skip to main content
10.1145/2875475.2875476acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescodaspyConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Malware Detection Using Dynamic Birthmarks

Published:11 March 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we compare the effectiveness of Hidden Markov Models (HMMs) with that of Profile Hidden Markov Models (PHMMs), where both are trained on sequences of API calls. We compare our results to static analysis using HMMs trained on sequences of opcodes, and show that dynamic analysis achieves significantly stronger results in many cases. Furthermore, in comparing our two dynamic analysis approaches, we find that using PHMMs consistently outperforms our technique based on HMMs.

References

  1. B. Anderson. Graph-based malware detection using dynamic analysis. Journal in Computer Virology, 7(4):247--258, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. C. Annachhatre, T. H. Austin, and M. Stamp. Hidden Markov models for malware classification. Journal of Computer Virology and Hacking Techniques, 11(2):59--73, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. S. Attaluri, S. McGhee, and M. Stamp. Profile hidden Markov models and metamorphic virus detection. Journal in Computer Virology, 5(2):151--169, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. T. H. Austin, E. Filiol, S. Josse, and M. Stamp. Exploring hidden Markov models for virus analysis: A semantic approach. In Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. J. Aycock. Computer Viruses and Malware. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Y. Bai, X. Sun, G. Sun, X. Deng, and X. Zhou. Dynamic k-gram based software birthmark. In 19th Australian Conference on Software Engineering, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. A. P. Bradley. The use of the area under the roc curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Pattern Recognition, 30(7):1145--1159, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Buster Sandbox Analyzer. http://bsa.isoftware.nl/. Accessed 2016--1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. R. Durbin, S. Eddy, A. Krogh, and G. Mitchison. Biological Sequence Analysis: Probabilistic Models of Proteins and Nucleic Acids. Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. D. Feng and R. Doolittle. Progressive sequence alignment as a prerequisite to correct phylogenetic trees. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 25(4):351--360, 1987.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. E. Filiol and S. Josse. A statistical model for undecidable viral detection. Journal in Computer Virology, 3(2):65--74, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. K. Fukuda and H. Tamada. A dynamic birthmark from analyzing operand stack runtime behavior to detect copied software. In Proceedings of SNPD '13, pages 505--510, Hawaii, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. L. Huang and M. Stamp. Masquerade detection using profile hidden Markov models. Computers & Security, 30(8):732--747, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. A. Kalbhor, T. H. Austin, E. Filiol, S. Josse, and M. Stamp. Dueling hidden Markov models for virus analysis. Journal in Computer Virology, 11(2):2015, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaspersky Lab. Rogue Security Software. http://support.kaspersky.com/viruses/rogue?qid=208286454. Accessed 2016--1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. J. Z. Kolter and M. A. Maloof. Learning to detect and classify malicious executables in the wild. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 7:2721--2744, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. E. Konstantinou. Metamorphic virus: Analysis and detection. Technical Report RHUL-MA-2008-02, Royal Holloway University of London, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Microsoft Malware Protection Center. Security Shield. www.microsoft.com/security/portal/threat/encyclopedia/Entry.aspx?Name=SecurityShield. Accessed 2016--1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Microsoft Malware Protection Center. Winwebsec. http://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/threat/encyclopedia/Entry.aspx?Name=Rogue:Win32/Winwebsec. Accessed 2016--1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. G. Myles and C. S. Collberg. k-gram based software birthmarks. In Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pages 314--318, New Mexico, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Nappa, M. Z. Rafique, and J. Caballero. Driving in the cloud: An analysis of drive-by download operations and abuse reporting. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Detection of Intrusions and Malware & Vulnerability Assessment, Germany, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Panda Security. Harebot.M. http://www.pandasecurity.com/usa/homeusers/security-info/220319/Harebot.M/. Accessed 2016--1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. M. Stamp. Machine Learning with Applications in Information Security. Unpublished manuscript.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. M. Stamp. A revealing introduction to hidden Markov models. http://www.cs.sjsu.edu/ stamp/RUA/HMM.pdf. Accessed 2016--1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. M. Sudarshan and M. Stamp. Metamorphic worm that carries its own morphing engine. Journal in Computer Virology, 9(2):49--58, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Symantec. Trojan.Cridex. http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2012-012103-0840--99. Accessed 2016--1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Symantec. Trojan.Zbot. http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2010-011016--3514--99. Accessed 2016--1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Symantec. Trojan.ZeroAccess. http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2011-071314-0410--99. Accessed 2016--1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. H. Tamada et al. Dynamic software birthmarks to detect the theft of windows applications. In International Symposium on Future Software Technology 2004 (ISFST 2004), China, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. H. Tamada, K. Okamoto, M. Nakamura, A. Monden, and K. Matsumoto. Design and evaluation of dynamic software birthmarks based on API calls. Technical report, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. S. Vemparala. Malware detection using dynamic analysis. Master's thesis, San Jose State University, 2015. Accessed 2016--1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. X. Wang, Y. Jhi, S. Zhu, and P. Liu. Detecting software theft via system call based birthmarks. In Proceedings of 25th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, Hawaii, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. W. Wong and M. Stamp. Hunting for metamorphic engines. Journal in Computer Virology, 2(3):211--229, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. X. Zhou, X. Sun, G. Sun, and Y. Yang. A combined static and dynamic software birthmark based on component dependence graph. In International Conference on Intelligent Information Hiding and Multimedia Signal Processing, pages 1416--1421, China, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Malware Detection Using Dynamic Birthmarks
                  Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

                  Recommendations

                  Comments

                  Login options

                  Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                  Sign in
                  • Published in

                    cover image ACM Conferences
                    IWSPA '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on International Workshop on Security And Privacy Analytics
                    March 2016
                    76 pages
                    ISBN:9781450340779
                    DOI:10.1145/2875475

                    Copyright © 2016 ACM

                    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

                    Publisher

                    Association for Computing Machinery

                    New York, NY, United States

                    Publication History

                    • Published: 11 March 2016

                    Permissions

                    Request permissions about this article.

                    Request Permissions

                    Check for updates

                    Qualifiers

                    • short-paper

                    Acceptance Rates

                    IWSPA '16 Paper Acceptance Rate6of20submissions,30%Overall Acceptance Rate18of58submissions,31%

                    Upcoming Conference

                    CODASPY '24

                  PDF Format

                  View or Download as a PDF file.

                  PDF

                  eReader

                  View online with eReader.

                  eReader