Soft Computing

, Volume 22, Issue 24, pp 8289–8300 | Cite as

Reliability score inference and recommendation using fuzzy-based technique for social media applications

  • T. Shanmuigapriya
  • S. Swamynathan
Methodologies and Application


Usage of online social networks (OSN) has been gaining momentum in the recent past. People with varying cultural background and age, spanning the globe, share their views and day-to-day affairs with their community. There are an abundant number of internal applications as well as third-party applications (TPA) available to the users either through these OSN sites or that which uses the OSNs identity service to login and access the service. When users wish to use the TPA, the user’s data has to be shared with the TPA’s server. Otherwise, the service would be denied. When users share such information with the TPA, firstly, the users may not be aware of the reliability level of TPA and how those TPA would be handling the user’s data. Secondly, they need not provide the promised level of service but still would have acquired the data from the users. Hence, it is necessary to check the TPA’s level of service and the data requested by them before using the service. The reliability inference application (RIA) and application recommender proposed in this work are based on fuzzy inference mechanism. They mimic the human expert’s decision of choosing a TPA. The RIA trades off the risk associated with sharing the data with the level of service offered and renders the reliability score of the applications. The application recommender presents the users with the recommendation for TPA as highly recommended, recommended or recommended with risk based on the user’s privacy preference. It assists the user to choose a TPA that provides the desired level of service matching the user’s privacy preferences.


Online social networks Third-party applications Privacy Fuzzy inference system 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Anthonysamy P, Rashid A, Walkerdine J, Greenwood P, Larkou G (2012) Collaborative privacy management for third-party applications in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 1st workshop on privacy and security in online social media, ACM, New York, NY, USA, PSOSM ’12, pp 5:1–5:4. doi: 10.1145/2185354.2185359
  2. Besmer A, Lipford HR, Shehab M, Cheek G (2009) Social applications: exploring a more secure framework. In: Proceedings of the 5th symposium on usable privacy and security, ACM, New York, NY, USA, SOUPS ’09, pp 2:1–2:10. doi: 10.1145/1572532.1572535
  3. Chaabane A, Ding Y, Dey R, Kaafar MA, Ross KW (2014) A closer look at third-party osn applications: Are they leaking your personal information? In: Passive and active measurement, Springer, pp 235–246. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-04918-2_23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheng Y, Park J, Sandhu RS (2013) Preserving user privacy from third-party applications in online social networks. In: 22nd international world wide web conference, WWW ’13, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 13–17, 2013, Companion Volume, pp 723–728.
  5. Felt A, Evans D (2008) Privacy protection for social networking apis. In: Proceedings of the workshop on web 2.0 security and privacy, Oakland, CA, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  6. Jsoup (2015) API documentation for jsoup.
  7. Kong D, Jin H (2015) Towards permission request prediction on mobile apps via structure feature learning. In: Proceedings of SIAM international conference on data mining (SDM15), SIAM, pp 604–612. doi: 10.1137/1.9781611974010 Google Scholar
  8. Krutz DE, Mirakhorli M, Malachowsky SA, Ruiz A, Peterson J, Filipski A, Smith J (2015) A dataset of open-source android applications. In: Mining software repositories (MSR), 2015 IEEE/ACM 12th working conference on IEEE, pp 522–525. doi: 10.1109/MSR.2015.79
  9. Peng H, Gates C, Sarma B, Li N, Qi Y, Potharaju R, Nita-Rotaru C, Molloy I (2012) Using probabilistic generative models for ranking risks of android apps. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on computer and communications security, ACM, New York, NY, USA, CCS ’12, pp 241–252. doi: 10.1145/2382196.2382224
  10. Shanmughapriya T, Swamynathan S (2016) An alert system based on shared score for online social networks. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on information and communication technology for competitive strategies, ACM, p 108Google Scholar
  11. Singh K, Bhola S, Lee W (2009) xbook: redesigning privacy control in social networking platforms. In: Proceedings of the 18th conference on USENIX security symposium, USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, USA, SSYM’09, pp 249–266.
  12. TextBlob (2015) Text Blob in Python documentation.
  13. Tuunainen VK, Pitkänen O, Hovi M (2009) Users’ awareness of privacy on online social networking sites-case facebook. In: Proceedings of Bled 2009, p 42Google Scholar
  14. Wang P, Tan S (1997) Soft computing and fuzzy logic. Soft Comput 1(1):35–41. doi: 10.1007/s005000050004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Zadeh LA (1983) The role of fuzzy logic in the management of uncertainty in expert systems. Fuzzy Sets Syst 11(1–3):197–198. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0114(83)80081-5 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zadeh LA (1988) Fuzzy logic. IEEE Comput 21(4):83–93. doi: 10.1109/2.53 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Science and TechnologyAnna UniversityChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations