MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2240191805 · doi:10.1109/srdsw.2015.18

On the Use of Mobile GPU for Accelerating Malware Detection Using Trace Analysis

2015· article· en· W2240191805 on OpenAlexaff
Manel Abdellatif, Chamseddine Talhi, Abdelwahab Hamou‐Lhadj, Michel Dagenais

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalConcordia UniversityÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMalwareExploitMobile malwareMobile deviceComputationMobile computingAndroid (operating system)Computation offloadingEmbedded systemOperating systemCloud computingComputer securityEdge computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Malware detection on mobile phones involves analysing and matching large amount of data streams against a set of known malware signatures. Unfortunately, as the number of threats grows continuously, the number of malware signatures grows proportionally. This is time consuming and leads to expensive computation costs, especially for mobile devices where memory, power and computation capabilities are limited. As the security threat level is getting worse, parallel computation capabilities for mobile phones is getting better with the evolution of mobile graphical processing units (GPUs). In this paper, we discuss how we can benefit from the evolving parallel processing capabilities of mobile devices in order to accelerate malware detection on Android mobile phones. We have designed and implemented a parallel host-based anti-malware for mobile devices that exploits the computation capabilities of mobile GPUs. A series of computation and memory optimization techniques are proposed to increase the detection throughput. The results suggest that mobile graphic cards can be used effectively to accelerate malware detection for mobile phones.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207