Pith. sign in

REVIEW

The Company You Keep: Mobile Malware Infection Rates and Inexpensive Risk Indicators

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1312.3245 v2 pith:23GM54KH submitted 2013-12-11 cs.CR

The Company You Keep: Mobile Malware Infection Rates and Inexpensive Risk Indicators

classification cs.CR
keywords malwareinfectiondevicesindependentratesanalysisapplicationsdatasets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

There is little information from independent sources in the public domain about mobile malware infection rates. The only previous independent estimate (0.0009%) [12], was based on indirect measurements obtained from domain name resolution traces. In this paper, we present the first independent study of malware infection rates and associated risk factors using data collected directly from over 55,000 Android devices. We find that the malware infection rates in Android devices estimated using two malware datasets (0.28% and 0.26%), though small, are significantly higher than the previous independent estimate. Using our datasets, we investigate how indicators extracted inexpensively from the devices correlate with malware infection. Based on the hypothesis that some application stores have a greater density of malicious applications and that advertising within applications and cross-promotional deals may act as infection vectors, we investigate whether the set of applications used on a device can serve as an indicator for infection of that device. Our analysis indicates that this alone is not an accurate indicator for pinpointing infection. However, it is a very inexpensive but surprisingly useful way for significantly narrowing down the pool of devices on which expensive monitoring and analysis mechanisms must be deployed. Using our two malware datasets we show that this indicator performs 4.8 and 4.6 times (respectively) better at identifying infected devices than the baseline of random checks. Such indicators can be used, for example, in the search for new or previously undetected malware. It is therefore a technique that can complement standard malware scanning by anti-malware tools. Our analysis also demonstrates a marginally significant difference in battery use between infected and clean devices.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.