A Survey of Malware Analysis Using Community Detection Algorithms
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
In recent years, we have witnessed an overwhelming and fast proliferation of different types of malware targeting organizations and individuals, which considerably increased the time required to detect malware. The malware developers make this issue worse by spreading many variants of the same malware [ 13 ]. To deal with this issue, graph theory techniques, and particularly community detection algorithms, can be leveraged to achieve bulk detection of malware families and variants to identify malicious communities instead of focusing on the detection of an individual instance of malware, which could significantly reduce the detection time. In this article, we review the state-of-the-art malware analysis solutions that employ community detection algorithms and provide a taxonomy that classifies the solutions with respect to five facets: analysis task, community detection approach, target platform, analysis type, and source of features. We present the solutions with respect to the analysis task, which covers malware detection, malware classification, cyber-threat infrastructure detection, and feature selection. The findings of this survey indicate that there is still room for contributions to further improve the state of the art and address research gaps. Finally, we discuss the advantages and the limitations of the solutions, identify open issues, and provide future research 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 | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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