One Size Does not Fit All: Quantifying the Risk of Malicious App Encounters for Different Android User Profiles

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.07346v1
• Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 07:31:41 GMT
• Title: One Size Does not Fit All: Quantifying the Risk of Malicious App Encounters for Different Android User Profiles
• Authors: Savino Dambra, Leyla Bilge, Platon Kotzias, Yun Shen, Juan Caballero
• Abstract summary: We perform a large-scale quantitative analysis of the risk of encountering malware across user communities. At the core of our study is a dataset of app installation logs collected from 12M Android mobile devices. Our results confirm the inadequacy of one-size-fits-all protection solutions.
• Score: 18.58456177992614
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Previous work has investigated the particularities of security practices within specific user communities defined based on country of origin, age, prior tech abuse, and economic status. Their results highlight that current security solutions that adopt a one-size-fits-all-users approach ignore the differences and needs of particular user communities. However, those works focus on a single community or cluster users into hard-to-interpret sub-populations. In this work, we perform a large-scale quantitative analysis of the risk of encountering malware and other potentially unwanted applications (PUA) across user communities. At the core of our study is a dataset of app installation logs collected from 12M Android mobile devices. Leveraging user-installed apps, we define intuitive profiles based on users' interests (e.g., gamers and investors), and fit a subset of 5.4M devices to those profiles. Our analysis is structured in three parts. First, we perform risk analysis on the whole population to measure how the risk of malicious app encounters is affected by different factors. Next, we create different profiles to investigate whether risk differences across users may be due to their interests. Finally, we compare a per-profile approach for classifying clean and infected devices with the classical approach that considers the whole population. We observe that features such as the diversity of the app signers and the use of alternative markets highly correlate with the risk of malicious app encounters. We also discover that some profiles such as gamers and social-media users are exposed to more than twice the risks experienced by the average users. We also show that the classification outcome has a marked accuracy improvement when using a per-profile approach to train the prediction models. Overall, our results confirm the inadequacy of one-size-fits-all protection solutions.

Related papers

• Measuring Strategization in Recommendation: Users Adapt Their Behavior to Shape Future Content [66.71102704873185]
  We test for user strategization by conducting a lab experiment and survey. We find strong evidence of strategization across outcome metrics, including participants' dwell time and use of "likes" Our findings suggest that platforms cannot ignore the effect of their algorithms on user behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-09T07:36:08Z)
• SeGA: Preference-Aware Self-Contrastive Learning with Prompts for Anomalous User Detection on Twitter [14.483830120541894]
  We propose SeGA, preference-aware self-contrastive learning for anomalous user detection. SeGA uses large language models to summarize user preferences via posts. We empirically validate the effectiveness of the model design and pre-training strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-17T05:35:28Z)
• User Inference Attacks on Large Language Models [26.616016510555088]
  Fine-tuning is a common and effective method for tailoring large language models (LLMs) to specialized tasks and applications. We study the privacy implications of fine-tuning LLMs on user data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T17:24:52Z)
• Are Personalized Stochastic Parrots More Dangerous? Evaluating Persona Biases in Dialogue Systems [103.416202777731]
  We study "persona biases", which we define to be the sensitivity of dialogue models' harmful behaviors contingent upon the personas they adopt. We categorize persona biases into biases in harmful expression and harmful agreement, and establish a comprehensive evaluation framework to measure persona biases in five aspects: Offensiveness, Toxic Continuation, Regard, Stereotype Agreement, and Toxic Agreement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-08T21:03:18Z)
• A Study on Accuracy, Miscalibration, and Popularity Bias in Recommendations [6.694971161661218]
  We study how different genres affect the inconsistency of recommendation performance. We find that users with little interest in popular content receive the worst recommendation accuracy. Our experiments show that particular genres contribute to a different extent to the inconsistency of recommendation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-01T10:39:58Z)
• The Minority Matters: A Diversity-Promoting Collaborative Metric Learning Algorithm [154.47590401735323]
  Collaborative Metric Learning (CML) has recently emerged as a popular method in recommendation systems. This paper focuses on a challenging scenario where a user has multiple categories of interests. We propose a novel method called textitDiversity-Promoting Collaborative Metric Learning (DPCML)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-30T08:02:18Z)
• Towards a Fair Comparison and Realistic Design and Evaluation Framework of Android Malware Detectors [63.75363908696257]
  We analyze 10 influential research works on Android malware detection using a common evaluation framework. We identify five factors that, if not taken into account when creating datasets and designing detectors, significantly affect the trained ML models. We conclude that the studied ML-based detectors have been evaluated optimistically, which justifies the good published results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T08:28:08Z)
• Joint Multisided Exposure Fairness for Recommendation [76.75990595228666]
  This paper formalizes a family of exposure fairness metrics that model the problem jointly from the perspective of both the consumers and producers. Specifically, we consider group attributes for both types of stakeholders to identify and mitigate fairness concerns that go beyond individual users and items towards more systemic biases in recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-29T19:13:23Z)
• Causal Disentanglement with Network Information for Debiased Recommendations [34.698181166037564]
  Recent research proposes to debias by modeling a recommender system from a causal perspective. The critical challenge in this setting is accounting for the hidden confounders. We propose to leverage network information (i.e., user-social and user-item networks) to better approximate hidden confounders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-14T20:55:11Z)
• Personalized multi-faceted trust modeling to determine trust links in social media and its potential for misinformation management [61.88858330222619]
  We present an approach for predicting trust links between peers in social media. We propose a data-driven multi-faceted trust modeling which incorporates many distinct features for a comprehensive analysis. Illustrated in a trust-aware item recommendation task, we evaluate the proposed framework in the context of a large Yelp dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-11T19:40:51Z)
• Presentation a Trust Walker for rating prediction in Recommender System with Biased Random Walk: Effects of H-index Centrality, Similarity in Items and Friends [3.8848561367220276]
  Trust-based recommender systems are applied to predict the score of the desired item for the user. In a trusted network, by weighting the edges between the nodes, the degree of trust is determined, and a TrustWalker is developed. The implementation and evaluation of the present research method have been carried out on three datasets named Epinions, Flixster, and FilmTrust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-10T12:52:57Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.