Mobile Attacks Detection and Prevention in the Wake of Big Data Research Paper

Introduction & Background

Access and use of mobile devices have gained momentum among worldwide users. Due to their unique operating systems, users have installed applications often referred to as “apps” from other online sources, including Google Play and App Store (Vaseer et al., 2019). Ordinarily, these applications constitute the fundamental aspects of smartphones because they enrich their functionality while also enabling users’ daily lives. While the app markets have become the best platforms for quick search and installation of other emerging and efficient apps, it is also the source of the recurring malware that is often seen as standard applications (Vaseer et al., 2019). Today, most mobile devices have been exposed to several security challenges alongside other eminent malicious threats. Moreover, the mobile revolution has shaped and empowered users to shape their daily operations into such contexts and their subsequent applications (Vaseer et al., 2019). Thus, there is an influx in the growth of mobile users and developers. These mobile devices are often treated as private assets, primarily for daily operations and storing some susceptible information and personal data.

The latest technological growth and developments have rearranged modes and means of communication. Moreover, it has become easier to create, store, share, and manage information (Vaseer et al., 2019). These advancements have ushered in other technical concerns leading to information vulnerability. For instance, network-oriented warfare has become the trend among mobile malware apps (Vaseer et al., 2019). Thus, information infrastructure has become the next haven for thee malware writers, ushering in the new era of rampant hacking. On the other hand, mobile users have become destructed and victimized. This means a higher need to safeguard user information on mobile devices (Vaseer et al., 2019). Some of these gadgets contain sensitive details, including bank pins and transactions that can be traced to the online market for theft.

Problem Statement

Mobile applications have contributed immensely to several internal and external security breaches in contemporary society. Overcoming these challenges implies that business entities and scholars have to develop some unique best practices. However, despite such efforts, there is evidence alluding that there are still numerous challenges that need to be mitigated to breach the gap. Thus, this study seeks to identify and examine mobile attacks, detections, and prevention measures to develop best practices.

Objectives

1. What are the imminent security threats to mobile apps?
2. How can we detect and prevent such attacks from safeguarding mobile apps?
3. What are some of the best practices, and to what extent by mobile app users?

Literature Review

Mobile threats

Studies have shown that an increase in the number of mobile devices and their manufacturers has directly influenced the attacks on the very devices. Mobile devices store colossal amounts of data over many international platforms and networks, including PANs, Bluetooth, WLANs, and cellular networks (Vaseer et al., 2019). Moreover, these devices run on multifaceted operating systems, including Windows Mobile, Android, Blackberry OS, iOS, and Symbian. They also support other java platforms with more comprehensive extensions (Vaseer et al., 2019). Thus, such network connectivity alongside their rich codes has made them more vulnerable than the conventional PCs that often run typical operating systems with other installed security products.

Today, most mobile users are subjected to several malicious activities, primarily regarding pushing malware apps to tablets, smartphones, and other devices based on the mobile OS. Moreover, it is imperative to highlight that these mobile devices carry sensitive information (Vaseer et al., 2019). Although Apple and Google provide distribution environments that are controlled and closed, the majority of the users are often exposed to several forms of attacks, as discussed below:

Malware

Today, most smartphones are nearing PC capabilities. That means that there are a lot of incentives for hackers who often steal business and personal information and eventually extort it. Hackers exploit various attack avenues that have extensive means of spreading the malware (Khan et al., 2017). The following are some malware threats that have malicious capabilities to destroy and steal private and business information.

1. Backdoor families: these are malware that spread through Google Play Store. Some trojanized applications often hide within the respective applications (Khan et al., 2017).
2. Mobile miners: these spread through spam email and sometimes the apps that use mobile devices processing powers.
3. Android GMBot comprises the spyware that emerges from the third-party app stores that induce users to share the bank details.
4. Ace Deceiver iOS malware: these are forms of malware that strive to steal a person’s Apple ID (Khan et al., 2017).
5. Fake Applications: these are forms of malware that tend to copy the typical critical apps; once installed, they induce users for mobile verification or redirect users to the links under specific instructions.
6. Marcher Android malware: this malware often pretends to be bank websites hoping that users have their credentials by login (Khan et al., 2017).

