model for IoT firmware updates, and we categorize the different potential security issues affecting them. Then, we analyze 23 popular IoT devices (and corresponding companion apps) to identify vulnerable devices and the SDKs that such devices use to implement the update functionality. Our analysis reveals that 6 popular SDKs present dangerous security flaws. Additionally, we fingerprint each vulnerable SDK and we leverage our fingerprints to perform a large-scale analysis of companion apps from the Google Play Store. Our results show that 61 popular devices and 1,356 apps rely on vulnerable SDKs, thus, they potentially adopt an insecure firmware update mechanism.

Many apps performing security-sensitive tasks (e.g., online banking) attempt to verify the integrity of the device they are running in and the integrity of their own code. To ease this goal, Android provides an API, called the SafetyNet Attestation API, that can be used to detect if the device an app is running in is in a "safe" state (e.g., non-rooted) and if the app's code has not been modified (using, for instance, app repackaging). In this paper, we perform the first large-scale systematic analysis of the usage of the SafetyNet API. Our study identifies many common mistakes that app developers make when attempting to use this API. Specifically, we provide a systematic categorization of the possible misusages of this API, and we analyze how frequent each misuse is. Our results show that, for instance, more than half of the analyzed apps check SafetyNet results locally (as opposed to using a remote trusted server), rendering their checks trivially bypassable. Even more surprisingly, we found that none of the analyzed apps invoking the SafetyNet API uses it in a fully correct way.