4.2. ResultsWe assume that the perm

4.2。结果<br>我们假设Google Play的APK要求的权限是合法的。他们的权限是基本<br>权限，在我们的<br>实验中，这些权限是比较从其他来源下载的APK请求的权限的基础权限。在第5节<br>中将进一步讨论该假设。在分析了数据集中列出的50个应用程序的任何额外权限时，发现<br>从Google Play和Mobogenie下载的6个应用程序的APK请求的权限之间存在差异。<br>同一应用的两个APK中的一个APK 要求为六个应用提供相同功能的额外权限。毫不奇怪，对于所有<br>六个应用程序，Mobogenie的APK都是要求额外权限的应用程序。表1提到了六个应用程序<br>Google Play在Mobogenie市场上拥有相同名称的应用，要求额外的权限。这是极<br>有可能，所有这些从Mobogenie市场的APK要么有恶意代码，或有一定的添加或更换<br>广告，或者已经修改了应用内结算参数。<br>Pou是Mobogenie版本要求比Google Play版本更多权限的六个应用程序之一。<br>可以自动比较两个APK的权限。我们使用APKTool解压缩APK文件，<br>并从APK 获取清单文件（AndroidManifest.xml）。图1显示了<br>从Google Play下载的Pou APK 的清单文件的一部分，其中包含所有uses-permissions标签。图2显示了清单的一部分<br>从Mobogenie下载的Pou APK的文件，包含所有使用许可标签。显然，<br>图2中的权限比图1中的要多。

4.2. Results<br>We assume that the permissions asked by APKs from Google Play are legitimate. Their permissions are the base<br>permissions against which permissions asked by APKs downloaded from other sources are compared in our<br>experiment. This assumption has been further discussed in Section 5.<br>When the 50 apps listed in the dataset were analyzed for any extra permissions‚ differences were found among<br>the permissions asked by APKs of 6 apps downloaded from Google Play and Mobogenie. One of the two APKs of<br>the same app asked for extra permissions for the same functionality − for the six apps. Not surprisingly‚ for all the<br>six apps‚ the APK from Mobogenie was the one asking for extra permissions. Table 1 mentions the six apps on<br>Google Play which have apps with the same name on Mobogenie market asking for extra permissions. It is highly<br>likely that all these APKs from Mobogenie market either have malicious code, or have some added or replaced<br>advertisements, or have modified in-app billing parameters.<br>Pou is one of the six apps whose Mobogenie version asks for more permissions than its Google Play version.<br>This comparison of permissions from two APKs can be automated. We used APKTool to decompress the APK files<br>and obtained the manifest files (AndroidManifest.xml) from the APKs. Figure 1 shows part of the manifest file of<br>Pou's APK downloaded from Google Play with all the uses-permissions tags. Figure 2 shows part of the manifest<br>file of Pou's APK downloaded from Mobogenie with all the uses-permissions tags. Obviously‚ there are many more<br>permissions in figure 2 than in figure 1.

4.2条。结果<br>我们假设APKs从Google Play请求的权限是合法的。他们的权限是基础<br>在我们的<br>实验。第5节进一步讨论了这一假设。<br>当对数据集中列出的50个应用程序进行任何额外权限分析时，发现<br>APK对从Google Play和Mobogenie下载的6个应用程序请求的权限。其中一个是<br>同一个应用程序要求对同一功能（六个应用程序）有额外的权限。毫不奇怪<br>六个来自Mobogenie的APK应用程序要求额外的权限。表1提到了<br>Google Play在Mobogenie市场上有同名的应用程序，需要额外的权限。它是高度的<br>可能所有这些来自Mobogenie市场的apk都有恶意代码，或者添加或替换了一些<br>广告，或已修改应用内计费参数。<br>Pou是Mobogenie版本要求比Google Play版本更多权限的六个应用之一。<br>可以自动比较两个apk的权限。我们用APKTool解压APK文件<br>并从APK获取清单文件（AndroidManifest.xml）。图1显示了<br>Pou的APK是从Google Play下载的，带有uses权限标签。图2显示了清单的一部分<br>从Mobogenie下载的Pou的APK文件，带有所有uses权限标记。显然还有更多<br>图2中的权限比图1中的权限多。