MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2545150312 · doi:10.1109/pst.2016.7906945

Dynamic graph-based malware classifier

2016· article· en· W2545150312 on OpenAlexaff
Hossein Hadian Jazi, Ali A. Ghorbani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMalwareTheoretical computer scienceGraphScalability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the vast majority of obfuscation techniques employed by the malware authors, extraction of a high-level representation of malware structure is an efficient way in this regard. High-level graph representations are able to represent the main functionality of a given sample in more abstract way. The graph-based approaches have mostly revolved around static analysis of the binary and share the common drawbacks of any static based approaches. In addition to the type of analysis, the scalability of these approaches is also affected by the employed graph comparison algorithm. Full graph comparison is by itself a NP-hard problem. Approximated graph comparison algorithms such as Graph Edit Distance have been commonly studied in the field of graph classification. To address the two major weaknesses involved with the current graph-based approaches, we propose a dynamic graph-based malware classifier. At the time of this proposal, this is the first attempt to generate and classify dynamic graphs. In spite of providing more accurate graphs, dynamic analysis leads to the generating larger graphs, and aggravating the problem of comparison measurement. To address this problem we modify an existing algorithm called Simulated Annealing to reduce computational complexity. Our comparative experimental results with two other malware classifiers confirm the effectiveness of our framework.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207