MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979795649 · doi:10.1109/qrs-c.2019.00088

10 Years of IoT Malware: A Feature-Based Taxonomy

2019· article· en· W2979795649 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Vignau, Raphaël Khoury, Sylvain Hallé

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalwareComputer scienceBotnetSalientComputer securityFirmwareHoneypotInternet of ThingsCryptovirologyMalware analysisFeature (linguistics)ReuseThe InternetWorld Wide WebData scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past decade, there has been a rapidly growing interest in IoT-connected devices. But as is usually the case with computer systems and networks, malicious individuals soon noticed that these objects could be exploited for criminal purposes. The problem is particularly salient since the firmware used in many Internet connected devices were developed without taking into consideration the expertise and best security practices gained over the past several years by programmers in other areas. Multiple attacks on IoT devices took place therefore over the last decade, culminating with the largest ever recorded DDoS attack, the Mirai botnet, which took advantage of the weaknesses in the security of the IoT. In this survey, we seek to shed light on the evolution of the IoT malware. We compare the characteristic features of 16 of the most widespread IoT malware programs of the last decade and propose a novel methodology for classifying malware based on its behavioral features. Our study also highlights the common practice of feature reuse across multiple malware programs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations58
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207