MALIGN: Explainable Static Raw-byte Based Malware Family Classification using Sequence AlignmentShoumik Saha, Sadia Afroz, Atif Rahman
For a long time, malware classification and analysis have been an arms-race between antivirus systems and malware authors. Though static analysis is vulnerable to evasion techniques, it is still popular as the first line of defense in antivirus systems. But most of the static analyzers failed to gain the trust of practitioners due to their black-box nature. We propose MAlign, a novel static malware family classification approach inspired by genome sequence alignment that can not only classify malware families but can also provide explanations for its decision. MAlign encodes raw bytes using nucleotides and adopts genome sequence alignment approaches to create a signature of a malware family based on the conserved code segments in that family, without any human labor or expertise. We evaluate MAlign on two malware datasets, and it outperforms other state-of-the-art machine learning based malware classifiers (by 4.49% - 0.07%), especially on small datasets (by 19.48% - 1.2%). Furthermore, we explain the generated signatures by MAlign on different malware families illustrating the kinds of insights it can provide to analysts, and show its efficacy as an analysis tool. Additionally, we evaluate its theoretical and empirical robustness against some common attacks. In this paper, we approach static malware analysis from a unique perspective, aiming to strike a delicate balance among performance, interpretability, and robustness.
An Empirical Study of Developer Discussions on Low-Code Software Development ChallengesMd Abdullah Al Alamin, Sanjay Malakar, Gias Uddin et al.
Low-code software development (LCSD) is an emerging paradigm that combines minimal source code with interactive graphical interfaces to promote rapid application development. LCSD aims to democratize application development to software practitioners with diverse backgrounds. Given that LCSD is relatively a new paradigm, it is vital to learn about the challenges developers face during their adoption of LCSD platforms. The online developer forum, Stack Overflow (SO), is popular among software developers to ask for solutions to their technical problems. We observe a growing body of posts in SO with discussions of LCSD platforms. In this paper, we present an empirical study of around 5K SO posts (questions + accepted answers) that contain discussions of nine popular LCSD platforms. We apply topic modeling on the posts to determine the types of topics discussed. We find 13 topics related to LCSD in SO. The 13 topics are grouped into four categories: Customization, Platform Adoption, Database Management, and Third-Party Integration. More than 40% of the questions are about customization, i.e., developers frequently face challenges with customizing user interfaces or services offered by LCSD platforms. The topic "Dynamic Event Handling" under the "Customization" category is the most popular (in terms of average view counts per question of the topic) as well as the most difficult. It means that developers frequently search for customization solutions such as how to attach dynamic events to a form in low-code UI, yet most (75.9%) of their questions remain without an accepted answer. We manually label 900 questions from the posts to determine the prevalence of the topics' challenges across LCSD phases. We find that most of the questions are related to the development phase, and low-code developers also face challenges with automated testing.
3.3CLMay 12, 2019
A Benchmark Study of Machine Learning Models for Online Fake News DetectionJunaed Younus Khan, Md. Tawkat Islam Khondaker, Sadia Afroz et al.
The proliferation of fake news and its propagation on social media has become a major concern due to its ability to create devastating impacts. Different machine learning approaches have been suggested to detect fake news. However, most of those focused on a specific type of news (such as political) which leads us to the question of dataset-bias of the models used. In this research, we conducted a benchmark study to assess the performance of different applicable machine learning approaches on three different datasets where we accumulated the largest and most diversified one. We explored a number of advanced pre-trained language models for fake news detection along with the traditional and deep learning ones and compared their performances from different aspects for the first time to the best of our knowledge. We find that BERT and similar pre-trained models perform the best for fake news detection, especially with very small dataset. Hence, these models are significantly better option for languages with limited electronic contents, i.e., training data. We also carried out several analysis based on the models' performance, article's topic, article's length, and discussed different lessons learned from them. We believe that this benchmark study will help the research community to explore further and news sites/blogs to select the most appropriate fake news detection method.
23.6CROct 26, 2015
Reviewer Integration and Performance Measurement for Malware DetectionBrad Miller, Alex Kantchelian, Michael Carl Tschantz et al.
We present and evaluate a large-scale malware detection system integrating machine learning with expert reviewers, treating reviewers as a limited labeling resource. We demonstrate that even in small numbers, reviewers can vastly improve the system's ability to keep pace with evolving threats. We conduct our evaluation on a sample of VirusTotal submissions spanning 2.5 years and containing 1.1 million binaries with 778GB of raw feature data. Without reviewer assistance, we achieve 72% detection at a 0.5% false positive rate, performing comparable to the best vendors on VirusTotal. Given a budget of 80 accurate reviews daily, we improve detection to 89% and are able to detect 42% of malicious binaries undetected upon initial submission to VirusTotal. Additionally, we identify a previously unnoticed temporal inconsistency in the labeling of training datasets. We compare the impact of training labels obtained at the same time training data is first seen with training labels obtained months later. We find that using training labels obtained well after samples appear, and thus unavailable in practice for current training data, inflates measured detection by almost 20 percentage points. We release our cluster-based implementation, as well as a list of all hashes in our evaluation and 3% of our entire dataset.