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

Benjamin Andow

dblp:167/0165 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
10ranked-venue papers
3as first author
3since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

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

Security and privacy · 9 · 3 first-author · 3 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

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
8 papers
Privacy and data protection · 54% Web and mobile security · 15% Systems and software security · 15%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
3 papers
Program analysis · 88% Programming languages and type systems · 12%
Computer networks
2 papers
Internet of things and sensor networks · 100%

Topics — the 19 heaviest of 21, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Privacy and data protection
web privacy
0.812024
Understanding the Privacy Practices of Political Campaigns: A Perspective from the 2020 US Election Websites · SP 2024
Privacy and data protection
privacy policy
0.612022
Smart Home Privacy Policies Demystified: A Study of Availability, Content, and Coverage · USENIX Security Symposium 2022
Cyber-physical and IoT security › iot privacy
smart home privacy
0.612022
Smart Home Privacy Policies Demystified: A Study of Availability, Content, and Coverage · USENIX Security Symposium 2022
Web and mobile security
mobile application security
0.522020
Cardpliance: PCI DSS Compliance of Android Applications · USENIX Security Symposium 2020
AppContext: Differentiating Malicious and Benign Mobile App Behaviors Using Context · ICSE (1) 2015
Privacy and data protection
privacy compliance
0.412020
Cardpliance: PCI DSS Compliance of Android Applications · USENIX Security Symposium 2020
Privacy and data protection › privacy policy
privacy policy analysis
0.412020
Actions Speak Louder than Words: Entity-Sensitive Privacy Policy and Data Flow Analysis with PoliCheck · USENIX Security Symposium 2020
Internet of things and sensor networks
smart home
0.322022
Smart Home Privacy Policies Demystified: A Study of Availability, Content, and Coverage · USENIX Security Symposium 2022
Hey Alexa, is this Skill Safe?: Taking a Closer Look at the Alexa Skill Ecosystem · NDSS 2021
Web and mobile security › mobile security
android security
0.212016
Practical DIFC Enforcement on Android · USENIX Security Symposium 2016
Systems and software security
information flow control
0.212016
Practical DIFC Enforcement on Android · USENIX Security Symposium 2016
Web and mobile security
mobile security
0.212016
Practical DIFC Enforcement on Android · USENIX Security Symposium 2016
Systems and software security
operating system security
0.212016
Practical DIFC Enforcement on Android · USENIX Security Symposium 2016
Malware analysis › malware detection
behavior-based malware detection
0.212015
AppContext: Differentiating Malicious and Benign Mobile App Behaviors Using Context · ICSE (1) 2015
Malware analysis
mobile malware detection
0.212015
AppContext: Differentiating Malicious and Benign Mobile App Behaviors Using Context · ICSE (1) 2015
Program analysis › static analysis › interprocedural analysis
context-sensitive analysis
0.212015
AppContext: Differentiating Malicious and Benign Mobile App Behaviors Using Context · ICSE (1) 2015
Program analysis
static analysis
0.212015
AppContext: Differentiating Malicious and Benign Mobile App Behaviors Using Context · ICSE (1) 2015
Privacy and data protection
regulatory compliance
0.112020
Cardpliance: PCI DSS Compliance of Android Applications · USENIX Security Symposium 2020
Program analysis
data flow analysis
0.112020
Actions Speak Louder than Words: Entity-Sensitive Privacy Policy and Data Flow Analysis with PoliCheck · USENIX Security Symposium 2020
Privacy and data protection
mobile app privacy
0.112019
PolicyLint: Investigating Internal Privacy Policy Contradictions on Google Play · USENIX Security Symposium 2019
Programming languages and type systems › type systems › security type systems
information-flow type systems
0.112016
Practical DIFC Enforcement on Android · USENIX Security Symposium 2016

