DOCSLIB.ORG

Record and Replay for Android

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Record and Replay for Android Record and Replay for Android: Are We There Yet in Industrial Cases? Wing Lam Haibing Zheng Tao Xie Zhengkai Wu Hui Luo [email protected] Dengfeng Li Peng Yan University of Illinois at Wenyu Wang Yuetang Deng Urbana-Champaign, USA {winglam2,zw3,dli46,wenyu2}@ {mattzheng,huiluo,peteryan, illinois.edu yuetangdeng}@tencent.com University of Illinois at Tencent, Inc., China Urbana-Champaign, USA ABSTRACT ACM Reference format: Mobile applications, or apps for short, are gaining popularity. The Wing Lam, Zhengkai Wu, Dengfeng Li, Wenyu Wang, Haibing Zheng, Hui Luo, Peng Yan, Yuetang Deng, and Tao Xie. 2017. Record and Replay for input sources (e.g., touchscreen, sensors, transmitters) of the smart Android: Are We There Yet in Industrial Cases?. In Proceedings of 2017 11th devices that host these apps enable the apps to offer a rich experi- Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM ence to the users, but these input sources pose testing complications SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, Paderborn, to the developers (e.g., writing tests to accurately utilize multiple in- Germany, September 4–8, 2017 (ESEC/FSE’17), 6 pages. put sources together and be able to replay such tests at a later time). https://doi.org/10.1145/3106237.3117769 To alleviate these complications, researchers and practitioners in recent years have developed a variety of record-and-replay tools to support the testing expressiveness of smart devices. These tools 1 INTRODUCTION allow developers to easily record and automate the replay of com- Smart devices such as mobile phones are becoming increasingly plicated usage scenarios of their app. Due to Android’s large share widespread and these devices rely on mobile applications, or apps of the smart-device market, numerous record-and-replay tools have for short, in order to perform a variety of activities. These apps been developed using a variety of techniques to test Android apps. make use of the many input sources included in a smart device, To better understand the strengths and weaknesses of these tools, such as the touchscreen, sensors (e.g., GPS, accelerometer, compass, we present a comparison of popular record-and-replay tools from gyroscope), and transmitters (e.g., WiFi, Bluetooth) to perform researchers and practitioners, by applying these tools to test three their activities. The numerous input sources on a smart device popular industrial apps downloaded from the Google Play store. pose challenges for app developers to create tests that accurately Our comparison is based on three main metrics: (1) ability to repro- utilize these input sources and to replay an input generated from duce common usage scenarios, (2) space overhead of traces created them at a later time. Record-and-replay tools developed by both by the tools, and (3) robustness of traces created by the tools (when practitioners and researchers have aimed to address such problems. being replayed on devices with different resolutions). The results In particular, these tools allow developers to easily record and from our comparison show which record-and-replay tools may be replay complicated usage scenarios of their app. By automating the the best for developers and identify future directions for improving replay of the complicated usage scenarios of their app, developers these tools to better address testing complications of smart devices. no longer have to manually control each input source every time CCS CONCEPTS they want to test their app. The automation also allows developers to test their apps at scale (e.g., testing their app on multiple devices • Software and its engineering → Software testing and de- at once). bugging; Various record-and-replay tools have been developed by prac- titioners and researchers for the Android platform for three main KEYWORDS reasons. First, majority of the smart devices in the world are using Android, GUI testing, Record-and-replay the Android platform and consequently, tools compatible with the platform are thereby compatible with most apps and devices out there. Second, the Android platform is used in the majority of smart Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed devices partly because the Android platform is compatible with for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation a variety of devices. These devices (often varying in screen sizes on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM and available input sources) make app developers’ testing process must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a expensive. Record-and-replay tools can automate what otherwise fee. Request permissions from [email protected]. would be a manual process for developers to confirm that their app ESEC/FSE’17, September 4–8, 2017, Paderborn, Germany works as expected on a variety of devices. Third, with the Android © 2017 Association for Computing Machinery. ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-5105-8/17/09...