MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803049783 · doi:10.1109/isdfs.2018.8355360

Android gaming malware detection using system call analysis

2018· article· en· W2803049783 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University of Edmonton
FundersMinistère de l'Économie, de la Science et de l'Innovation - Québec
KeywordsMalwareAndroid (operating system)Computer scienceSystem callAndroid malwareMalware analysisStatic analysisComputer securityTaint checkingOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Android operating systems have become a prime target for attackers as most of the market is currently dominated by Android users. The situation gets worse when users unknowingly download or sideload cloning applications, especially gaming applications that look like benign games. In this paper, we present, a dynamic Android gaming malware detection system based on system call analysis to classify malicious and legitimate games. We performed the dynamic system call analysis on normal and malicious gaming applications while applications are in execution state. Our analysis reveals the similarities and differences between benign and malware game system calls and shows how dynamically analyzing the behavior of malicious activity through system calls during runtime makes it easier and is more effective to detect malicious applications. Experimental analysis and results shows the efficiency and effectiveness of our approach.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207