IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jftint/v12y2020i9p145-d404818.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

CIAA-RepDroid: A Fine-Grained and Probabilistic Reputation Scheme for Android Apps Based on Sentiment Analysis of Reviews

Author

Listed:
  • Franklin Tchakounté

    (Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Faculty of Science, University of Ngaoundéré, Ngaoundéré A0C 0A9, Cameroon)

  • Athanase Esdras Yera Pagor

    (Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Faculty of Science, University of Ngaoundéré, Ngaoundéré A0C 0A9, Cameroon)

  • Jean Claude Kamgang

    (Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, National School of Agro-Industrial Science, University of Ngaoundéré, Ngaoundéré A0C 0A9, Cameroon)

  • Marcellin Atemkeng

    (Department of Mathematics, Rhodes University, Grahamstown 6139, South Africa)

Abstract

To keep its business reliable, Google is concerned to ensure the quality of apps on the store. One crucial aspect concerning quality is security. Security is achieved through Google Play protect and anti-malware solutions. However, they are not totally efficient since they rely on application features and application execution threads. Google provides additional elements to enable consumers to collectively evaluate applications providing their experiences via reviews or showing their satisfaction through rating. The latter is more informal and hides details of rating whereas the former is textually expressive but requires further processing to understand opinions behind it. Literature lacks approaches which mine reviews through sentiment analysis to extract useful information to improve the security aspects of provided applications. This work goes in this direction and in a fine-grained way, investigates in terms of confidentiality, integrity, availability, and authentication (CIAA). While assuming that reviews are reliable and not fake, the proposed approach determines review polarities based on CIAA-related keywords. We rely on the popular classifier Naive Bayes to classify reviews into positive, negative, and neutral sentiment. We then provide an aggregation model to fusion different polarities to obtain application global and CIAA reputations. Quantitative experiments have been conducted on 13 applications including e-banking, live messaging and anti-malware apps with a total of 1050 security-related reviews and 7,835,322 functionality-related reviews. Results show that 23% of applications (03 apps) have a reputation greater than 0.5 with an accent on integrity, authentication, and availability, while the remaining 77% has a polarity under 0.5. Developers should make a lot of effort in security while developing codes and that more efforts should be made to improve confidentiality reputation. Results also show that applications with good functionality-related reputation generally offer a bad security-related reputation. This situation means that even if the number of security reviews is low, it does not mean that the security aspect is not a consumer preoccupation. Unlike, developers put much more time to test whether applications work without errors even if they include possible security vulnerabilities. A quantitative comparison against well-known rating systems reveals the effectiveness and robustness of CIAA-RepDroid to repute apps in terms of security. CIAA-RepDroid can be associated with existing rating solutions to recommend developers exact CIAA aspects to improve within source codes.

Suggested Citation

  • Franklin Tchakounté & Athanase Esdras Yera Pagor & Jean Claude Kamgang & Marcellin Atemkeng, 2020. "CIAA-RepDroid: A Fine-Grained and Probabilistic Reputation Scheme for Android Apps Based on Sentiment Analysis of Reviews," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-27, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:12:y:2020:i:9:p:145-:d:404818
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/12/9/145/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/12/9/145/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:12:y:2020:i:9:p:145-:d:404818. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.