RPM: Ransomware Prevention and Mitigation Using Operating Systems' Sensing Tactics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ransomware, an extortion type of malware, continues to create havoc targeting critical infrastructure and organizations at large, causing an estimated $20 Billion in direct and collateral damages in 2022. While significant efforts from both academia and industry are being pledged to address this debilitating and disrupting phenomena, the ransomware pandemic continues to expand rapidly in frequency, spread and stealthiness. To this end, in this work, we propose RPM, a Ransomware Prevention and Mitigation scheme. RPM is rooted in the proactive analysis of operating systems' API artifacts through the exploitation of a neat observation related to ransomware behavior, namely, activities generated prior to the actual execution of the malicious payloads. RPM employs OS-centric process hooking tactics to develop an offensive approach leveraging such sensing activities. To demonstrate the effectiveness of RPM, we empirically evaluated it using 100 of the most prominent ransomware samples. The results demonstrate very motivating accuracy metrics with low system footprint, asserting the rationale of the proposed scheme. We posture RPM as a strong step towards proactive mitigation, which aims at complimenting ongoing ransomware thwarting efforts.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".