MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparing the Effectiveness of Static, Dynamic and Hybrid Malware Detection on a Common Dataset

2023· article· en· W4391306745 on OpenAlexaff
Asma Razgallah, Raphaël Khoury, Kobra Khanmohammadi, Christophe Père

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalConcordia UniversityCégep de l'Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalwareComputer scienceAndroid malwareStatic analysisAndroid (operating system)System callMachine learningFeature selectionArtificial intelligenceTRACE (psycholinguistics)Data miningComputer securityOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The detection of malicious Android applications is a major security challenge. A number of machine learning-based techniques have been put forth, and some of them have attained great accuracy. However, the diversity of apps and frequency at which new malware families are found means that the issue remains unresolved. In this paper, we use both static, dynamic and hybrid analysis to automatically classify Android apps as benign or infected. We compare all three approaches on a common dataset — the TwinDroid dataset which contains over 15,000 system call traces from over 9,000 benign and infected app. This method allows comparison on equal footing. We make further contributions on the topic of feature selection and trace abstraction.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207