50 Shades of Support: A Device-Centric Analysis of Android Security Updates
Abstract
Android is by far the most popular OS with over
three billion active mobile devices. As in any software, uncovering
vulnerabilities on Android devices and applying timely patches
are both critical. Android Open Source Project (AOSP) has
initiated efforts to improve the traceability of security updates
through Security Patch Levels (SPLs) assigned to devices. While
this initiative provided better traceability for the vulnerabilities,
it has not entirely resolved the issues related to the timeliness
and availability of security updates for end users. Recent studies
on Android security updates have focused on the issue of delay
during the security update roll-out, largely attributing this to
factors related to fragmentation. However, these studies fail to
capture the entire Android ecosystem as they primarily examine
flagship devices or do not paint a comprehensive picture of the
Android devices’ lifecycle due to the datasets spanning over a
short timeframe. To address this gap in the literature, we utilize
a device-centric approach to analyze the security update behavior
of Android devices. Our approach aims to understand the security
update distribution behavior of OEMs (e.g., Samsung) by using
a representative set of devices from each OEM and characterize
the complete lifecycle of an average Android device. We obtained
367K official security update records from public sources, span-
ning from 2014 to 2023. Our dataset contains 599 unique devices
from four major OEMs that are used in 97 countries and are
associated with 109 carriers. We identify significant differences
in the roll-out of security updates across different OEMs, device
models/types, and geographical regions across the world. Our
findings show that the reasons for the delay in the roll-out of
security updates are not limited to fragmentation but also involve
OEM-specific factors. Our analysis also uncovers certain key
issues that can be readily addressed as well as exemplary practices
that can be immediately adopted by OEMs in practice.
three billion active mobile devices. As in any software, uncovering
vulnerabilities on Android devices and applying timely patches
are both critical. Android Open Source Project (AOSP) has
initiated efforts to improve the traceability of security updates
through Security Patch Levels (SPLs) assigned to devices. While
this initiative provided better traceability for the vulnerabilities,
it has not entirely resolved the issues related to the timeliness
and availability of security updates for end users. Recent studies
on Android security updates have focused on the issue of delay
during the security update roll-out, largely attributing this to
factors related to fragmentation. However, these studies fail to
capture the entire Android ecosystem as they primarily examine
flagship devices or do not paint a comprehensive picture of the
Android devices’ lifecycle due to the datasets spanning over a
short timeframe. To address this gap in the literature, we utilize
a device-centric approach to analyze the security update behavior
of Android devices. Our approach aims to understand the security
update distribution behavior of OEMs (e.g., Samsung) by using
a representative set of devices from each OEM and characterize
the complete lifecycle of an average Android device. We obtained
367K official security update records from public sources, span-
ning from 2014 to 2023. Our dataset contains 599 unique devices
from four major OEMs that are used in 97 countries and are
associated with 109 carriers. We identify significant differences
in the roll-out of security updates across different OEMs, device
models/types, and geographical regions across the world. Our
findings show that the reasons for the delay in the roll-out of
security updates are not limited to fragmentation but also involve
OEM-specific factors. Our analysis also uncovers certain key
issues that can be readily addressed as well as exemplary practices
that can be immediately adopted by OEMs in practice.
Research Areas
