MaMaDroid: Detecting Android Malware by Building Markov Chains of Behavioral Models (Extended Version)
November 20, 2017 Β· Declared Dead Β· π ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Lucky Onwuzurike, Enrico Mariconti, Panagiotis Andriotis, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Gordon Ross, Gianluca Stringhini
arXiv ID
1711.07477
Category
cs.CR: Cryptography & Security
Cross-listed
cs.AI
Citations
189
Venue
ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security
Last Checked
5 months ago
Abstract
As Android has become increasingly popular, so has malware targeting it, thus pushing the research community to propose different detection techniques. However, the constant evolution of the Android ecosystem, and of malware itself, makes it hard to design robust tools that can operate for long periods of time without the need for modifications or costly re-training. Aiming to address this issue, we set to detect malware from a behavioral point of view, modeled as the sequence of abstracted API calls. We introduce MaMaDroid, a static-analysis based system that abstracts the API calls performed by an app to their class, package, or family, and builds a model from their sequences obtained from the call graph of an app as Markov chains. This ensures that the model is more resilient to API changes and the features set is of manageable size. We evaluate MaMaDroid using a dataset of 8.5K benign and 35.5K malicious apps collected over a period of six years, showing that it effectively detects malware (with up to 0.99 F-measure) and keeps its detection capabilities for long periods of time (up to 0.87 F-measure two years after training). We also show that MaMaDroid remarkably outperforms DroidAPIMiner, a state-of-the-art detection system that relies on the frequency of (raw) API calls. Aiming to assess whether MaMaDroid's effectiveness mainly stems from the API abstraction or from the sequencing modeling, we also evaluate a variant of it that uses frequency (instead of sequences), of abstracted API calls. We find that it is not as accurate, failing to capture maliciousness when trained on malware samples that include API calls that are equally or more frequently used by benign apps.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Cryptography & Security
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
The Limitations of Deep Learning in Adversarial Settings
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Distillation as a Defense to Adversarial Perturbations against Deep Neural Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Spectre Attacks: Exploiting Speculative Execution
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
How To Backdoor Federated Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Evasion Attacks against Machine Learning at Test Time
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted