MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360764539 · doi:10.1109/icmla55696.2022.00173

VDGraph2Vec: Vulnerability Detection in Assembly Code using Message Passing Neural Networks

2022· article· en· W4360764539 on OpenAlexafffund
Ashita Diwan, Miles Q. Li, Benjamin C. M. Fung

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsComputer scienceVulnerability (computing)MalwareDeep learningReverse engineeringSoftwareArtificial intelligenceBenchmark (surveying)Task (project management)Machine learningProcess (computing)Vulnerability managementArtificial neural networkSoftware security assuranceCode (set theory)Software engineeringStatic program analysisComputer securityVulnerability assessmentSoftware developmentInformation securityProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Software vulnerability detection is one of the most challenging tasks faced by reverse engineers. Recently, vulnerability detection has received a lot of attention due to a drastic increase in the volume and complexity of software. Reverse engineering is a time-consuming and labor-intensive process for detecting malware and software vulnerabilities. However, with the advent of deep learning and machine learning, it has become possible for researchers to automate the process of identifying potential security breaches in software by developing more intelligent technologies. In this research, we propose VDGraph2Vec, an automated deep learning method to generate representations of assembly code for the task of vulnerability detection. Previous approaches failed to attend to topological characteristics of assembly code while discovering the weakness in the software. VDGraph2Vec embeds the control flow and semantic information of assembly code effectively using the expressive capabilities of message passing neural networks and the RoBERTa model. Our model is able to learn the important features that help distinguish between vulnerable and non-vulnerable software. We carry out our experimental analysis for performance benchmark on three of the most common weaknesses and demonstrate that our model can identify vulnerabilities with high accuracy and outperforms the current state-of-the-art binary vulnerability detection models.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207