4.6 Article

Deep Learning Techniques for Android Botnet Detection

期刊

ELECTRONICS
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/electronics10040519

关键词

botnet detection; deep learning; Android botnets; convolutional neural networks; dense neural networks; recurrent neural networks; long short-term memory; gated recurrent unit; CNN-LSTM; CNN-GRU

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Android, the most popular mobile operating system worldwide, is facing increasing malware threats, leading to the need for more effective detection methods. Deep learning has gained attention as a machine learning approach to enhance Android botnet detection. This paper presents a comparative study of deep learning techniques for Android botnet detection, achieving state-of-the-art results based on the ISCX botnet dataset and outperforming classical machine learning classifiers.
Android is increasingly being targeted by malware since it has become the most popular mobile operating system worldwide. Evasive malware families, such as Chamois, designed to turn Android devices into bots that form part of a larger botnet are becoming prevalent. This calls for more effective methods for detection of Android botnets. Recently, deep learning has gained attention as a machine learning based approach to enhance Android botnet detection. However, studies that extensively investigate the efficacy of various deep learning models for Android botnet detection are currently lacking. Hence, in this paper we present a comparative study of deep learning techniques for Android botnet detection using 6802 Android applications consisting of 1929 botnet applications from the ISCX botnet dataset. We evaluate the performance of several deep learning techniques including: CNN, DNN, LSTM, GRU, CNN-LSTM, and CNN-GRU models using 342 static features derived from the applications. In our experiments, the deep learning models achieved state-of-the-art results based on the ISCX botnet dataset and also outperformed the classical machine learning classifiers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据