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

Heila Botha

dblp:193/3275 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2018
—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-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.

Network and information security
1 paper
Web and mobile security · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Program verification · 77% Program analysis · 23%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Web and mobile security › mobile security
android security
0.312018
Towards Model Checking Android Applications · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2018
Web and mobile security
mobile security
0.312018
Towards Model Checking Android Applications · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2018
Program verification
model checking
0.312018
Towards Model Checking Android Applications · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2018
Program analysis › static analysis
taint analysis
0.112018
Towards Model Checking Android Applications · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2018

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

state space reduction · 0.7software model checking · 0.7dynamic execution · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2018 Towards Model Checking Android Applications
abstract
As feature-rich Android applications (apps for short) are increasingly popularized in security-sensitive scenarios, methods to verify their security properties are highly desirable. Existing approaches on verifying Android apps often have limited effectiveness. For instance, static analysis often suffers from a high false-positive rate, whereas approaches based on dynamic testing are limited in coverage. In this work, we propose an alternative approach, which is to apply the software model checking technique to verify Android apps. We have built a general framework named DroidPF upon Java PathFinder (JPF), towards model checking Android apps. In the framework, we craft an executable mock-up Android OS which enables JPF to dynamically explore the concrete state spaces of the tested apps; we construct programs to generate user interaction and environmental input so as to drive the dynamic execution of the apps; and we introduce Android specific reduction techniques to help alleviate the state space explosion. DroidPF focuses on common security vulnerabilities in Android apps including sensitive data leakage involving a non-trivial flow- and context-sensitive taint-style analysis. DroidPF has been evaluated with 131 apps, which include real-world apps, third-party libraries, malware samples and benchmarks for evaluating app analysis techniques like ours. DroidPF precisely identifies nearly all of the previously known security issues and nine previously unreported vulnerabilities/bugs.
Guangdong Bai, Quanqi Ye, Yongzheng Wu, Heila Botha, Jun Sun 0001, Yang Liu 0003, Jin Song Dong 0001, Willem Visser
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.4
2017 Addressing challenges in obtaining high coverage when model checking Android applications
abstract
Current dynamic analysis tools for Android applications do not get good code coverage since they can only explore a subset of the behaviors of the applications and do not have full control over the environment in which they execute. In this work we use model checking to systematically explore application paths while reducing the analysis size using state matching and backtracking. In particular, we extend the Java PathFinder (JPF) model checking environment for Android. We describe the difficulties one needs to overcome to make this a reality as well as our current approaches to handling these issues. We obtain significantly higher coverage using shorter event sequences on a representative sample of Android apps, when compared to Dynodroid and Sapienz, the current state-of-the-art dynamic analysis tools for Android applications.
Heila Botha, Oksana Tkachuk, Brink van der Merwe, Willem Visser
SPIN1