CodeMatch: obfuscation won't conceal your repackaged app

Leonid Glanz, Sven Amann, Michael Eichberg, Michael Reif, Ben Hermann, Johannes Lerch, M. Mezini
{"title":"CodeMatch: obfuscation won't conceal your repackaged app","authors":"Leonid Glanz, Sven Amann, Michael Eichberg, Michael Reif, Ben Hermann, Johannes Lerch, M. Mezini","doi":"10.1145/3106237.3106305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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","PeriodicalId":313494,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"35","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3106237.3106305","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 35

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
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
CodeMatch:混淆不会隐藏你重新打包的应用
窃取应用程序开发商收入或诱骗用户安装恶意软件的一种既定方法是创建重新打包的应用程序。这些都是典型的成功应用的克隆。为了隐藏他们的本性,他们经常被他们的创造者混淆。但是,考虑到混淆应用程序是一种常见的最佳实践,对重新打包的应用程序进行简单的识别是不可能的。由于普遍使用图书馆,这个问题进一步加剧了。在许多应用程序中,总体代码库的大小基本上取决于所使用的库。因此,两个混淆代码库非常相似的应用程序不必相互重新打包。为了可靠地检测重新打包的应用程序,我们提出了一个两步的方法,首先关注于识别和删除被混淆的应用程序中的库代码。这种方法——LibDetect——依赖于代码表示,它抽象了底层字节码的几个部分,以抵御某些混淆技术。使用这种方法,我们能够比以前的方法平均多识别70%的应用程序使用库。在删除应用程序的库代码后,我们对剩余应用程序代码的最抽象表示进行模糊散列,以确保我们可以识别重新打包的应用程序,即使使用了非常先进的混淆技术。这使得识别重新打包的应用程序成为可能。通过我们的方法,我们发现Android应用商店中约有15%的应用是重新包装的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Serverless computing: economic and architectural impact The rising tide lifts all boats: the advancement of science in cyber security (invited talk) User- and analysis-driven context aware software development in mobile computing Continuous variable-specific resolutions of feature interactions Attributed variability models: outside the comfort zone
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1