Phishing and Social Engineering

Phishing attacks often happen through spam emails generated in large amounts by cybercriminals. Presently, a new form of phishing has been using the SMS known as “smishing,” compelling them to send links to mobile devices (Khan et al., 2017). There are also hackers taking advantage of social media to hack the users of mobile devices. These hackers often target the user’s psychology without applying the technical hacking techniques through:

1. Financial inducements of making money from a small percentage of users who hid to the text (Khan et al., 2017).
2. Spreading malicious codes to protect users’ devices through dubious messages, pretending to keep apps to date.
3. Run phishing scams to access passwords, bank account details, credit card numbers, and more (Khan et al., 2017).

Intercepting Communication and Direct Hacker Attack

In contemporary market structures, access to sophisticated mobile devices has become part of the norm, consistently increasing the number of users. Such user influx has enticed hackers to intercept critical communication and sometimes attack specific mobile devices (Mitrea & Borda, 2020). These scholars argue that hackers target three ideal targets, namely:

1. Availability: minimizes access to particular devices or limits their owners.
2. Identity: customizable devices are often easy to link to specific persons or sometimes stolen to commit other crimes (Mitrea & Borda, 2020).
3. Data: mobile devices store some information that is so sensitive and sometimes can be exposed when the phones get into the wrong hands or their systems are hacked.

Whenever there are two mobile devices in communication, interceptors often through the public LAN target these direct communication through the “man-in-the-middle” attack. These hackers often redirect the data routes by impersonating users or eavesdropping on their communication to hijack their personal information (Mitrea & Borda, 2020). There are possible means to prevent these attacks. Some ways include minimizing the use of public Wi-Fi and sometimes the non-protected connections. Also, users should keep an eye on the alerts in their browsers (Mitrea & Borda, 2020). At the same time, users should consider well-secured platforms during their sensitive transactions. These measures can minimize the likelihood of communication interception alongside the loss of some vital information and data.

Stolen and Lost Phones

Generally, mobile devices are private due to the nature of people’s data and information, either business or personal. Studies indicate that mobile users sometimes become threats when they lose their phones containing some of the most sensitive data (Mitrea & Borda, 2020). Yet, proper behavior will be essential in protecting data. Studies have also shown that using emerging technologies such as two-factor authentication, password-lock apps, and avoiding automatic logins may minimize the chances of losing sensitive information (Mitrea & Borda, 2020). While the general public believes in the notion that mobile devices often get lost due to pickpockets and muggers, studies have shown that people are twice likely to misplace their gadgets than have it stolen.

User Behavior

Research indicates that mobile device users often make their devices more vulnerable due to the mix-up of their phones for private and business transactions. The blameworthy behaviors include downloading apps from unverified third-party stores, turning off security apps, and sharing vital information with unauthorized individuals (Mitrea & Borda, 2020). Smartphones have made it easier to acquire some of the most sought-after data. Therefore, regulating user behavior is presumed to be one of the biggest concerns in mobile device security.

Methodology adopted

The research will adopt literature review as the primary methodology. Moreover, conceptual modeling will be adopted to formulate a structured approach towards the thesis statement. At the same time, reviews of the previous journals and articles will be used to formulate the present knowledge.

Risks and Security Threats

Detection methods are often deemed as the countermeasures for the malware. However, they have unique functionality depending on the variables linking to the focus of every method. It is imperative to mention that malware detection across smartphones exists in different patterns (Amro, 2017). Experts have varied opinions on the detection classification analysis methods. Whereas one group posits that there are two primary categories, namely dynamic and static, the other group has often had an inverse approach where the two classifications mentioned above serve as subgroups to signature and anomaly-linked techniques.

Signature-Based Detection

Experts believe that the detection type determines the classification approach. Most experts believe that anomaly and signature-based constitute the primary modes of classification. According to Amro (2017), signature-based detection gathers signatures and patterns from the recognized malware. It verifies them against some eminent yet suspicious codes to establish if they are benign or malicious. Moreover, this category is further broken down into two subsections: static and behavior-based signatures (Amro, 2017). The survey indicates that several business entities primarily embrace static signature-based methodology due to their antivirus software solutions.

