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

Leonid Glanz

dblp:167/7864 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 1 first-authorSecurity and privacy · 1 · 1 first-author

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.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Software maintenance and evolution · 61% Program analysis · 39%
Network and information security
1 paper
Web and mobile security · 87% Systems and software security · 13%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Web and mobile security
mobile security
0.312017
CodeMatch: obfuscation won't conceal your repackaged app · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2017
Web and mobile security › mobile security
repackaged app detection
0.312017
CodeMatch: obfuscation won't conceal your repackaged app · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2017
Software maintenance and evolution › software ecosystems
library identification
0.312017
CodeMatch: obfuscation won't conceal your repackaged app · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2017
Software maintenance and evolution
software ecosystems
0.312017
CodeMatch: obfuscation won't conceal your repackaged app · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2017
Software maintenance and evolution › code smell
code smell detection
0.212015
Hidden truths in dead software paths · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2015
Program analysis › control flow analysis
infeasible path detection
0.212015
Hidden truths in dead software paths · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2015
Program analysis
static analysis
0.212015
Hidden truths in dead software paths · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2015
Program analysis › static analysis
abstract interpretation
0.112015
Hidden truths in dead software paths · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2015

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

library code removal · 0.6fuzzy hashing · 0.6bytecode abstraction · 0.6control flow graph analysis · 0.2abstract interpretation · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2020 Hidden in Plain Sight: Obfuscated Strings Threatening Your Privacy
abstract
String obfuscation is an established technique used by proprietary, closed-source applications to protect intellectual property. Furthermore, it is also frequently used to hide spyware or malware in applications. In both cases, the techniques range from bit-manipulation over XOR operations to AES encryption. However, string obfuscation techniques/tools suffer from one shared weakness: They generally have to embed the necessary logic to deobfuscate strings into the app code. In this paper, we show that most of the string obfuscation techniques found in malicious and benign applications for Android can easily be broken in an automated fashion. We developed StringHound, an open-source tool that uses novel techniques that identify obfuscated strings and reconstruct the originals using slicing. We evaluated StringHound on both benign and malicious Android apps. In summary, we deobfuscate almost 30 times more obfuscated strings than other string deobfuscation tools. Additionally, we analyzed 100,000 Google Play Store apps and found multiple obfuscated strings that hide vulnerable cryptographic usages, insecure internet accesses, API keys, hard-coded passwords, and exploitation of privileges without the awareness of the developer. Furthermore, our analysis reveals that not only malware uses string obfuscation but also benign apps make extensive use of string obfuscation.
Leonid Glanz, Lars Baumgärtner, Michael Reif, Sven Amann, Pauline Anthonysamy, Mira Mezini
AsiaCCS1
2017 CodeMatch: obfuscation won't conceal your repackaged app
abstract
An established way to steal the income of app developers, or to trick users into installing malware, is the creation of repackaged apps. These are clones of - typically - successful apps. To conceal their nature, they are often obfuscated by their creators. But, given that it is a common best practice to obfuscate apps, a trivial identification of repackaged apps is not possible. The problem is further intensified by the prevalent usage of libraries. In many apps, the size of the overall code base is basically determined by the used libraries. Therefore, two apps, where the obfuscated code bases are very similar, do not have to be repackages of each other. To reliably detect repackaged apps, we propose a two step approach which first focuses on the identification and removal of the library code in obfuscated apps. This approach - LibDetect - relies on code representations which abstract over several parts of the underlying bytecode to be resilient against certain obfuscation techniques. Using this approach, we are able to identify on average 70% more used libraries per app than previous approaches. After the removal of an app's library code, we then fuzzy hash the most abstract representation of the remaining app code to ensure that we can identify repackaged apps even if very advanced obfuscation techniques are used. This makes it possible to identify repackaged apps. Using our approach, we found that ≈ 15% of all apps in Android app stores are repackages
Leonid Glanz, Sven Amann, Michael Eichberg, Michael Reif, Ben Hermann, Johannes Lerch, Mira Mezini
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE1
2015 Hidden truths in dead software paths
abstract
Approaches and techniques for statically finding a multitude of issues in source code have been developed in the past. A core property of these approaches is that they are usually targeted towards finding only a very specific kind of issue and that the effort to develop such an analysis is significant. This strictly limits the number of kinds of issues that can be detected. In this paper, we discuss a generic approach based on the detection of infeasible paths in code that can discover a wide range of code smells ranging from useless code that hinders comprehension to real bugs. Code issues are identified by calculating the difference between the control-flow graph that contains all technically possible edges and the corresponding graph recorded while performing a more precise analysis using abstract interpretation. We have evaluated the approach using the Java Development Kit as well as the Qualitas Corpus (a curated collection of over 100 Java Applications) and were able to find thousands of issues across a wide range of categories.
Michael Eichberg, Ben Hermann, Mira Mezini, Leonid Glanz
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE4