Paper detail

A Praise for Defensive Programming: Leveraging Uncertainty for Effective Malware Mitigation

A promising avenue for improving the effectiveness of behavioral-based malware detectors would be to combine fast traditional machine learning detectors with high-accuracy, but time-consuming deep learning models. The main idea would be to place software receiving borderline classifications by traditional machine learning methods in an environment where uncertainty is added, while software is analyzed by more time-consuming deep learning models. The goal of uncertainty would be to rate-limit actions of potential malware during the time consuming deep analysis. In this paper, we present a detailed description of the analysis and implementation of CHAMELEON, a framework for realizing this uncertain environment for Linux. CHAMELEON offers two environments for software: (i) standard - for any software identified as benign by conventional machine learning methods and (ii) uncertain - for software receiving borderline classifications when analyzed by these conventional machine learning methods. The uncertain environment adds obstacles to software execution through random perturbations applied probabilistically on selected system calls. We evaluated CHAMELEON with 113 applications and 100 malware samples for Linux. Our results showed that at threshold 10%, intrusive and non-intrusive strategies caused approximately 65% of malware to fail accomplishing their tasks, while approximately 30% of the analyzed benign software to meet with various levels of disruption. With a dynamic, per-system call threshold, CHAMELEON caused 92% of the malware to fail, and only 10% of the benign software to be disrupted. We also found that I/O-bound software was three times more affected by uncertainty than CPU-bound software. Further, we analyzed the logs of software crashed with non-intrusive strategies, and found that some crashes are due to the software bugs.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.