2015 International Conference on Intelligent Information Hiding and Multimedia Signal Processing (IIH-MSP) 2015
DOI: 10.1109/iih-msp.2015.72
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A New Static Detection Method of Malicious Document Based on Wavelet Package Analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some of the common malware analysis techniques are virus scan, analysis of memory/os artifacts, PE file scanning, and disassembly of code. Gu et al [19] used the study of wavelets to derive features from actual data. Such features can be used to determine whether malicious code has been inserted in the compound text.…”
Section: Malware Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Some of the common malware analysis techniques are virus scan, analysis of memory/os artifacts, PE file scanning, and disassembly of code. Gu et al [19] used the study of wavelets to derive features from actual data. Such features can be used to determine whether malicious code has been inserted in the compound text.…”
Section: Malware Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Next step is to normalize the fuzzy decision matrix with the assistance of Eq. (19). The normalized fuzzy decision matrix is represented by ̃ and is depicted as follows.…”
Section: Fuzzy Topsismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several online automated tools exist for dynamic analysis of malware, e.g. Norman Sandbox [19], CWSandbox [20], Anubis [21] and TTAnalyzer [22], Ether [23] and ThreatExpert [24]. The analysis reports generated by these tools give in-depth understanding of the malware behavior and valuable insight into the actions performed by them.…”
Section: Dynamic Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many studies use static analysis for malware detection using exact decompilation [16], similarity testing framework [17], based on register contents [18], using two-dimensional binary program features [19], subroutine based detection [20], statistics of assembly instructions [21], file relation graphs [22], de-anonymizing programmers via code stylometry [23], based upon a wavelet package technique [24], analysis and comparison of disassemblers for opcode [25].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many studies use static analysis for malware detection using exact decompilation [16], similarity testing framework [17], based on register contents [18], using two dimensional binary program features [19], subroutine based detection [20], statistics of assembly instructions [21], file relation graphs [22], de-anonymizing programmers via code stylometry [23], based upon a wavelet package technique [24], analysis and comparison of disassemblers for opcode [25] The studies that use dynamic analysis perform synthesis the semantics of obfuscated code [7], multi-hypothesis testing [26], analyzing quantitative data flow graph metrics [27], using simplified data dependent api call graph [28], downloader graph analytics [29], access behavior [30], [31], APIs in initial behavior [32], log based crowdsourcing analysis [33] There have been many studies on the detection and analysis of malware using machine learning that study fine-grained features [34], deep learning [35], [36], dynamic features [37], static features [38], concept drift [39], predicting signatures [40], hybrid framework [41], malware metadata [42], reverse engineering of large datasets of binaries [43].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%