Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
169 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Longitudinal Analysis of Android Ad Library Permissions (1303.0857v2)

Published 4 Mar 2013 in cs.CR

Abstract: This paper investigates changes over time in the behavior of Android ad libraries. Taking a sample of 100,000 apps, we extract and classify the ad libraries. By considering the release dates of the applications that use a specific ad library version, we estimate the release date for the library, and thus build a chronological map of the permissions used by various ad libraries over time. We find that the use of most permissions has increased over the last several years, and that more libraries are able to use permissions that pose particular risks to user privacy and security.

Citations (164)

Summary

  • The paper analyzes the evolution of Android ad library permission usage over time, utilizing static analysis of 114,000 apps from the Google Play store.
  • Results show a persistent increase in the use of privacy-sensitive permissions by ad libraries, although location-based permissions saw a notable decrease.
  • The findings highlight the privacy challenges posed by ad libraries and suggest the need for stronger privacy protections, regulation, and app store policing.

Longitudinal Analysis of Android Ad Library Permissions

In this paper, the authors conduct a comprehensive paper of the evolution and behavior of Android advertising libraries concerning permission usage over time. Utilizing a significant sample size of 114,000 apps from the Google Play store, they meticulously analyze the permissions requested and potentially exploited by these libraries. By establishing estimated release dates for specific library versions and measuring the frequency of permission usage, the authors create a chronological map showcasing the trends in ad library permissions and their implications on user privacy.

Methodology

The research method was rigorous, involving the extraction and disassembly of applications to identify ad libraries, followed by the categorization and dating of these libraries based on the release date of the host apps. Through the use of hashing to generate unique identifiers, the authors could pinpoint individual library versions without exploring internal structures. Permission usage was mapped by analyzing API calls requiring particular privileges, adhering to a conservative approach focusing exclusively on static calls within the ad library code.

The identification of ad library releases was not without challenges, particularly with variable register numbers due to app package assembly processes. The authors circumvented this by disregarding register names in their analysis, acknowledging the limitations related to fragmented library versions and the potential understatement of permission usage.

Results and Analysis

The paper reveals a persistent increase in the number of permissions utilized by ad libraries, with a specific focus on those raising privacy concerns. Notably, dangerous permissions like access to user contacts, location, and device identifiers showed prevalent usage, albeit with variations across libraries. The authors document a significant increase in the exploitation of permissions that enable user data collection and potentially intrusive advertising methods. Though there was a notable reduction in location-based permissions usage, possibly due to shifting ad economy dynamics or privacy concerns, overall permission usage trends indicate increased intrusion potential.

The paper carefully weighs permissions based on library popularity to estimate the impact on typical ad library installs on user devices. It captures the market share of ad libraries, emphasizing the dominant position of certain libraries like Google's AdMob, while acknowledging the diversity and widespread presence of smaller libraries.

Implications and Future Directions

The findings serve as a critical insight into the Android advertising ecosystem and its implications for user privacy. The increasing ability of ad libraries to leverage sensitive permissions highlights the need for more robust privacy protections and potentially regulatory oversight. The paper underscores the significance of community standards and app store policing as mechanisms to safeguard user data effectively.

Future work may involve extending the dataset for longitudinal studies, incorporating dynamic analysis for permission usage conditions, and further investigating the data exchange between ad libraries and servers. The authors suggest ongoing research aimed at understanding how ad libraries' capabilities reflect on user privacy and security, advocating for infrastructure and regulatory solutions to mitigate potential risks.

In conclusion, this paper portrays the incremental transformation of Android ad libraries in permission management, presenting a noteworthy account of privacy challenges within mobile ecosystems. The outcomes reinforce the urgent need for informed security practices and policy interventions to address evolving privacy threats in mobile advertising frameworks.