The DOI matches its Crossref record.
FlowDroid: precise context, flow, field, object-sensitive and lifecycle-aware taint analysis for Android apps
Abstract
Today's smartphones are a ubiquitous source of private and confidential data. At the same time, smartphone users are plagued by carelessly programmed apps that leak important data by accident, and by malicious apps that exploit their given privileges to copy such data intentionally. While existing static taint-analysis approaches have the potential of detecting such data leaks ahead of time, all approaches for Android use a number of coarse-grain approximations that can yield high numbers of missed leaks and false alarms. In this work we thus present FlowDroid, a novel and highly precise static taint analysis for Android applications. A precise model of Android's lifecycle allows the analysis to properly handle callbacks invoked by the Android framework, while context, flow, field and object-sensitivity allows the analysis to reduce the number of false alarms. Novel on-demand algorithms help FlowDroid maintain high efficiency and precision at the same time. We also propose DroidBench, an open test suite for evaluating the effectiveness and accuracy of taint-analysis tools specifically for Android apps. As we show through a set of experiments using SecuriBench Micro, DroidBench, and a set of well-known Android test applications, FlowDroid finds a very high fraction of data leaks while keeping the rate of false positives low. On DroidBench, FlowDroid achieves 93% recall and 86% precision, greatly outperforming the commercial tools IBM AppScan Source and Fortify SCA. FlowDroid successfully finds leaks in a subset of 500 apps from Google Play and about 1,000 malware apps from the VirusShare project.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
HOLMES: Real-Time APT Detection through Correlation of Suspicious Information Flows
Milajerdi, S. M., Gjomemo, R., Eshete, B., Sekar, R., & Venkatakrishnan, V. N. (2019) · 2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) · doi:10.1109/sp.2019.00026 · Cited by 573
SVF: interprocedural static value-flow analysis in LLVM
Sui, Y., & Xue, J. (2016) · Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Compiler Construction · doi:10.1145/2892208.2892235 · Cited by 431
HelDroid: Dissecting and Detecting Mobile Ransomware
Andronio, N., Zanero, S., & Maggi, F. (2015) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-26362-5_18 · Cited by 246
Conceptual framework for the security of mobile health applications on Android platform
Hussain, M., Zaidan, A. A., Zidan, B. B., Iqbal, S., Ahmed, M. M., Albahri, O. S., & Albahri, A. S. (2018) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2018.03.005 · Cited by 122
Iwaya, L. H., Babar, M. A., Rashid, A., & Wijayarathna, C. (2023) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-022-10236-0 · Cited by 109
Metadata
- Authors
- Arzt, S., Rasthofer, S., Fritz, C., Bodden, E., Bartel, A., Klein, J., Le Traon, Y., Octeau, D., & McDaniel, P.
- Venue
- ACM SIGPLAN Notices
- Published
- 2014-06-05
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 259-269
- ISSN
- 0362-1340 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-1160
- OpenAlex
- W4244726870
- Cited by
- 946
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 79.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: FlowDroid: precise context, flow, field, object-sensitive and lifecycle-aware taint analysis for Android apps. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/2666356.2594299
- The paper
- Arzt, S., Rasthofer, S., Fritz, C., Bodden, E., Bartel, A., Klein, J., Le Traon, Y., Octeau, D., & McDaniel, P. (2014). FlowDroid: precise context, flow, field, object-sensitive and lifecycle-aware taint analysis for Android apps. ACM SIGPLAN Notices. https://doi.org/10.1145/2666356.2594299
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.