NatiDroid: Cross-Language Android Permission Specification
Chaoran Li,Xiao Chen,Ruoxi Sun,Jason Xue,Sheng Wen,Muhammad Ejaz Ahmed,Seyit Camtepe,Yang Xiang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2111.08217
2021-11-16
Cryptography and Security
Abstract:The Android system manages access to sensitive APIs by permission enforcement. An application (app) must declare proper permissions before invoking specific Android APIs. However, there is no official documentation providing the complete list of permission-protected APIs and the corresponding permissions to date. Researchers have spent significant efforts extracting such API protection mapping from the Android API framework, which leverages static code analysis to determine if specific permissions are required before accessing an API. Nevertheless, none of them has attempted to analyze the protection mapping in the native library (i.e., code written in C and C++), an essential component of the Android framework that handles communication with the lower-level hardware, such as cameras and sensors. While the protection mapping can be utilized to detect various security vulnerabilities in Android apps, such as permission over-privilege and component hijacking, imprecise mapping will lead to false results in detecting such security vulnerabilities. To fill this gap, we develop a prototype system, named NatiDroid, to facilitate the cross-language static analysis to benchmark against two state-of-the-art tools, termed Axplorer and Arcade. We evaluate NatiDroid on more than 11,000 Android apps, including system apps from custom Android ROMs and third-party apps from the Google Play. Our NatiDroid can identify up to 464 new API-permission mappings, in contrast to the worst-case results derived from both Axplorer and Arcade, where approximately 71% apps have at least one false positive in permission over-privilege and up to 3.6% apps have at least one false negative in component hijacking. Additionally, we identify that 24 components with at least one Native-triggered component hijacking vulnerability are misidentified by two benchmarks.