2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.cose.2019.101688
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

EspyDroid+: Precise reflection analysis of android apps

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Ahmed et al [21] have designed a hybrid StaDART malware detection method for dynamic code update features. In another form [22], Gajrani et al have presented a hybrid analysis approach EspyDroid + that incorporates a reflection-guided static slicing (RGSS) method, which helps handle C&C-controlled execution, logic bombs, time bombs, etc. In another study, Ali-Gombe et al [23] designed the hybrid analysis technique named AspectDroid in which 100 malware and 100 benign ware apps were evaluated and achieved 94.68% accuracy.…”
Section: Dynamic Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ahmed et al [21] have designed a hybrid StaDART malware detection method for dynamic code update features. In another form [22], Gajrani et al have presented a hybrid analysis approach EspyDroid + that incorporates a reflection-guided static slicing (RGSS) method, which helps handle C&C-controlled execution, logic bombs, time bombs, etc. In another study, Ali-Gombe et al [23] designed the hybrid analysis technique named AspectDroid in which 100 malware and 100 benign ware apps were evaluated and achieved 94.68% accuracy.…”
Section: Dynamic Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are several approaches for app malware detection. Approaches including EspyDroid [20], AndroShield [21], Droidcat [22], and RevealDroid [23] are used as solutions for obfuscation camouflage techniques such as junk code insertion, package renaming, and altering control-flow [24][25][26].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…each state satisfies tt and no state satisfies ff (as shown by ( 14) in Table 2); -a state satisfies φ 1 ∨ φ 2 (φ 1 ∧ φ 2 ) if it satisfies φ 1 or (and) φ 2 (as shown by (15) in Table 2). -…”
Section: Model Checking Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We chose ICC attacks since they are the most common ones used to launch colluding interactions, as demonstrated in [14][15][16][17].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%