Static signature-based detection

This method considers databases with malware entry sample signatures and then relates objects situated in either the SD storage or the RAM to deduce the matching patterns. Enock devised a security service, screened it for the Android OS, and dubbed it Kirin (Amro, 2017). This security app uses defined security regulations designed in the form of templates and often match some of the suspicious properties available in the app’s security configurations (Amro, 2017). When the security configurations have been extracted from the package, Kirin mainly verifies the configuration vis-à-vis a group of predefined security measures.

Behavior Signature-based detection

It is critical to highlight that signature acquisition based on the static method happens entirely during the decomposition and examination of the malware code sources. However, in the behavior technique, the signatures are collected after the malicious code has been implemented (Amro, 2017). In other words, as the exaction proceeds, more information is collected to determine its maliciousness. These analyses are based on the predetermined and preconfigured attack trends shared by the experts to initiate a signature database and pattern set.

However, some experts believe that there are three modes of detection approaches that can be used to determine the threat patterns. In this case, the analysis will be based on the function invocation alongside data flow analysis to single out malicious cases in Android devices (Amro, 2017). These approaches are based on reverse engineering and have been credited for recreating the source codes and the class files emerging from every app. They also develop the matching API invocation and dependency graph patterns (Amro, 2017). Subsequently, analysts will use threat patterns on these graphs to expose if any of the apps attempted to access confidential information or sometimes engage in some form of illegal access.

Hybrid Signature-based Detection

This detection method embraces elements of static and behavior-based detections. According to Weichbroth & Łysik (2020), a host and cloud-based system can be amalgamated to serve as a crowdsourcing logic. These systems embrace three primary services: crowdsourcing, privacy-flow tracking, and detection and reaction against intrusions on privacy (Weichbroth & Łysik, 2020). In most cases, the client will share the TLS connections with the cloud services to avoid resource-demanding duties. On the other hand, the client comprises three modules: privacy response, inspection, and event sensor (Weichbroth & Łysik, 2020). The cloud also constitutes three modules, including hook updates, detections, and crowdsourcing.

Anomaly-Based Detection

This approach considers minimally strict approaches. It is observed based on the expected behavior of a device within a defined time frame using average metrics as a comparison vector to examine the deviant behavior (Weichbroth & Łysik, 2020). Worth mentioning is that the dynamic and static methods will be used for analysis. Typically, the static system will analyze an app before it is installed. In other words, it will dissect it. On the other hand, the dynamic approach will extend its cross-examinations during the execution process by collecting data like system events and the subsequent calls (Weichbroth & Łysik, 2020). Devoid the system, the anomaly-based technique constitutes two primary parts, including the detection and training phases. During the training phase, a non-infected device usually functions while being observed and tracked (Weichbroth & Łysik, 2020). For the detection phase, it is often a testing period because deviations emerging from the training phase are deemed anomalies.

Static Anomaly-based Detection

These approaches do not demand malicious payload completion to operate. They serve to monitor the codes of the likely malicious apps emerging from particular suspicious functionality, snippets of code, and other emerging behavioral features (Susanto, 2021). This technique can recognize unknown malware while also having the capacity to single out the eminent vulnerabilities in the sourcing code. However, critiques believe that this concept has some weaknesses as well. One of these issues is that some false-positive ratios have continually been high (Susanto, 2021). At the same time, the costs of computational power alongside time may be higher in the long run. Wu et al. adopted DroidMat that aids in malware detection based on the API call tracing and manifest. These experts argued that if one extracts app information from its manifest file, they can disassemble its codes. Remarkably, this is done by gathering data from the manifest file like “intent,” which is often an abstract description of the intended operation, API-related calls, and the Inter-Component Communications (Susanto, 2021). Out of 238 Android malware and 1500 benign apps subject to DroidMat tests, the results indicated about 97.87 percent accuracy in sensing mobile malware (Susanto, 2021).

