2005 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P'05) 2005
DOI: 10.1109/sp.2005.20
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Semantics-aware malware detection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
351
0
3

Year Published

2006
2006
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 557 publications
(364 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
2
351
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Zero-day exploits also defy signature based static analysis since their signatures have not been yet encountered in the wild. This necessitates the use of dynamic detection techniques [9] that can detect the malicious behavior during execution, often based on the detection of anomalies, rather than signatures [4,16]. However, the complexity and difficulty of continuous dynamic monitoring have traditionally limited its use.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Zero-day exploits also defy signature based static analysis since their signatures have not been yet encountered in the wild. This necessitates the use of dynamic detection techniques [9] that can detect the malicious behavior during execution, often based on the detection of anomalies, rather than signatures [4,16]. However, the complexity and difficulty of continuous dynamic monitoring have traditionally limited its use.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this paper graph queries processing (graph query as a subgraph) was performed on a transactional graph database .That is because the database is used in different areas; for instance, in the case of -malware detection‖ [23,24,25] avoid damages to the system) after retrieval, the APIs of the malware's codes as -control flow graph‖ is extracted. Then, according to graph mining algorithms such as gspan [18] frequent subgraphs are mined and indexed [4,19,14].…”
Section: Experiments and Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While classical malware detection relied on searching executables for binary strings (signatures) of known viruses, more recent advanced techniques focus on detecting patterns of malicious behavior by means of static analysis and model checking [18,19]. In this application domain, independence of the analysis from symbol information and compiler idioms is imperative, since malicious code is especially likely to have its symbols removed or to even be specially protected from analysis.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%