2016 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) 2016
DOI: 10.1109/ijcnn.2016.7727508
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adaptive and scalable Android malware detection through online learning

Abstract: Abstract-It is well-known that malware constantly evolves so as to evade detection and this causes the entire malware population to be non-stationary. Contrary to this fact, prior works on machine learning based Android malware detection have assumed that the distribution of the observed malware characteristics (i.e., features) do not change over time. In this work, we address the problem of malware population drift and propose a novel online machine learning based framework, named DroidOL to handle it and eff… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
59
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
59
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To mitigate the attacks by Android malware, various research approaches have been proposed so far. The malware detection approaches can be classified into two categories; static analysis based detection [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] and dynamic analysis based detection [20][21][22][23][24]. The static analysis based methods use syntactic features that can be extracted without executing an application, whereas the dynamic analysis based methods use semantic features that can be monitored when an application is executed in a controlled environment.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To mitigate the attacks by Android malware, various research approaches have been proposed so far. The malware detection approaches can be classified into two categories; static analysis based detection [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] and dynamic analysis based detection [20][21][22][23][24]. The static analysis based methods use syntactic features that can be extracted without executing an application, whereas the dynamic analysis based methods use semantic features that can be monitored when an application is executed in a controlled environment.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CWLK captures both contextual and structural information, enabling it to achieve high accuracy in a batch learning setting. On the other hand, another recent work of ours, DroidOL [11], demonstrated that online learning based solutions are better suited for large-scale real-world automated malware detection than batch learning methods. However, DroidOL used a general purpose kernel which can only capture structural information from PRGs.…”
Section: Our Approachmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…To determine the features used in MobiTive, we perform a comparison of the extracting performance for most commonlyused features in previous malware detection approaches [13], [15], [17], [30], [31]. Based on the performance-based feature selection method, manifest properties and API calls are selected in our device-end scenario (Feature Selection).…”
Section: B Feature Preparationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the result tends to be more precise. Narayanan et al [30] presented an online SVM classifier, which uses the control flow graph generated from the source code as input. W. Enck et al [55] proposed TaintDroid, which is a taint analysis tool for Android apps.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%