4.6 Article

PDF Malware Detection Based on Optimizable Decision Trees

期刊

ELECTRONICS
卷 11, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/electronics11193142

关键词

portable document format (PDF); machine learning; detection; optimizable decision tree; AdaBoost; PDF malware; evasion attacks; cybersecurity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Portable document format (PDF) files are commonly used and often targeted by hackers. This paper presents a new detection system that utilizes machine learning methods, specifically the AdaBoost decision tree, to effectively identify malware PDF files. The proposed system achieves high detection performance and low detection overhead, outperforming other state-of-the-art models.
Portable document format (PDF) files are one of the most universally used file types. This has incentivized hackers to develop methods to use these normally innocent PDF files to create security threats via infection vector PDF files. This is usually realized by hiding embedded malicious code in the victims' PDF documents to infect their machines. This, of course, results in PDF malware and requires techniques to identify benign files from malicious files. Research studies indicated that machine learning methods provide efficient detection techniques against such malware. In this paper, we present a new detection system that can analyze PDF documents in order to identify benign PDF files from malware PDF files. The proposed system makes use of the AdaBoost decision tree with optimal hyperparameters, which is trained and evaluated on a modern inclusive dataset, viz. Evasive-PDFMal2022. The investigational assessment demonstrates a lightweight and accurate PDF detection system, achieving a 98.84% prediction accuracy with a short prediction interval of 2.174 mu Sec. To this end, the proposed model outperforms other state-of-the-art models in the same study area. Hence, the proposed system can be effectively utilized to uncover PDF malware at a high detection performance and low detection overhead.

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