$15.00 platform being open-sourced, record-and-replay tools can make https://doi.org/10.1145/3106237.3117769 use of the Android platform to gain complete access to record and Wing Lam, Zhengkai Wu, Dengfeng Li, Wenyu Wang, ESEC/FSE’17, September 4–8, 2017, Paderborn, Germany Haibing Zheng, Hui Luo, Peng Yan, Yuetang Deng, and Tao Xie replay the interactions between the app under test and the Android tools, on the other hand, are tools that ought to be installed directly platform or other apps. onto a mobile device, and the recording and replaying of events To investigate the practicality of these different record-and- are controlled through the installed app. These tools commonly replay tools for industrial practices, we present the first compari- require the user’s device to be rooted and often lack functionality son of popular record-and-replay tools from practitioners and re- compared to desktop tools. The tools used in our study are found searchers by applying these tools on three popular industrial apps by examining the research literature in record-and-replay tools or from the Google Play store. In particular, we study the strengths are recommended to us by the WeChat developers [18], a highly and weaknesses of these tools, how effective they are compared to popular messenger app with over 900 million monthly active users. each other, and how they could be improved. Our comparison is To understand desirable characteristics of record-and-replay based on three main metrics: (1) ability to reproduce common usage tools from industry practitioners, we consult with over 30 develop- scenarios, (2) space overhead of traces created by the tools, and (3) ers from WeChat’s Android Development and Engineering Tools robustness of traces created by the tools (when being replayed on team. These WeChat developers have over 100 years of experience devices with different resolutions). We evaluate the tools’ ability to combined in testing mobile apps. The WeChat developers inform reproduce common usage scenario and their traces’ robustness to us of five highly desirable characteristics that a record-and-replay different devices, since prior to a new version’s release, developers tool should have and four secondary characteristics that are also of commonly have to test their app on a variety of devices to ensure interest. The five highly desirable characteristics that a record-and- that their changes do not unexpectedly affect the common usage replay tool should have are whether the tool is coordinate sensitive scenarios of their app on such devices. In addition, we evaluate the (recording based on coordinates), widget sensitive (recording based space overhead of the traces generated by the tools to show which on a GUI widget’s unique identifier, e.g., R.id), state sensitive (the tools utilize space efficiently. tool can restore the state of the app when the trace was recorded), The results from our comparison show which record-and-replay timing sensitive (whether the tool can record the time difference tools may be the best for developers and identify future directions between the events when they were recorded) and lastly, whether for improving these tools to better address testing complications of the tool requires the developers to install a custom operation sys- smart devices. In our experiment, we find that the tools under study tem (OS) onto their device. The four secondary characteristics that have different problems and they do not meet the expectation of are also of interest for a record-and-replay tool are access to the developers. On our project website [13], readers can see and replay tool’s source code, and not having to require access to the source the recorded traces of common usage scenarios for each of the apps code of the app under test, instrumenting the app, and rooting the under test. device in order to use the tool. This paper makes the following main contributions: Table 1 provides an overview of the record-and-replay tools for • A survey of popular record-and-replay tools for Android Android that researchers and practitioners commonly use. The table apps. reports all of the tools and classifies them according to what type • A comparative study of applying such tools on three popu- of tool it is (desktop or app). Additionally, the table presents other lar industrial apps. useful information for each of the tools, such as whether the tool • An analysis of the results for highlighting the strengths and is sensitive to coordinates, widgets, state or timing changes, and weaknesses of the different tools under study and possible whether the tool is publicly available, instruments the app, requires future directions for record-and-replay tools.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comparison of GUI Testing Tools for Android Applications
    Comparison of GUI testing tools for Android applications University of Oulu Department of Information Processing Science Master’s Thesis Tomi Lämsä Date 22.5.2017 2 Abstract Test automation is an intriguing area of software engineering, especially in Android development. This is since Android applications must be able to run in many different permutations of operating system versions and hardware choices. Comparison of different tools for automated UI testing of Android applications is done in this thesis. In a literature review several different tools available and their popularity is researched and the structure of the most popular tools is looked at. The two tools identified to be the most popular are Appium and Espresso. In an empirical study the two tools along with Robotium, UiAutomator and Tau are compared against each other in test execution speed, maintainability of the test code, reliability of the test tools and in general issues. An empirical study was carried out by selecting three Android applications for which an identical suite of tests was developed with each tool. The test suites were then run and the execution speed and reliability was analysed based on these results. The test code written is also analysed for maintainability by calculating the lines of code and the number of method calls needed to handle asynchrony related to UI updates. The issues faced by the test developer with the different tools are also analysed. This thesis aims to help industry users of these kinds of applications in two ways. First, it could be used as a source on what tools are over all available for UI testing of Android applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Mobile Developer's Guide to the Galaxy
    Don’t Panic MOBILE DEVELOPER’S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY U PD A TE D & EX TE ND 12th ED EDITION published by: Services and Tools for All Mobile Platforms Enough Software GmbH + Co. KG Sögestrasse 70 28195 Bremen Germany www.enough.de Please send your feedback, questions or sponsorship requests to: [email protected] Follow us on Twitter: @enoughsoftware 12th Edition February 2013 This Developer Guide is licensed under the Creative Commons Some Rights Reserved License. Editors: Marco Tabor (Enough Software) Julian Harty Izabella Balce Art Direction and Design by Andrej Balaz (Enough Software) Mobile Developer’s Guide Contents I Prologue 1 The Galaxy of Mobile: An Introduction 1 Topology: Form Factors and Usage Patterns 2 Star Formation: Creating a Mobile Service 6 The Universe of Mobile Operating Systems 12 About Time and Space 12 Lost in Space 14 Conceptional Design For Mobile 14 Capturing The Idea 16 Designing User Experience 22 Android 22 The Ecosystem 24 Prerequisites 25 Implementation 28 Testing 30 Building 30 Signing 31 Distribution 32 Monetization 34 BlackBerry Java Apps 34 The Ecosystem 35 Prerequisites 36 Implementation 38 Testing 39 Signing 39 Distribution 40 Learn More 42 BlackBerry 10 42 The Ecosystem 43 Development 51 Testing 51 Signing 52 Distribution 54 iOS 54 The Ecosystem 55 Technology Overview 57 Testing & Debugging 59 Learn More 62 Java ME (J2ME) 62 The Ecosystem 63 Prerequisites 64 Implementation 67 Testing 68 Porting 70 Signing 71 Distribution 72 Learn More 4 75 Windows Phone 75 The Ecosystem 76 Implementation 82 Testing
    [Show full text]
  • Behavioral Analysis of Android Applications Using Automated Instrumentation
    2013 Seventh International Conference on Software Security and Reliability Companion Behavioral Analysis of Android Applications Using Automated Instrumentation Mohammad Karami, Mohamed Elsabagh, Parnian Najafiborazjani, and Angelos Stavrou Computer Science Department, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030 { mkarami, melsabag, pnajafib, astavrou}@gmu.edu Abstract—Google’s Android operating system has become one application is not a straight forward task due to variety of the most popular operating system for hand-held devices. Due inputs and heterogeneity of the technologies [12]. to its ubiquitous use, open source nature and wide-spread Two primary methods are being employed for mobile appli- popularity, it has become the target of recent mobile malware. In this paper, we present our efforts on effective security cation analysis: white-box approach and black-box approach. inspection mechanisms for identification of malicious applications In black-box testing only the inputs and outputs of the appli- for Android mobile applications. To achieve that, we devel- cation are being exercised. On the other hand, for white box oped a comprehensive software inspection framework. Moreover, approach the source code need to be analyzed. Since the source to identify potential software reliability flaws and to trigger code of the malicious applications that we get from Google malware, we develop a transparent instrumentation system for automating user interactions with an Android application that Play is not available we cannot analyze the internal structure does not require source code. Additionally, for run-time behavior of the malicious applications to figure out what they exactly analysis of an application, we monitor the I/O system calls gener- do, but we can utilize the black-box testing to define their ated the by application under monitoring to the underlying Linux functionality.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit Testing, Integration Testing and Continuous Builds for Android
