MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413178207 · doi:10.1145/3708821.3733867

Minerva: A File-Based Ransomware Detector

2025· article· en· W4413178207 on OpenAlexaff
Dorjan Hitaj, Giulio Pagnotta, Fabio De Gaspari, Lorenzo De Carli, Luigi V. Mancini

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSapienza Università di Roma
KeywordsRansomwareComputer scienceOperating systemDetectorComputer securityEmbedded systemMalwareTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ransomware attacks have caused billions of dollars in damages in recent years, and are expected to cause billions more in the future. Consequently, significant effort has been devoted to ransomware detection and mitigation. Behavioral-based ransomware detection approaches have garnered considerable attention recently. These behavioral detectors typically rely on process-based behavioral profiles to identify malicious behaviors. However, with an increasing body of literature highlighting the vulnerability of such approaches to evasion attacks, a comprehensive solution to the ransomware problem remains elusive. This paper presents Minerva, a novel robust approach to ransomware detection. Minerva is engineered to be robust by design against evasion attacks, with architectural and feature selection choices informed by their resilience to adversarial manipulation. We conduct a comprehensive analysis of Minerva across a diverse spectrum of ransomware types, encompassing unseen ransomware as well as variants designed specifically to evade Minerva. Our evaluation showcases the ability of Minerva to accurately identify ransomware, generalize to unseen threats, and withstand evasion attacks. Furthermore, over of detected ransomware are identified within 0.52sec of activity, enabling the adoption of data loss prevention techniques with near-zero overhead.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207