## 6 Conclusions and Perspectives  
Products are provided by app vendors to users through app stores. Despite offering rating schemes indicating user satisfaction, they lack efficiency to deal with low-quality products in specific aspects to improve their market. Security claims for instance should be overcome in this context. The objective of this research was therefore to propose an approach relying on review analysis able to recommend improvements to vendors and developers. In this regard, existing research (i) concentrates on ratings dealing with functional aspect to the detriment of security aspects, (ii) related to security are dedicated to summarization aspects and exploitation of code features for detection. This work proposed, CIAA-RepDroid, a fine-grained mechanism to evaluate security-related reputation based on probabilistic model and sentiment analysis. Additionally, we provided means to have reputations in terms of confidentiality, integrity, authentication and availability to fully identify security aspects where developers should put more efforts. We have experimented CIAA-RepDroid on 13 applications including a total of 1050 security-related reviews and 7,835,322 functionality-related reviews. Results revealed that in majority of cases, developers neglect security specifications in their development as well as security claims in their updates. Applications are more reputed in functional aspects than in security aspects. Moreover, confidentiality reputation remains the lowest, indicating that related measures are mitigated in their code. Therefore it is possible for attackers to access prohibiteddata as the owner. This aspect must be investigated deeply. A comparison of CIAA-RepDroid to existing approaches demonstrated its efficiency, precision and completeness to present security flaws through reviews. A further investigation in the change of keywords related to another study showed that CIAA-RepDroid remains robust. Despite all these positive points coupled to its applicability, CIAA-RepDroid is subject to some pitfalls that require further investigations. * CIAA-RepDroid will be extended to consider fake reviews;
* CIAA-RepDroid will include the fact reviews update with time and versions;
* CIAA-RepDroid will consider the fact that for an application, reviews are made in different stores. **Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, F.T. and A.E.Y.P. ; methodology, F.T. and A.E.Y.P. ; software, A.E.Y.P. ; validation, F.T. ; writing--original draft preparation, F.T., A.E.Y.P. and M.A. ; writing--review and editing, J.C.K. and M.A. ; supervision, F.T. ; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. **Funding:** This research received no external funding. **Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{14.2 pt} p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt}} \hline \hline
**Security Aspect** & **Keywords** & **Justifications** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{6}{*}{_Integrity_} & & _Once the state of the system changed and those data are altered, some related elements become nonsense. This alteration shows abnormal and anomaly behaviors throughout the system. Alterations are helpful to detect attacker traces. The latter generally uses repudiation measures to evade detections._ \\ \hline \hline \multirow{6}{*}{_Fraud, spam, lie, scammer, scam_} & _These terms relate to social engineering attacks consisting of luring user to provide critical data. The reason why we put them into the integrity category is that their objective is the infiltration to the target. This infiltration makes the state changed._ \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{_Availability_} & _Wrong, Error, Bug, Bugger, nonsense, Available, Crash, impractical_ \\ \cline{2-3}  & & _These terms refer to the inaccessibility or unavailability of a service or feature when using an application.