Automated Machine Learning for Deep Learning based Malware Detection
March 03, 2023 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Computers & security
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Austin Brown, Maanak Gupta, Mahmoud Abdelsalam
arXiv ID
2303.01679
Category
cs.CR: Cryptography & Security
Citations
64
Venue
Computers & security
Last Checked
5 months ago
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) has proven to be effective in detecting sophisticated malware that is constantly evolving. Even though deep learning has alleviated the feature engineering problem, finding the most optimal DL model, in terms of neural architecture search (NAS) and the model's optimal set of hyper-parameters, remains a challenge that requires domain expertise. In addition, many of the proposed state-of-the-art models are very complex and may not be the best fit for different datasets. A promising approach, known as Automated Machine Learning (AutoML), can reduce the domain expertise required to implement a custom DL model. AutoML reduces the amount of human trial-and-error involved in designing DL models, and in more recent implementations can find new model architectures with relatively low computational overhead. This work provides a comprehensive analysis and insights on using AutoML for static and online malware detection. For static, our analysis is performed on two widely used malware datasets: SOREL-20M to demonstrate efficacy on large datasets; and EMBER-2018, a smaller dataset specifically curated to hinder the performance of machine learning models. In addition, we show the effects of tuning the NAS process parameters on finding a more optimal malware detection model on these static analysis datasets. Further, we also demonstrate that AutoML is performant in online malware detection scenarios using Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) for cloud IaaS. We compare an AutoML technique to six existing state-of-the-art CNNs using a newly generated online malware dataset with and without other applications running in the background during malware execution.In general, our experimental results show that the performance of AutoML based static and online malware detection models are on par or even better than state-of-the-art models or hand-designed models presented in literature.
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