# Framework for Malware Triggering Using Steganography
## 4 Evaluation
### Results and Analysis
#### 4.2.1 Geolocation Services Result and Analysis
The results show that most databases produced valid results at the district and city level except for the Skyhook database, which returned coordinates for another city. The Skyhook database achieved the worst accuracy, which was around 268 km (kilometers). The best database was Google, with an accuracy of 2 km. The rest of the databases achieved convergent accuracy values. The DBIP and Whois databases had an accuracy of about 7 km, while the remainder of the databases returned almost all locations within an accuracy range of 8 km. Figure 6 summarizes the results in the tables for the IP geolocation services. We noticed that all services were correct when connected to a DSL type of network, except for the Skyhook Hyperlocal IP. The comparison analysis of the WPS in Windows and Mac is summarized in Tables 13 and 14, respectively. Comparing Google geolocation API and Skyhook achieved close mean accuracy values in Windows. Skyhook had greater accuracy, with an average accuracy of 18.05 m, than Google geolocation, which reached 19.1 m. On the other hand, they both demonstrated poor performance when using a Mac compared to Windows devices, with an average accuracy of 24.85 m for Google geolocation and 32.8 for Skyhook. Figure 7 summarizes the results in the tables for the Wi-Fi positioning systems. When connected to a SIM card wireless network, Google achieved better results, while Skyhook achieved better results than Google when connected to a DSL type network. The outcome is that we have been successful at incorporating the W3C geolocation API and Google IP geolocation techniques within an image to develop an attack by targeting \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Service** & **Access Networks** & **Coordinates** & **Other Information** & **Analysis (Meters)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Google Geolocation API} & wireless network & lat: 24.4509747 & \multirow{4}{*}{–} & Precision: 36.312 \\  & (STC\_4G) & lng: 39.530973 & & Accuracy: 4.1073313992 \\ \cline{2-5}  & wireless network (DSL) & lat: 24.4506757 & \multirow{4}{*}{–} & Precision: 58.041 \\  & lng: 39.5308182 & & Accuracy: 34.132581461 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Skyhook Precision Location} & wireless network & lat: 24.450698 & nap: 14 & Precision: 35 \\  & (STC\_4G) & lng: 39.530818 & source: ’wifi’ & Accuracy: 32.028255422 \\ \cline{2-5}  & wireless network (DSL) & lat: 24.450904 & nap: 18 & Precision: 30 \\ \cline{1-1}  & lng: 39.530993 & source: ’wifi’ & Accuracy: 4.0941457106 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 13: Result and Comparison of WPS in Windows. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Service** & **Access Networks** & **Coordinates** & **Other Information** & **Analysis (Meters)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Google Geolocation API} & wireless network & lat: 24.4509806 & \multirow{4}{*}{–} & Precision: 27.188 \\  & (STC\_4G) & lng: 39.5309566 & & Accuracy: 5.5018890083 \\ \cline{2-5}  & wireless network (DSL) & lat: 24.4506014 & & Precision: 57.392 \\ \cline{2-5}  & wireless network (DSL) & lat: 39.5307614 & & Accuracy: 44.173707921 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Skyhook Precision Location} & wireless network & lat: 24.450692 & nap: 10 & Precision: 34 \\  & (STC\_4G) & lng: 39.530797 & source: ’wifi’ & Accuracy: 33.766395139 \\ \cline{1-1}  & wireless network (DSL) & lat: 24.450674 & nap: 23 & Precision: 31 \\ \cline{1-1}  & lng: 39.530874 & source: ’wifi’ & Accuracy: 31.831818344 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 14: Result and Comparison of WPS in Mac. Figure 7: Comparison analysis of the WPS. a specific city or location, thus limiting exposure to detection engines and bypassing detection altogether.