ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Security Evaluation of Companion Android Applications in IoT: The Case of Smart Security Devices.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Smart security devices, such as smart locks, smart cameras, and smart intruder alarms are increasingly popular with users due to the enhanced convenience and new features that they offer. A significant part of this convenience is provided by the device's companion smartphone app. Information on whether secure and ethical development practices have been used in the creation of these applications is unavailable to the end user. As this work shows, this means that users are impacted both by potential third-party attackers that aim to compromise their device, and more subtle threats introduced by developers, who may track their use of their devices and illegally collect data that violate users' privacy. Our results suggest that users of every application tested are susceptible to at least one potential commonly found vulnerability regardless of whether their device is offered by a known brand name or a lesser-known manufacturer. We present an overview of the most common vulnerabilities found in the scanned code and discuss the shortcomings of state-of-the-art automated scanners when looking at less structured programming languages such as C and C++. Finally, we also discuss potential methods for mitigation, and provide recommendations for developers to follow with respect to secure coding practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.