    Unit Testing, Integration Testing and Continuous Builds Manfred Moser simpligility technologies inc. http://www.simpligility.com @simpligility Agenda Get an overview about testing and continuous integration for Android app development Why testing? What can we test? How can we do it? 2 Manfred Moser simpligility.com Apache Maven See previous presentation Maven used to control build and more Good library reuse and dependency use – makes testing easier out of the box Strong tool support But its all possible without Maven too... Why (automated) testing? Find problem early and you ● Can fix it quickly ● Safe money on QA testing ● Do not get negative customer feedback ● Deal with feature requests instead of bugs ● Avoid production problems ● Can refactor (and change) without breaking old stuff 4 Manfred Moser simpligility.com What are we testing? Plain java code Android dependent code Configuration User interface Look and feel 5 Manfred Moser simpligility.com JVM vs Dalvik/Android stack JVM based: ● Faster ● More tools available ● More mature tooling Dalvik based: ● Necessary for integration tests ● Reproduce actual behaviour ● Full stack testing (beyond VM, to native..) 6 Manfred Moser simpligility.com JVM testing tools ● JUnit ● TestNG ● EasyMock ● Unitils ● Cobertura ● Emma ● and many more 7 Android SDK Test Tools ● Integrated Junit ● use on emulator/device though ● Instrumentation Test Tools ● rich set of classes for testing ● now well documented ● MonkeyRunner ● control device/emulator running tests ● take screenshots ● jython 8 Dalvik/Android
    [Show full text]
  • Large-Scale Android Dynamic Analysis
    Andlantis: Large-scale Android Dynamic Analysis Michael Biermayz, Eric Gustafsonz, Jeremy Ericksony, David Fritzy, Yung Ryn Choey ∗ySandia National Laboratories fmbierma, jericks, djfritz, [email protected] zUniversity of California, Davis fmhbierma, [email protected] Abstract— In this paper, we present Andlantis: a highly scalable Analyzing Android applications for malicious behavior is an dynamic analysis framework for analyzing applications on important area of research, and is made difficult, in part, by the Android operating system. Andlantis runs the Android the increasingly large number of applications available for the operating system in a virtualized environment and is able platform. While techniques exist to perform static analysis on a to provide the virtual device with artificial network data in large number of applications, dynamic analysis techniques are order to provide an environment which closely replicates that relatively limited in scale due to the computational resources of a physical device. Andlantis is able to schedule and run required to emulate the full Android system to achieve accurate thousands of Android instances in parallel, enabling us to execution. We present Andlantis, a scalable dynamic analysis investigate the behavior of mobile malware at scale. system capable of processing over 3000 Android applications per hour. During this processing, the system is able to collect Andlantis employs a scalable high-performance emulytics valuable forensic data, which helps reverse-engineers and mal- framework, minimega, to parallelize this expensive task as ware researchers identify and understand anomalous application much as possible and achieve a level of throughput un- behavior. We discuss the results of running 1261 malware samples precedented in Android dynamic analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Test Automation Tools 2017 - 2018
    Guide to Test Automation Tools 2017 - 2018 WHITEPAPER QATestlab 2017 Copyright 2017 ©QATestLab. All Rights Reserved Table of Contents Summary 3 Introduction 3 1. Test Automation Tools. Market review 1.1. Selenium WebDriver Framework 4 1.2. Appium Framework 5 1.3. Robotium Framework 7 1.4. Serenity Framework 9 1.5. Robot Framework 10 1.6. Galen Framework 12 1.7. HP Unified Functional Testing (UFT) 14 1.8. Ranorex Studio 16 1.9. TestComplete 19 1.10. Telerik Test Studio 20 1.11. Applitools Eyes 22 1.12. Test Automation Tools and Frameworks: Comparison of 23 Technical Aspects 2. Test Automation Tools Approved by QATestLab 2.1. Selenium WebDriver 26 2.2. Appium 28 2.3. TestComplete 29 2.4. Ranorex Studio 31 3. Summary 32 Contact Information 33 2 Copyright 2017 ©QATestLab. All Rights Reserved Summary Table of Contents Click the section to jump This whitepaper aims at providing the comprehensive data on the most ahead popular test automation tools in 2017 - 2018 including the description of Summary their parameters which can be considered when selecting a tool / framework for test automation. The document also provides the Introduction comparison of the leading test automation tools highlighting both 1. Test Automation advantages and disadvantages, and also main objectives, technical Tools. Market review characteristics and the information about a provider. 1.1. Selenium WebDriver Framework The whitepaper is aimed to assist in selecting a proper test automation 1.2 Appium Framework tool avoiding time and money losses. Besides, it includes the 1.3 Robotium recommendations on the most effective test automation tools, Framework 1.4 Serenity Framework information about their effectiveness and maintainability, which were 1.5 Robot Framework prepared by QATestLab on the ground of successful execution of 50 test 1.6 Galen Framework automation projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Profiling the Responsiveness of Android Applications Via Automated
