Smartphone technology has drastically improved over the past decade. These improvements have seen the creation of specialized health applications, which offer consumers a range of health-related activities such as tracking and checking symptoms of health conditions or diseases through their smartphones. We term these applications as Symptom Checking apps or simply SymptomCheckers. Due to the sensitive nature of the private data they collect, store and manage, leakage of user information could result in significant consequences. In this paper, we use a combination of techniques from both static and dynamic analysis to detect, trace and categorize security and privacy issues in 36 popular SymptomCheckers on Google Play. Our analyses reveal that SymptomCheckers request a significantly higher number of sensitive permissions and embed a higher number of third-party tracking libraries for targeted advertisements and analytics exploiting the privileged access of the SymptomCheckers in which they exist, as a mean of collecting and sharing critically sensitive data about the user and their device. We find that these are sharing the data that they collect through unencrypted plain text to the third-party advertisers and, in some cases, to malicious domains. The results reveal that the exploitation of SymptomCheckers is present in popular apps, still readily available on Google Play.

OBJECTIVE: We conduct a first large-scale analysis of mobile health (mHealth) apps available on Google Play with the goal of providing a comprehensive view of mHealth apps' security features and gauging the associated risks for mHealth users and their data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed an app collection platform that discovered and downloaded more than 20 000 mHealth apps from the Medical and Health & Fitness categories on Google Play. We performed a suite of app code and traffic measurements to highlight a range of app security flaws: certificate security, sensitive or unnecessary permission requests, malware presence, communication security, and security-related concerns raised in user reviews. RESULTS: Compared to baseline non-mHealth apps, mHealth apps generally adopt more reliable signing mechanisms and request fewer dangerous permissions. However, significant fractions of mHealth apps expose users to serious security risks. Specifically, 1.8% of mHealth apps package suspicious codes (eg, trojans), 45.0% rely on unencrypted communication, and as much as 23.0% of personal data (eg, location information and passwords) is sent on unsecured traffic. An analysis of the app reviews reveals that mHealth app users are largely unaware of the surfaced security issues. CONCLUSION: Despite being better aligned with security best practices than non-mHealth apps, mHealth apps are still far from ensuring robust security guarantees. App users, clinicians, technology developers, and policy makers alike should be cognizant of the uncovered security issues and weigh them carefully against the benefits of mHealth apps.