Augmented YARA Rules Fused With Fuzzy Hashing in Ransomware Triaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Triaging is an initial stage of malware analysis to assess whether a sample is malware or not and the degree of similarity it holds with known malware. It can be applied to any malware category such as ransomware, which is a type of malware that blocks access to a system or data, usually by encrypting it. It has become the main modus operandi for cybercriminals to extort monies from victims due to the growth of cryptocurrencies. Consequently, it severely affects all types of users whether they be from corporates or ordinary home users. Ransomware can be prevented in several different ways, however, the simple and initial step in prevention is its triaging without execution. Several triaging methods are in use such as fuzzy hashing, import hashing and YARA rules, amongst all, YARA rules are one of the most popular and widely used methods. Nonetheless, its success or failure is dependent on the quality of rules employed for malware triaging. This paper performs ransomware triaging using fuzzy hashing, import hashing and YARA rules and demonstrates how YARA rules can be improved using fuzzy hashing to obtain relatively better triaging results. Subsequently, it proposes the augmented YARA rules fused with fuzzy hashing to obtain improved triaging results and performance efficiency in comparison to all three triaging methods individually. Finally, the paper demonstrates how the use of the fused YARA rules can improve triaging results irrespective of the type of malware.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".