4.6 Article

Android malware detection method based on naive Bayes and permission correlation algorithm

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10586-017-0981-6

关键词

Naive Bayes; Android malware detection; Privilege feature; Correlation coefficient; Information theory

资金

  1. Chongqing Basic and Frontier Research Project [cstc2016jcyjA0590]
  2. National Nature Science Foundation of China [61672004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to detect Android malware more effectively, an Android malware detection model was proposed based on improved naive Bayes classification. Firstly, considering the unknown permission that may be malicious in detection samples, and in order to improve the Android detection rate, the algorithm of malware detection is proposed based on improved naive Bayes. Considering the limited training samples, limited permissions, and the new malicious permissions in the test samples, we used the impact of the new malware permissions and training permissions as the weight. The weighted naive Bayesian algorithm improves the Android malware detection efficiency. Secondly, taking into account the detection model, we proposed a detection model of permissions and information theory based on the improved naive Bayes algorithm. We analyzed the correlation of the permission. By calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient, we determined the value of Pearson correlation coefficient r, and delete the permissions whose value r is less than the threshold rho and get the new permission set. So, we got the improved detection model by clustering based on information theory. Finally, we detected the 1725 Android malware and 945 non malicious application of multiple data sets in the same simulation environment. The detection rate of the improved the naive Bayes algorithm is 86.54%, and the detection rate of the non-malicious application is increased to 97.59%. Based on the improved naive Bayes algorithm, the false detection rate of the improved detection model is reduced by 8.25%.

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