2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118073
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Identification of malware families using stacking of textural features and machine learning

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The features learned at lower layers are strengthened in higher layers. These characteristics support CNNs in producing an effective outcome ( Kumar, Janet & Neelakantan, 2022 ). In addition, the computational cost is minimized by limiting the size of the dataset.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 76%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The features learned at lower layers are strengthened in higher layers. These characteristics support CNNs in producing an effective outcome ( Kumar, Janet & Neelakantan, 2022 ). In addition, the computational cost is minimized by limiting the size of the dataset.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…The Internet of Things (IoT) connects the real and virtual worlds ( Mu et al, 2021 ; Ben Atitallah, Driss & Almomani, 2022 ). New business models and global interactions emerge as people, products, technologies, and the internet become more interconnected ( Kumar, Janet & Neelakantan, 2022 ). Cybercriminals are increasingly targeting IoT devices because they are easy targets for exploiting weak authentication, outdated firmware, and malware due to the complexity of design and implementation in hardware and software ( Khan & Salah, 2018 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The malware detection rate (accuracy) is 96.2%, with precision, recall, and F-scores of 97.9%, 98.2%, and 98.1%, respectively. Kumar et al [16] use an AVClass tool and a clustering technique to systematically label the binary samples. The labelled malicious program is shown in grayscale images so that local and global textural features can be extracted.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In terms of detecting malware, the detection rate is 96.2%, with precision at 97.9%, recall at 98.2%, and F-scores at 98.1%. Kumar et al [16] used bitwise samples for sequentially labelling using the AVClass tool and a clustering method. The malicious program is depicted in grayscale so that local and global textural characteristics can be extracted.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The proliferation of sophisticated malware has been fueled by feature rich programming languages and powerful open-source encryption and AI libraries [6][7][8] . Modern malware and recycled variants, that have been slightly changed or obfuscated, easily defeat widely used signature-based and heuristic-based detection methods such as anti-virus and malware scanners [9][10][11][12][13][14][15] . AI is becoming essential in detecting modern malware however, the accuracy of an AI model in detecting malware is contingent on the quality of the features it is trained with.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%