MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W140259279

Using clone detection to find malware in acrobat files

2013· article· en· W140259279 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueConference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of CanadaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalwareJavaScriptComputer scienceclone (Java method)False positive paradoxSet (abstract data type)CryptovirologyOperating systemDatabaseProgramming languageArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One common vector of malware is JavaScript in Adobe Acrobat(PDF) files. In this paper, we investigate using near miss clone detectors to find the malware. We start by collecting a set of PDF files containing JavaScript malware and a set with clean JavaScript from the VirusTotal repository. We use the NiCad clone detector to find the classes of clones in a small subset of the malicious PDF files. We evaluate how clone classes can be used to find similar malicious files in the rest of the malicious collection while avoiding files in the benign collection. Our results show that a small training set produced 87% detection of previously known malware with 1% false positives.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.165
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it