Multilayer ransomware detection using grouped registry key operations, file entropy and file signature monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last few years have come with a sudden rise in ransomware attack incidents, causing significant financial losses to individuals, institutions and businesses. In reaction to these attacks, ransomware detection has become an important topic for research in recent years. Currently, there are two broad categories of ransomware detection techniques: signature-based and behaviour-based analyses. On the one hand, signature-based detection, which mainly relies on a static analysis, can easily be evaded by code-obfuscation and encryption techniques. On the other hand, current behaviour-based models, which rely mainly on a dynamic analysis, face difficulties in accurately differentiating between user-triggered encryption from ransomware-triggered encryption. In the current paper, we present an upgraded behavioural ransomware detection model that reinforces the existing feature space with a new set of features based on grouped registry key operations, introducing a monitoring model based on combined file entropy and file signature. We analyze the new feature model by exploring and comparing three different linear machine learning techniques: SVM, logistic regression and random forest. The proposed approach helps achieve improved detection accuracy and provides the ability to detect novel ransomware. Furthermore, the proposed approach helps differentiate user-triggered encryption from ransomware-triggered encryption, allowing saving as many files as possible during an attack. To conduct our study, we use a new public ransomware detection dataset collected in our lab, which consists of 666 ransomware and 103 benign binaries. Our experimental results show that our proposed approach achieves relatively high accuracy in detecting both previously seen and novel ransomware samples.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".