Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Security &Amp; Privacy in Wireless and Mobile Networks 2015
DOI: 10.1145/2766498.2774991
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

SVM-based malware detection for Android applications

Abstract: In this paper, we study a SVM-based malware detection scheme for Android application, which integrates both risky permission combinations and vulnerable API calls and use them as features in the SVM algorithm. Preliminary experiments have validated the proposed malware detection scheme.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
3

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…DREBIN [4] trained Support Vector Machines for classifying malware using number of features: used hardware components, requested permissions, critical and suspicious API calls and network addresses. Similar static techniques can be found in [16,19,38,44,63]. Conversely, dynamic analysis detects malware at runtime.…”
Section: Detecting Malicious Applicationsmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…DREBIN [4] trained Support Vector Machines for classifying malware using number of features: used hardware components, requested permissions, critical and suspicious API calls and network addresses. Similar static techniques can be found in [16,19,38,44,63]. Conversely, dynamic analysis detects malware at runtime.…”
Section: Detecting Malicious Applicationsmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…DREBIN [9] trained Support Vector Machines for classifying malwares using number of features: used hardware components, requested permissions, critical and suspicious API calls and network addresses. Similar static techniques can be found in [10][11][12][13][14]. Conversely, dynamic analysis detects malware at the run-time.…”
Section: Detecting Malicious Applicationsmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…Figure 6 shows the difference between our solution and the other malware detection schemes. Hybroid demonstrates an accuracy of 97.0% (Figure 6-a), while CIC2017 [13], DREBIN [3], SVM [8], and Adagio [10] demonstrate accuracy of 87.6%, 95.4%, 93.9%, and 89.3%, respectively. Other metrics, such as F1-score, precision, and recall, are also presented in Figures 6-b, 6-c, and 6-d.…”
Section: Performance Of Classifiersmentioning
confidence: 99%