    Profiling the Responsiveness of Android Applications via Automated Resource Amplification Yan Wang Atanas Rountev Ohio State University Ohio State University ABSTRACT Android run-time|the user may decide to uninstall the ap- The responsiveness of the GUI in an Android application is plication and/or rate it negatively in the app market. an important component of the user experience. Android Android guidelines [9, 6] are very clear on the importance guidelines recommend that potentially-expensive operations of designing responsive applications. The general rule is the should not be performed in the GUI thread, but rather in following: \In any situation in which your app performs a separate threads. The responsiveness of existing code can potentially lengthy operation, you should not perform the be improved by introducing such asynchronous processing, work on the UI thread, but instead create a worker thread either manually or automatically. and do most of the work there." [9]. One simple view is that all potentially-expensive opera- There are various mechanisms for achieving this goal. Typ- tions should be removed from the GUI thread. We demon- ical examples include user-managed threads, AsynchTask, strate that this view is too simplistic, because run-time cost and IntentService. The responsiveness of existing code under reasonable conditions may often be below the thresh- can be improved by introducing these mechanisms either old for poor responsiveness. We propose a profiling ap- through manual refactoring or by using automated transfor- proach to characterize response times as a function of the mations (e.g., [12, 11]). A natural question that arises in size of a potentially-expensive resource (e.g., shared prefer- this context is the following: which operations should be re- ences store, bitmap, or SQLite database).
    [Show full text]
  • Automation for Mobile Apps
    automation for mobile apps SeConf 13 Workshop http://appium.io/seconf.pdf Jonathan Lipps | @jlipps | Sauce Labs @TheDanCuellar | @maudineormsby appium is the cross-platform solution for native and hybrid mobile automation appium introduction 1 2 3 4 5 6 iOS Android calabash-ios calabash-android Frank MonkeyTalk UIAutomation Robotium ios-driver UiAutomator KeepItFunctional selendroid Philosophy R1. Test the same app you submit to the marketplace R2. Write your tests in any language, using any framework R3. Use a standard automation specification and API R4. Build a large and thriving open-source community effort Platforms • Real devices (iOS, Android) • Simulators (iOS, Android, FirefoxOS) • Hybrid apps (iOS, Android, FirefoxOS) • Safari on iOS • Chrome on Android • Robot-controlled devices Architecture • Apple Instruments & UIAutomation for iOS • Google UiAutomator for Android (4.2.1 up) • Selendroid for older Android & hybrid • Selenium WebDriver interface Selenium WebDriver? • this is SeConf, isn’t it? appium.app 1 2 3 4 5 6 Appium.app • GUI for launching Appium server • Monitor status • Set preferences Appium.app • Inspector for probing your app • Create hooks for UI elements in app • Try out actions • Record / playback actions • Convert UIAutomation JS to Appium code Appium.app • Mac: stable • Windows: under development Monitor Preferences Inspector Recorder Robot support • Bitbeambot Delta-2 • http://www.bitbeam.org • Tapster • https://www.tindie.com/products/hugs/robot-that- plays-angry-birds/ Robot support • Redirects touch actions
    [Show full text]
  • GUI-Guided Test Script Repair for Mobile Apps
    This is the author's version of an article that has been published in this journal. Changes were made to this version by the publisher prior to publication. The final version of record is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2020.3007664 1 GUI-Guided Test Script Repair for Mobile Apps Minxue Pan, Tongtong Xu, Yu Pei, Zhong Li, Tian Zhang, Xuandong Li Abstract—Graphical User Interface (GUI) testing is widely used to test mobile apps. As mobile apps are frequently updated and need repeated testing, to reduce the test cost, their test cases are often coded as scripts to enable automated execution using test harnesses/tools. When those mobile apps evolve, many of the test scripts, however, may become broken due to changes made to the app GUIs. While it is desirable that the broken scripts get repaired, doing it manually can be preventively expensive if the number of tests need repairing is large. We propose in this paper a novel approach named METER to repairing broken GUI test scripts automatically when mobile apps evolve. METER leverages computer vision techniques to infer GUI changes between two versions of a mobile app and uses the inferred changes to guide the repair of GUI test scripts. Since METER only relies on screenshots to repair GUI tests, it is applicable to apps targeting open or closed source mobile platforms. In experiments conducted on 22 Android apps and 6 iOS apps, repairs produced by METER helped preserve 63.7% and 38.8% of all the test actions broken by the GUI changes, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Code Coverage Measurement Framework for Android Devices∗
