MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395077869 · doi:10.18280/ria.380212

DFRMIdroid: A Comprehensive Fusion Approach Utilizing Permissions and Intents Analysis with the DFR-MI Algorithm for Enhanced Malware Detection on Android Devices

2024· article· en· W4395077869 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ibrahim Mahmood Ibrahim, Amira Bibo Sallow

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalwareAndroid malwareAndroid (operating system)Computer scienceAlgorithmData miningComputer securityOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smartphones based on the Android operating system are increasingly popular due to their multifunctional capabilities in various fields.However, these functions have also encouraged intruders to develop applications that perform malicious actions, including stealing sensitive data, encrypting files for ransom, and sending unauthorized SMS messages without user consent.In this study, we proposed a new and comprehensive dataset containing 32,170 samples distributed equally between malicious and benign applications developed on different API levels.The dataset includes two categories of features: permissions and intents.We also proposed a new feature selection method called Discriminative Feature Ranking-Mutual Information (DFR-MI) which selects optimal features from the more frequent features in the dataset and this helped the predictive model to achieve high performance.Nine machine-learning algorithms were tested, and the results show that our dataset outperforms the Drebin dataset by at least 2.22% in combining permissions with intents for detecting malicious apps.Additionally, the DFR-MI algorithm obtained better results in selecting features and took less time than the mutual information algorithm.Among all tested machine-learning algorithms, the random forest algorithm achieved high scores in terms of accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score, which were 98.52%, 98.62%, 98.41%, and 98.52%, respectively.Our proposed method enhances mobile security by scrutinizing an app's declared permissions and communication patterns between its components.This approach allows for a more comprehensive understanding of an app's behavior, enabling early detection of potential threats generated from Android applications.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207