MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971911274 · doi:10.1093/comjnl/bxu148

Annotated Control Flow Graph for Metamorphic Malware Detection

2014· article· en· W1971911274 on OpenAlexaff
Shahid Alam, Issa Traoré, İbrahim Soğukpınar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Computer Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalwareComputer scienceLibrary scienceControl flowComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metamorphism is a technique that mutates the binary code using different obfuscations and never keeps the same sequence of opcodes in the memory. This stealth technique provides the capability to a malware for evading detection by simple signature-based (such as instruction sequences, byte sequences and string signatures) anti-malware programs. In this paper, we present a new scheme named Annotated Control Flow Graph (ACFG) to efficiently detect such kinds of malware. ACFG is built by annotating CFG of a binary program and is used for graph and pattern matching to analyse and detect metamorphic malware. We also optimize the runtime of malware detection through parallelization and ACFG reduction, maintaining the same accuracy (without ACFG reduction) for malware detection. ACFG proposed in this paper: (i) captures the control flow semantics of a program; (ii) provides a faster matching of ACFGs and can handle malware with smaller CFGs, compared with other such techniques, without compromising the accuracy; (iii) contains more information and hence provides more accuracy than a CFG. Experimental evaluation of the proposed scheme using an existing dataset yields malware detection rate of 98.9% and false positive rate of 4.5%.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Computer JournalSame topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207