MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403990806 · doi:10.3389/fphy.2024.1493209

Dynamic analysis of malicious behavior propagation based on feature selection in software network

2024· article· en· W4403990806 on OpenAlexaff
Huajian Xue, Yali Wang, Qiguang Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersMoonshot Research and Development ProgramTongling University
KeywordsFeature selectionComputer scienceSoftwareSelection (genetic algorithm)Feature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceData miningPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the era of big data, the propagation of malicious software poses a significant threat to corporate data security. To safeguard data assets from the encroachment of malware, it is essential to conduct a dynamic analysis of various information propagation behaviors within software. This paper introduces a dynamic analysis detection method for malicious behavior based on feature extraction (MBDFE), designed to effectively identify and thwart the spread of malicious software. The method is divided into three stages: First, variable-length N-gram algorithms are utilized to extract subsequences of varying lengths from the sample APl call sequences as continuous dynamic features. Second, feature selection techniques based on information gain are employed to identify suitable classification features. Lastly, recurrent neural networks (RNN) are applied for the classification training and prediction of diverse software behaviors. Experimental results and analysis demonstrate that this approach can accurately detect and promptly interrupt the information dissemination of malicious software when such behavior occurs, thereby enhancing the precision and timeliness of malware detection.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207