MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Machine Learning-Based Android Malware Detection

2023· article· en· W4388425984 on OpenAlexafffund
David Ojo, Nusayer Masud Siddique, Carson K. Leung, Connor C.J. Hryhoruk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsMalwareAndroid (operating system)Computer sciencePermissionSupport vector machineMobile malwareMachine learningRandom forestArtificial intelligenceDecision treeHackerScalabilityPopularityComputer securityAndroid malwareOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of mobile phones, particularly smartphones, has been growing exponentially in recent times. From 2016 to 2021, smartphone users increased by more than 70%. With the increase in the popularity of smartphones, smartphones have become the prime target for criminal hackers. As a result, Android malware samples are coming to the market at an alarming rate. A study shows that there are more than 4 million malicious Android apps in the market, and each day around 11,000 new malwares add to this number. To combat this mass number of malware, we need a malware detection system that is efficient in detecting malicious Android apps. There are numerous existing malware detection systems, but most of them require countless features from both dynamic and static analysis. Thus, they are not scalable, lightweight, and efficient in detecting malware. Additionally, most studies that used limited features like only permission data, had done their research on much older dataset. Hence, there is a need for new research on this topic. In this paper, we build a permission-based malware detector for Android application with a new dataset and significantly less permissions. Initially, we used support vector machine (SVM) and all the extracted permission data as features to build our classification model. The model accuracy, precision, recall and F1 score were 97.41 percent, which is higher than the other state of the art similar approaches done on an older dataset. Next, we replicated this similar study with a few different machine learning algorithms: random forest, decision tree and logistic regression, and observed they all give similar results. However, tree-based algorithm performs a little better than the other algorithms. Finally, to achieve a lightweight malware detection system, we reduced the number of permissions or the features on a two-step process, and found only a slight difference in results. In the first step, even after reducing the number of permissions by about 94%, the accuracy dropped by only 2.7%. In the second step, we further reduced the number of features or permissions and observed the difference in results. We managed to prune to 9 permissions while maintaining accuracy of 93%, which is lower than technique mentioned in other literature to reduce features.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207