A Survey of Binary Code Fingerprinting Approaches: Taxonomy, Methodologies, and Features
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Binary code fingerprinting is crucial in many security applications. Examples include malware detection, software infringement, vulnerability analysis, and digital forensics. It is also useful for security researchers and reverse engineers since it enables high fidelity reasoning about the binary code such as revealing the functionality, authorship, libraries used, and vulnerabilities. Numerous studies have investigated binary code with the goal of extracting fingerprints that can illuminate the semantics of a target application. However, extracting fingerprints is a challenging task since a substantial amount of significant information will be lost during compilation, notably, variable and function naming, the original data and control flow structures, comments, semantic information, and the code layout. This article provides the first systematic review of existing binary code fingerprinting approaches and the contexts in which they are used. In addition, it discusses the applications that rely on binary code fingerprints, the information that can be captured during the fingerprinting process, and the approaches used and their implementations. It also addresses limitations and open questions related to the fingerprinting process and proposes future directions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it