Details

Gainfully Using Machine Learning Algorithm in Enhancing the Efficacy of Evaluating Malware Detection System

Rishit Garkhel

38-46

Vol: 10, Issue: 3, 2020

Receiving Date: 2020-07-05 Acceptance Date:

2020-08-04

Publication Date:

2020-09-10

Download PDF

http://doi.org/10.37648/ijrst.v10i03.005

Abstract

The malware is an executable program that is very dangerous for pc or laptops. Some malware examples are adware, ransomware, bot, keyloggers, viruses, trojan horses etc. The aggressive hike of malware is very risky in confidential data. The limitation of existing classification algorithms is their detection performance and blocking the malware from affecting the systems. So, it is important to create a machine learning algorithm that helps detect and remove malware. With the help of this technique, we can remove the malware. Our research is accompanied by some classification algorithms such as Naive Bayes, Random Forest, MLP classifier, Bagging, AdaBoost, etc. We have evaluated the algorithms by accuracy, precision. Recall, frequency measure and others. For evaluation, we have used the WEKA machine learning and data mining tool. After implementing various algorithms, we concluded that the best accuracy of 99.2% is achieved by random forest.

Keywords: Machine Learning Algorithm; malware detection system; malicious code

References

  1. SF Ahmad, SZ Ahmad, SR Xu, and B Li. Next generation malware analysis techniques and tools. In Electronics, Information Technology and Intellectualization: Proceedings of the International Conference EITI 2014, Shenzhen, China, 16-17 August 2014,page 17. CRC Press, 2015.
  2. Ulrich Bayer, Andreas Moser, Christopher Kruegel, and Engin Kirda. Dynamic analysis of malicious code. Journal in Computer Virology, 2(1):67–77, 2006.
  3. R. Bellman. Adaptive control processes: a guided tour Princeton university press. Princeton, New Jersey, USA, 1961.
  4. Silvio Cesare and Yang Xiang. Software similarity and classification. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
  5. Gianluca Dini, Fabio Martinelli, Andrea Saracino, and Daniele Sgandurra. Madam: a multi-level anomaly detector for android malware. In International Conference on Mathematical Methods, Models, and Architectures for Computer Network Security, pages240–253. Springer, 2012.
  6. Manuel Egele, Theodoor Scholte, Engin Kirda, and Christopher Kruegel. A survey on automated dynamic malware-analysis techniques and tools. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 44(2):6, 2012.
  7. Christian Gorecki, Felix C Freiling, Marc K ¨uhrer, and Thorsten Holz. Trumanbox: Improving dynamic mal-ware analysis by emulating the internet. In Stabilization, Safety, and Security of Distributed Systems, pages 208–222. Springer, 2011.
  8. Kent Griffin, Scott Schneider, Xin Hu, and TziCkerChiueh. Automatic generation of string signatures formal ware detection. In Recent advances in intrusion detection, pages 101–120. Springer, 2009.
  9. Chun-Ying Huang, Yi-Ting Tsai, and Chung-HanHsu. Performance evaluation on permission-based detection for android malware. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Applications-Volume 2, pages 111–120. Springer, 2013.
  10. Youngjoon Ki, Eunjin Kim, and Huy Kang Kim. Anovel approach to detect malware based on api call sequence analysis. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 2015:4, 2015.
  11. Sotiris B Kotsiantis, Ioannis D Zaharakis, and Panayiotis E Pintelas. Machine learning: a review of classification and combining techniques. Artificial Intelligence Review, 26(3):159–190, 2006.
  12. G. Kumar and K. Kumar. Ai based supervised classifiers: an analysis for intrusion detection. In Proc. of International Conference on Advances in Computing and Artificial Intelligence, pages 170–174. ACM,2011.
  13. G. Kumar and K. Kumar. An information theoretic approach for feature selection. Security and Communication Networks, 5(2):178–185, 2012.
  14. G. Kumar, K. Kumar, and M. Sachdeva. The use of artificial intelligence based techniques for intrusion detection: a review. Artificial Intelligence Review,34(4):369–387, 2010.
  15. Andreas Moser, Christopher Kruegel, and EnginKirda. Limits of static analysis for malware detection. In Computer security applications conference,2007. ACSAC 2007. Twenty-third annual, pages 421–430. IEEE, 2007.
  16. S. Mukkamala and A.H. Sung. A comparative study of techniques for intrusion detection. In Proc. of 15thIEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, 2003, pages 570–577. IEEE, 2003.
  17. Fairuz Amalina Narudin, Ali Feizollah, Nor BadrulAnuar, and Abdullah Gani. Evaluation of machine learning classifiers for mobile malware detection. Soft Computing, 20(1):343–357, 2016.
  18. Fairuz Amalina Narudin, Ali Feizollah, Nor BadrulAnuar, and Abdullah Gani. Evaluation of machine learning classifiers for mobile malware detection. Soft Computing, 20(1):343–357, 2016.
  19. Philip O’Kane, Sakir Sezer, and Keiran McLaughlin. Obfuscation: The hidden malware. Security & Privacy, IEEE, 9(5):41–47, 2011.
  20. Konrad Rieck, Thorsten Holz, Carsten Willems, Patrick D¨ussel, and Pavel Laskov. Learning and classification of malware behavior. In Detection of Intrusions and Malware, and Vulnerability Assessment, pages 108–125. Springer, 2008.
  21. Cuckoo Sandbox. Automated malware analysis, 2013.
  22. Bhaskar Pratim Sarma, Ninghui Li, Chris Gates, Rahul Potharaju, Cristina Nita-Rotaru, and Ian Molloy. Android permissions: a perspective combining risks and benefits. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies, pages 13–22. ACM, 2012
Back

Disclaimer: All papers published in IJRST will be indexed on Google Search Engine as per their policy.

We are one of the best in the field of watches and we take care of the needs of our customers and produce replica watches of very good quality as per their demands.