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

natural language processing · 1.2skill ecosystem analysis · 1.0data flow analysis · 0.9website privacy measurement · 0.8decentralized information flow control · 0.5static program analysis · 0.4context extraction · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Understanding the Privacy Practices of Political Campaigns: A Perspective from the 2020 US Election Websites
abstract
Political campaigns are known to collect private user data, whether for building voter profiles, engaging with volunteers, or for soliciting donations. However, as such campaigns are classified as nonprofit in the United States (U.S.), their privacy practices have not received the same level of scrutiny as those of for-profit enterprises. This paper presents the Polityzer framework to evaluate the privacy posture of political campaign websites, and uses it to analyze 2060 campaign websites active during the U.S. election of November 2020. Our analysis leads to 20 key findings that demonstrate gaps in the privacy postures of political campaigns. For instance, we find that campaigns collect extensive private data they are not required to by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and a vast majority do not provide any form of privacy disclosure. When disclosures are provided, they are often incomplete. We also found that campaigns may be inadvertently sharing data with other campaigns through common fundraising platforms, without disclosing such sharing. Reporting the lack of privacy disclosure to the respective campaigns yields further insights into the rationale behind their security posture. Finally, we discuss ways in which our results could enable future research, inform emerging privacy regulations, and transform user behavior regarding data privacy in this critical context.
Kaushal Kafle, Prianka Mandal, Kapil Singh, Benjamin Andow, Adwait Nadkarni
SP4
2022 Smart Home Privacy Policies Demystified: A Study of Availability, Content, and Coverage
Sunil Manandhar, Kaushal Kafle, Benjamin Andow, Kapil Singh, Adwait Nadkarni
USENIX Security Symposium3
2021 Hey Alexa, is this Skill Safe?: Taking a Closer Look at the Alexa Skill Ecosystem
Christopher Lentzsch, Sheel Jayesh Shah, Benjamin Andow, Martin Degeling, Anupam Das 0001, William Enck
NDSS3
2020 Actions Speak Louder than Words: Entity-Sensitive Privacy Policy and Data Flow Analysis with PoliCheck
Benjamin Andow, Samin Yaseer Mahmud, Justin Whitaker, William Enck, Bradley Reaves, Kapil Singh, Serge Egelman
USENIX Security Symposium1
2020 Cardpliance: PCI DSS Compliance of Android Applications
Samin Yaseer Mahmud, Akhil Acharya, Benjamin Andow, William Enck, Bradley Reaves
USENIX Security Symposium3
2019 ACMiner: Extraction and Analysis of Authorization Checks in Android's Middleware
abstract
Billions of users rely on the security of the Android platform to protect phones, tablets, and many different types of consumer electronics. While Android's permission model is well studied, the enforcement of the protection policy has received relatively little attention. Much of this enforcement is spread across system services, taking the form of hard-coded checks within their implementations. In this paper, we propose Authorization Check Miner (ACMiner), a framework for evaluating the correctness of Android's access control enforcement through consistency analysis of authorization checks. ACMiner combines program and text analysis techniques to generate a rich set of authorization checks, mines the corresponding protection policy for each service entry point, and uses association rule mining at a service granularity to identify inconsistencies that may correspond to vulnerabilities. We used ACMiner to study the AOSP version of Android 7.1.1 to identify 28 vulnerabilities relating to missing authorization checks. In doing so, we demonstrate ACMiner's ability to help domain experts process thousands of authorization checks scattered across millions of lines of code.
Sigmund Albert Gorski III, Benjamin Andow, Adwait Nadkarni, Sunil Manandhar, William Enck, Eric Bodden, Alexandre Bartel
CODASPY2
2019 PolicyLint: Investigating Internal Privacy Policy Contradictions on Google Play
Benjamin Andow, Samin Yaseer Mahmud, Justin Whitaker, William Enck, Bradley Reaves, Kapil Singh, Tao Xie 0001
USENIX Security Symposium1
2017 UiRef: analysis of sensitive user inputs in Android applications
abstract
Mobile applications frequently request sensitive data. While prior work has focused on analyzing sensitive-data uses originating from well-defined API calls in the system, the security and privacy implications of inputs requested via application user interfaces have been widely unexplored. In this paper, our goal is to understand the broad implications of such requests in terms of the type of sensitive data being requested by applications.
Benjamin Andow, Akhil Acharya, Dengfeng Li 0003, William Enck, Kapil Singh, Tao Xie 0001
WISEC1
2016 Practical DIFC Enforcement on Android
Adwait Nadkarni, Benjamin Andow, William Enck, Somesh Jha
USENIX Security Symposium2
2015 AppContext: Differentiating Malicious and Benign Mobile App Behaviors Using Context
abstract
Mobile malware attempts to evade detection during app analysis by mimicking security-sensitive behaviors of benign apps that provide similar functionality (e.g., sending SMS messages), and suppressing their payload to reduce the chance of being observed (e.g., executing only its payload at night). Since current approaches focus their analyses on the types of security-sensitive resources being accessed (e.g., network), these evasive techniques in malware make differentiating between malicious and benign app behaviors a difficult task during app analysis. We propose that the malicious and benign behaviors within apps can be differentiated based on the contexts that trigger security-sensitive behaviors, i.e., the events and conditions that cause the security-sensitive behaviors to occur. In this work, we introduce AppContext, an approach of static program analysis that extracts the contexts of security-sensitive behaviors to assist app analysis in differentiating between malicious and benign behaviors. We implement a prototype of AppContext and evaluate AppContext on 202 malicious apps from various malware datasets, and 633 benign apps from the Google Play Store. AppContext correctly identifies 192 malicious apps with 87.7% precision and 95% recall. Our evaluation results suggest that the maliciousness of a security-sensitive behavior is more closely related to the intention of the behavior (reflected via contexts) than the type of the security-sensitive resources that the behavior accesses.
Wei Yang 0013, Xusheng Xiao, Benjamin Andow, Tao Xie 0001, William Enck
ICSE (1)3