Is this app safe?: a large scale study on application permissions and risk signals
Abstract
Third-party applications (apps) drive the attractiveness of web and mobile application platforms. Many of these platforms adopt a decentralized control strategy, relying on explicit user consent for granting permissions that the apps request. Users have to rely primarily on community ratings as the signals to identify the potentially harmful and inappropriate apps even though community ratings typically reflect opinions about perceived functionality or performance rather than about risks. With the arrival of HTML5 web apps, such user-consent permission systems will become more widespread. We study the effectiveness of user-consent permission systems through a large scale data collection of Facebook apps, Chrome extensions and Android apps. Our analysis confirms that the current forms of community ratings used in app markets today are not reliable indicators of privacy risks of an app. We find some evidence indicating attempts to mislead or entice users into granting permissions: free applications and applications with mature content request more permissions than is typical; 'look-alike' applications which have names similar to popular applications also request more permissions than is typical. We also find that across all three platforms popular applications request more permissions than average.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Free versions of many types of apps require a broader scope of permissions-often unrelated to the apps' functionality-than purchasable versions of similar apps.
“It is a proven fact that free versions of many types of apps require a broader scope of permissions-often unrelated to the apps' functionality-than purchasable versions of similar apps (Chia et al., 2012), opening the door to user data misuse.”
From Putting the privacy paradox to the test: Online privacy and security behaviors among users with technical knowledge, privacy awareness, and financial resources (2019) · cites this paper as Chia et al., 2012
Cites
Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing, and Privacy on the Facebook
Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/11957454_3 · Cited by 1,895 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Barth, S., de Jong, M. D. T., Junger, M., Hartel, P. H., & Roppelt, J. C. (2019) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2019.03.003 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Choice Architecture and Smartphone Privacy: There’s a Price for That
Egelman, S., Felt, A. P., & Wagner, D. (2013) · The Economics of Information Security and Privacy · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39498-0_10 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chia, P. H., Yamamoto, Y., & Asokan, N.
- Affiliations
- Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
- Kyoto University (JP)
- Nokia (Finland) (FI)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2012-04-16
- Pages
- 311-320
- OpenAlex
- W2086648145
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 71.30
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Access Control and Trust
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Keywords
- user consent, privacy risks, community rating, app ratings, Chrome extension, Android application, Facebook app, third-party applications
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