MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621801683 · doi:10.1109/ths.2017.7943487

Cognitive modeling of polymorphic malware using fractal based semantic characterization

2017· article· en· W2621801683 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Salman Khan, Sana Siddiqui, Ken Ferens

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalwareComputer scienceExecutableStatic analysisArtificial intelligenceGraphData miningTheoretical computer scienceProgramming languageComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polymorphic malware belong to the class of host based threats which defy signature based detection mechanisms. Threat actors use various code obfuscation methods to hide the code details of the polymorphic malware and each dynamic iteration of the malware bears different and new signatures therefore makes its detection harder by signature based antimalware programs. Sandbox based detection systems perform syntactic analysis of the binary files to find known patterns from the un-encrypted segment of the malware file. Anomaly based detection systems can detect polymorphic threats but generate enormous false alarms. In this work, authors present a novel cognitive framework using semantic features to detect the presence of polymorphic malware inside a Microsoft Windows host using a process tree based temporal directed graph. Fractal analysis is performed to find cognitively distinguishable patterns of the malicious processes containing polymorphic malware executables. The main contributions of this paper are; the presentation of a graph theoretic approach for semantic characterization of polymorphism in the operating system's process tree, and the cognitive feature extraction of the polymorphic behavior for detection over a temporal process space.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207