    Acta Cybernetica 21 (2014) 439–458. Code Coverage Measurement Framework for Android Devices∗ Ferenc Horváth,y Szabolcs Bognár,y Tamás Gergely,y Róbert Rácz,y Árpád Beszédes,y and Vladimir Marinkovicz Abstract Software testing is a very important activity in the software development life cycle. Numerous general black- and white-box techniques exist to achieve different goals and there are a lot of practices for different kinds of soft- ware. The testing of embedded systems, however, raises some very special constraints and requirements in software testing. Special solutions exist in this field, but there is no general testing methodology for embedded systems. One of the goals of the CIRENE project was to fill this gap and define a general testing methodology for embedded systems that could be specialized to different environments. The project included a pilot implementation of this methodology in a specific environment: an Android-based Digital TV receiver (Set-Top-Box). In this pilot, we implemented method level code coverage measurement of Android applications. This was done by instrumenting the applications and creating a framework for the Android device that collected basic infor- mation from the instrumented applications and communicated it through the network towards a server where the data was finally processed. The result- ing code coverage information was used for many purposes according to the methodology: test case selection and prioritization, traceability computation, dead code detection, etc. The resulting methodology and toolset were reused in another project where we investigated whether the coverage information can be used to de- termine locations to be instrumented in order to collect relevant information about software usability.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Make a Successful App Appfutura Annual Report 2016
    HOW TO MAKE A SUCCESSFUL APP APPFUTURA ANNUAL REPORT 2016 Copyright © 2016 by AppFutura appfutura INDEX 01 AppFutura 02 Introduction 04 Time and cost of a mobile app 21 Steps to hire the best mobile app development company 27 Benchmarking an app idea 39 Wireframes, the key to usability 48 Designing mobile apps 64 Apps for kids 85 Game apps 97 Health apps 121 Social apps 136 Wearable apps 146 Mobile app testing 152 Marketing your mobile app 167 Future mobile app development trends 196 Final Considerations 198 Collaborators Copyright © 2016 by AppFutura All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced, uploaded, transmitted or used in any manner whatsoever without the prior written permission of the publisher. For permission requests, write to the publisher, addressed “AppFutura Annual Report” at [email protected] Follow us on AppFutura AppFutura Annual Report 2016 appfutura APPFUTURA AppFutura started as a project in the Mobile World Congress of 2013, born out of the needs of mobile app development companies to find projects and the needs of clients to find experts to develop their apps. The platform has now become a worldwide community for mobile app developers where they can meet people or companies looking for the best firms to develop an app project. We offer help so clients reach their best partner. We have more than 15,000 developers and mobile app development companies listed worldwide. On AppFutura, they can find everything they are looking for: verified leads and qualified traffic. AppFutura has so far published over 4,500 mobile app projects in its history.
    [Show full text]
  • An Automated Virtual Security Testing Platform for Android Mobile Apps
    An Automated Virtual Security Testing Platform for Android Mobile Apps Yong Wang College of Business and Information Systems Dakota State University Madison, SD 57042 [email protected] Abstract—This paper proposes an automated virtual multiple of the following techniques, privilege escalation, security testing platform for Android mobile apps. The testing remote control, financial charge, and information collection, platform includes three key components: customizing Android etc. The previous stated techniques provide a malicious OS to include mobile app trace information, creating a virtual attacker with a variety of options to utilize a compromised testing platform using the customized OS, and developing static mobile device. and dynamic analyzing techniques for mobile malware detection. The proposed testing platform is a server-side malware detection Most client-side malware detection tools are based on solution. It can utilize both static and dynamic analysis and is a signatures. However, the signature-based approach can only good compensation to the client-side mobile security software. be used to detect known malware. Google has introduced a Keywords—Android, mobile app, security, malware, detection server-side approach, Bouncer, to detect malicious apps before they hit the Google Play Store [4]. This technique is great for I. INTRODUCTION apps that are downloaded through the Google Play Store, but Mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets have been is disadvantageous for the users who use third party app widely adopted for personal and business purposes. However, stores. A cloud-based mobile malware detection framework is the popularity of the mobile devices also raises many security introduced in [5]. The proposed testing platform in this paper issues and challenges.
    [Show full text]