In different research, a group of scholars scrutinized am application’s permissions to spot malware among the androids. This study involved 1811 benign android apps and 4301 malware components (Kouliaridis et al., 2020). These scholars reported varied results in usage permissions by the malware apps. Notably, these scholars observed that malware typically allows only one permission, while the other benign would require between two and three (Kouliaridis et al., 2020). This study involved intensive machine learning techniques for malware recognition such as RandomForest, RandomTree, J48, IBK, SMO, Bayes Net, Naïve Bayes, and Simple Logistics (Kouliaridis et al., 2020). Moreover, permission extractions from mobile apps registered about 92 percent accuracy.

On the other hand, distinct scholars steered an amalgamation of API calls, permissions, and Machine learning approaches to isolate the malicious Android apps. These scholars observed four modules (Weichbroth & Łysik, 2020). The initial model decompressed the APK file to remove the class and manifest files. The second group classifies apps according to the API calls and the permissions. The API calls consider drilling the classification models from the gathered data. According to these experts, this evaluation model recorded 94.9 percent accuracy rates (Weichbroth & Łysik, 2020).

There is also a market-scale approach used for mobile malware analysis. As proposed by Chakradeo et al., this approach scrutinizes features eliminated from the app package and subsequently applies the Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) to determine the association between several categorical data (Feng et al., 2020). Moreover, it is to be acknowledged that easily-acquired features are eliminated to make MAST more affordable than the meticulous process. Such features are often the same permissions encompassed in the pre-agreed action strings, intent filters, and manifest files (Feng et al., 2020). Others include the original libraries contained within the source code alongside other malicious payloads concealed in zip files within the application package. Seven hundred thirty-two datasets were gathered from known malicious apps in their training phases, and 15000 apps extracted from Google Play were used to conduct a MAST exercise (Feng et al., 2020). These scholars opined that it takes nearly a quarter of its duration to run a complete signature detection.

Additionally, a separate study suggested a combination-based permission scheme for the Android mobile malware detections. These scholars gathered permission collections suggested in the app manifest files demanded more rigorously by the mobile malware, unlike benign apps (Susanto, 2021). Remarkably, they developed a k-map tool to establish permission combinations generated from the application’s manifest files. Furthermore, they determined permission requests from the combinations that had been extracted (Susanto, 2021). Among other things, this experiment established that the model could spot malware with minimal error, with detection rates rising above 95 percent, while the benign app at 88 percent Weichbroth & Łysik (2020). These experts presented mobile malware detection based on op-code frequency histograms.

This approach categorized malware based on the occurrence frequencies for particular op-codes. Canfora et al. considered the detection techniques that employ vectors accrued from eight Dalvik op-codes (Weichbroth & Łysik, 2020). These codes are instrumental for the alteration of the application’s control flow. These scholars realized that this model registered up to about 93.9 percent when tested. Mobile botnet categorization founded on API calls and permissions was proposed in a separate study. Five -thousand five hundred sixty malware samples were collected from about 179 malware groups (Weichbroth & Łysik, 2020). They used fifty android botnet models based on static analysis and reverse engineering to eliminate sixteen fundamental permissions alongside thirty-one API calls from the samples (Weichbroth & Łysik, 2020). Also, they gathered eight-hundred random app samples from Google Play and tested their categories using Support Vector Machine algorithms, RandomForest, K-nearest, and Naïve Bayes. This experiment realized 99.4 percent detection rates alongside 16.1 percent false-positive rates (Weichbroth & Łysik, 2020).

Mobile Security Best Practices

Mobile security policies and procedures are rules and precautions advised for safeguarding mobile systems and data. Software and hardware providers, in essence, describe and advocate methods and guidelines that, when followed correctly, should promote and enhance security levels (Kouliaridis et al., 2020). Even though there is no way to ensure security 100 percent because intruders can uncover and abuse unanticipated weaknesses, below are some recently created standard practices for mobile applications and devices. It is substantial to prioritize authentication methods: often, these mobile devices could be secured with a screen lock and opened with a personal identification number (PIN), a passcode, biometric such as face recognition, and fingerprint (Kouliaridis et al., 2020). Univariate authentication is already considered the most excellent technique for securing user information. Security is solely reliant on the password scale and the user’s devotion to its privacy.

