The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Trust4App: Automating Trustworthiness Assessment of Mobile Applications
Abstract
Smartphones have become ubiquitous in our everyday lives, providing diverse functionalities via millions of applications (apps) that are readily available. To achieve these functionalities, apps need to access and utilize potentially sensitive data, stored in the user's device. This can pose a serious threat to users' security and privacy, when considering malicious or underskilled developers. While application marketplaces, like Google Play store and Apple App store, provide factors like ratings, user reviews, and number of downloads to distinguish benign from risky apps, studies have shown that these metrics are not adequately effective. The security and privacy health of an application should also be considered to generate a more reliable and transparent trustworthiness score. In order to automate the trustworthiness assessment of mobile applications, we introduce the Trust4App framework, which not only considers the publicly available factors mentioned above, but also takes into account the Security and Privacy (S&P) health of an application. Additionally, it considers the S&P posture of a user, and provides an holistic personalized trustworthiness score. While existing automatic trustworthiness frameworks only consider trustworthiness indicators (e.g. permission usage, privacy leaks) individually, Trust4App is, to the best of our knowledge, the first framework to combine these indicators. We also implement a proof-of-concept realization of our framework and demonstrate that Trust4App provides a more comprehensive, intuitive and actionable trustworthiness assessment compared to existing approaches.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“None of the studies provided a de nition of what comprises a security and privacy evaluation framework, they were instead presented by describing their goals and objectives, such as providing ''the user with a strong tool to assist her decision on whether or not a given application found in some app store is trustworthy or not'' [64, p.125] or ''to establish a basis of safety, quality and effect”
From Security and Privacy of mHealth Applications: A Scoping Review (2020) · cites this paper as [64]
In the citing paper
“This includes evaluation of apps targeting speci c user groups, for instance, adolescents [86] or people with mental health problems [84], or based on user input such as user reviews [64].”
From Security and Privacy of mHealth Applications: A Scoping Review (2020) · cites this paper as [64]
In the citing paper
“Within this subset of studies, only 20% (2/7) of papers included a description of the application or validation of the suggested evaluation framework [64], [91].”
From Security and Privacy of mHealth Applications: A Scoping Review (2020) · cites this paper as [64]
In the citing paper
“For app users: to provide the user with support for decisions on whether or not a given application found in an app store is trustworthy or not [64].”
From Security and Privacy of mHealth Applications: A Scoping Review (2020) · cites this paper as [64]
Citations
Cites
Finding Deceptive Opinion Spam by Any Stretch of the Imagination
Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., & Hancock, J. T. (2011) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1107.4557 · Cited by 1,008
Spotting fake reviewer groups in consumer reviews
Mukherjee, A., Liu, B., & Glance, N. (2012) · Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/2187836.2187863 · Cited by 773
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Security and Privacy of mHealth Applications: A Scoping Review
Nurgalieva, L., O'Callaghan, D., & Doherty, G. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2999934 · Cited by 132
“This includes evaluation of apps targeting specific user groups, for instance, adolescents [86] or people with mental health problems [84], or based on user input such as user reviews [64].”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Habib, S. M., Alexopoulos, N., Islam, M. M., Heider, J., Marsh, S., & Muehlhaeuser, M.
- Affiliations
- Technische Universität Darmstadt (DE)
- Fraunhofer Institute for Secure Information Technology (DE)
- Ontario Tech University (CA)
- Venue
- 2018 17th IEEE International Conference On Trust, Security And Privacy In Computing And Communications/ 12th IEEE International Conference On Big Data Science And Engineering (TrustCom/BigDataSE)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2018-08
- Pages
- 124-135
- OpenAlex
- W2889753632
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 0.76
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom) (publishedVersion)
- Publikationsdatenbank der Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) (submittedVersion)
- Fraunhofer-Publica (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) (submittedVersion)
- TUbilio (Technical University of Darmstadt) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Advanced Malware Detection Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Security and Verification in Computing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Access Control and Trust
- Keywords
- sensitive data access, app store ratings and reviews, mobile application security, privacy leakage
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review