ArticlePloS one2019
Homology analysis of malware based on ensemble learning and multifeatures.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- DeepDetectNet vs RLAttackNet: An adversarial method to improve deep learning-based static malware detection model.PloS one · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the exponential increase in malware, homology analysis has become a hot research topic in the malware detection field. This paper proposes MHAS, a malware homology analysis system based on ensemble learning and multifeatures. MHAS generates grayscale images from malware binary files and then uses the opcode tool IDA Pro to extract opcode sequences and system call graphs. Thus, RGB images and M-images are generated on the image matrix. Then, MHAS uses convolutional neural networks (CNNs) as base learners to perform bagging ensemble learning to learn features from the grayscale images, RGB images and M-images. Next, MHAS integrates the nine base learners using voting, learning and selective ensemble (in that order) and maps the integration results to the result matrix. Finally, the result matrix is again integrated using the learning method to obtain the final malware classification result. To verify the accuracy of MHAS, we performed a malware family classification experiment, that included samples of 10 malware families. The results showed that MHAS can reach an accuracy rate of 99.17%, meaning that it can effectively analyze and identify malware families.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.