Being careful of social engineering tactics: the term “social engineering” refers to a wide range of harmful behavior, including hacking, luring, pretexting, quid pro quo, and shadowing (“piggybacking”). With this life form orientation in mind, it is the user’s responsibility to be alert of malevolent “performers” that participate in social attacks and threats in the hopes of exploiting greed and selfishness, and incompetence (Feng et al., 2020). Workers may be subjected to social engineering vulnerability scanners (sometimes referred to as social pen testing) by corporations, particularly security experts. By definition, social pen verification is the practice of using social engineering schemes on staff members to assess their ability to supply sensitive data (Feng et al., 2020). Such an evaluation is essential since it provides an accurate verification of personal compliance with its security regulations.

Update security fixes for on-board applications or mobile operating systems: maintaining the installed applications and computer system (iOS and android) current and relevant is necessary. Users can get periodic reports from Apple and Google that fix current breaches or other risks and give new compliance and safety improvements (Benzaid & Taleb, 2020). Nonetheless, the advancement of an app can be a double-edged sword since a novel variety might reduce the program’s inclusive effectiveness and the efficiency of its users.

Updates can initiate the riveting procedure, which validates special permission from a security standpoint (Benzaid & Taleb, 2020). A set of detailed and widespread valuations is accomplished to ensure that mobile software complies with an institution’s safety essentials and is free of threats (Benzaid & Taleb, 2020). It’s important to remember that app screening might comprise updated peripheral devices (such as third-party libraries) and federally mandated operating system versions.

Deploying mobile protection and antivirus apps: mobile protection and antivirus genuine scanners defend against harmful apps and viruses, and also phishing scams, crypto miners, and ransomware and because there is no further security by default. Moreover, some programs can scan URLs and restrict destructive websites, and check text message connections and offer parental control (Benzaid & Taleb, 2020). Professionals certainly recommend the practice of such implements, but nothing occurs for at liberty. The adverse effects in their instance allude to higher hardware resource distribution and more significant battery depletion due to operating systems.

Disconnecting Wi-Fi and Bluetooth when not being used: reducing the use of Wi-Fi Bluetooth lessens the risk of defects being exploited, even though the weaknesses aren’t in the specifications themselves, but in their interpretations (Weichbroth & Łysik, 2020). It is worth noting that the deactivating action necessitates a user’s active participation. Nonetheless, there are technologies (for example, Auto Bluetooth) that automatically turn Bluetooth on or off depending on user-defined rules.

Regularly backing up user data is significant: backing up is a fundamental strategy of limiting information loss or erasure. A restoration plan should be adjusted as data grows and expands (Weichmbroth & Łysik, 2020). User data such as spreadsheets and documents, media assets (for example, videos and images), and other confidential material are instances of user data. An offsite backup, which entails replicating and storing information in a cloud-based platform, is the natural solution for mobile platforms (Weichbroth & Łysik, 2020). Nevertheless, the transmission rate is the top consideration in this scenario.

Even though the content is sent over a high-bandwidth linkage, antivirus detectors, upload limits, and firewalls can significantly reduce the speed. Another constraint is the cost of data upload, which cellular internet companies regulate (Weichbroth & Łysik, 2020). However, there is no assurance that data in the cloud will remain private. On the other hand, data encryption encrypts data and changes it into a code or form that authorized users can only decode and view. The data stored on the device and the data sent over the network are encrypted (Weichbroth & Łysik, 2020). By default, encryption requires a passcode to encode and decode the file system.

Getting it back is notoriously complex and ineffective when a passcode is lost. On the other hand, using open-source solutions may mislead consumers into believing in unquestionable security (Weichbroth & Łysik, 2020). Additionally, it is not advisable to connect to and use an insecure Wi-Fi hotspot before using a secure transfer method such as a virtual private network (VPN) (Weichbroth & Łysik, 2020). Because of the distance between the client and the server, the existing server congestion, and the encryption level employed, VPNs are frequently slower than traditional internet services in this case.

Enabling remote data wipes is part of the best practices. If a person’s phone with sensitive information is lost and there is a slim likelihood of recovering it in a reasonable amount of time, its functionality to send a system restore command to the phone should be enabled (Benzaid & Taleb, 2020). Moreover, a remote server wipe is required in job termination or the acquisition of a virus infection that cannot be removed or wiped. While current systems offer evident benefits, they are not a one-size-fits-all answer for cybersecurity. For example, although some applications delete only a piece of information, others delete all of it, comprising programs and private details (Benzaid & Taleb, 2020). As a result, it is significant to contemplate using a secure wrapper that, by design, isolates programs from private information, allowing for partial deletion in the event of a security breach (Benzaid & Taleb, 2020). Furthermore, via early detection, a proactive approach that monitors the use of sensitive data would increase security.

Please make sure you don’t give apps any privileges they do not need: Restrictions are the rights that an app possesses, such as accessing accessories like the contact list, camera, or location. Dependent on the vendor, existing operational systems come in various varieties (Benzaid & Taleb, 2020). One of the most important principles is to allow only those credentials that are required for the program to function effectively. To put it another way, a user should follow the concept of the principle of least privilege (PoLP). Permits are given, on the other hand, can be thought of as the keys that open the application’s capabilities (Benzaid & Taleb, 2020). As a result, a proper design associates runtime with specified activities and responsibilities that support the demands.

Results and project findings

This study was generally more exploratory in many ways. Thus, the outcome expressed empirical evidence along with threats and the best practices that prevail in mobile security (Kouliaridis et al., 2020). However, there is a greater need for the experts to verify most of this information and exploit the viable options through quantitative methods for certainty. The present security measures have registered minimal security loopholes (Kouliaridis et al., 2020). It is also visible that the security of most of these devices largely depends on the user behavior in tandem with the efforts in place to mitigate emerging challenges.

Another finding is that understanding the users’ motivations and intentions towards a specific technology is vital in establishing how crucial technology will be. In other words, it is the best practice to underscore users’ privacy and security concerns at their respective levels (Kouliaridis et al., 2020). Thus, it is more likely that future studies should focus on modeling users’ purview on their security and mobile apps usability. Also noted is that several best practices and mobile security challenges are often the same in several parts of the world (Kouliaridis et al., 2020). However, unlike the best practices and threats, the policy management is often local, which means that businesses have to customize specific policies based on their application settings and scenarios.

SMS fraud is one of the security threats to mobile devices. This has been a typical threat in Apple, Android, and IOS’ use. The users usually receive a message requesting that they subscribe to a weekly, daily, or monthly service (Khan et al., 2017). To subscribe, the user usually provides personal information, such as credit card numbers, because the service is initially free (Khan et al., 2017). Still, after a while, the users are charged without their consent.

Moreover, spyware is another security threat that takes data from a mobile phone without the user’s authority. Users of these mobile devices should initiate antimalware tools to curb this problem (Khan et al., 2017). These tools usually identify and catch the known threat and notify the user of any further actions required. Sometimes, a new malware cannot be recognized by standard software or tool. Therefore, an improvement on the new technique may be required. This threat increases with the increasing number of mobile devices accessing the internet (Khan et al., 2017). Malware is a threat to mobile devices as they destroy files, fraudulently send emails or SMS, and deplete battery use.

Recommendations

As captured in the analysis, mobile security is likened to an arms race where the defenders (owners) must be ready from the eminent attacks. The growth of this industry in terms of the market means that security threats will continue to increase through an array of platforms (Susanto, 2021; Zhongming et al., 2021). Thus, at whatever level, this paper proposes that society must always be ready to balance threats and convenience. Consequently, there is a need for intensive research and investigations to discard doubts while also verifying the potential benefits, risks, and possible tradeoffs (Susanto, 2021). As countermeasures, practitioners and policymakers should develop a holistic approach to address this phenomenon by examining the adverse events and the circumstances leading to losses of critical assets at the individual and organizational levels (Susanto, 2021; Zhongming et al., 2021). Moreover, there should be decisive countermeasures to accord reliable and adequate user protection.

At the same time, app development should always be the initial defense line against attacks, threats, and frauds aimed at the users. In other words, users should be coached on the most critical steps to maintain security and privacy principles that align with their smartphone applications (Susanto, 2021). Furthermore, more weight is pegged on the developers as authorities in mitigating the security and privacy issues, putting them as instrumental players in upholding mobile security measures.

It has also been established that cybersecurity that relies on embedded AI, endpoint protection is critical. The AI-driven endpoint protections provide a behavior baseline for the endpoints based on the continuous training processes (Susanto, 2021; Zhongming et al., 2021). In case of unordinary event(s), AI will automatically flag it and initiate appropriate measures. Additionally, machine learning models can isolate some of the most critical features by countering potential harmful activities such as zero-day threats, thus grouping benign and malign actions (Susanto, 2021; Zhongming et al., 2021). Overall, security depends on the user and their demonstrated behavior as well as their efforts.

Conclusion

In sum, a significant amount of smartphones use Window Mobile operating systems. However, due to several APIs, most users are ignorant of the security risks, alongside the monetary entices that propel malware writers to carry on with creating malware. Although most phones are not highly exposed, users cannot relent their awareness. The present situation may only be a microcosm of the underlying dangers, and, therefore, it is crucial to be cautious when operating mobile devices. As established in the study above, device security is likened to an arms race among the defenders and the attackers. With the growing mobile markets, dangers are also likely to spur, which means many challenges will likely resurface. Matters security are about balancing convenience and defense as well as risks vis-à-vis rewards. According to this school of thought, there is a need for extensive research to establish the likely risks alongside benefits and the possible tradeoffs.

This research paper provides a holistic presentation of the issue at hand. It examines its adverse impacts and what can be done as countermeasures to evade the potential loss of vital data and other assets while ensuring adequate and reliable protection for the users. This means that society needs to beef resources in research to establish the latest technologies as we mark a new era of cybercrime. For example, three fundamental technological advancements, namely 5G networks, biometrics, and Artificial intelligence, will likely shape worldwide cybersecurity. In other words, new architectures alongside sharing resources and knowledge will be inevitable as society faces cybercrime-related issues instigated by the latest technologies.

References

Amro, B. (2017). Malware detection techniques for mobile devices. International Journal of Mobile Network Communications & Telematics (IJMNCT), Vol. 7.

Benzaid, C., & Taleb, T. (2020). ZSM security: Threat surface and best practices. IEEE Network, 34(3), 124-133.

Feng, R., Chen, S., Xie, X., Meng, G., Lin, S. W., & Liu, Y. (2020). A performance-sensitive malware detection system using deep learning on mobile devices. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 16, 1563-1578.

Khan, F. A., Imran, M., Abbas, H., & Durad, M. H. (2017). A detection and prevention system against collaborative attacks in mobile ad hoc networks. Future Generation Computer Systems, 68, 416-427.

Kouliaridis, V., Barmpatsalou, K., Kambourakis, G., & Chen, S. (2020). A survey on mobile malware detection techniques. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 103(2), 204-211.

Mitrea, T., & Borda, M. (2020). Mobile Security Threats: A Survey on Protection and Mitigation Strategies. In International conference KNOWLEDGE-BASED ORGANIZATION (Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 131-135).

Susanto, H. (2021). Revealing Cyber Threat of Smart Mobile Devices within Digital Ecosystem: User Information Security Awareness. In Data Integrity and Quality. IntechOpen.

Vaseer, G., Ghai, G., & Ghai, D. (2019). Novel intrusion detection and prevention for mobile ad hoc networks: A single-and multiattack case study. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, 8(3), 35-39.

Weichbroth, P., & Łysik, Ł. (2020). Mobile security: Threats and best practices. Mobile Information Systems, 2020.

Zhongming, Z., Linong, L., Wangqiang, Z., & Wei, L. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Cybersecurity–CEPS.