Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Workflow of the proposed malware classification method based on FSGCN.

This figure illustrates the process from handling imbalanced datasets using the SMOTE algorithm, constructing directed graphs for API sequences, extracting multi-dimensional attribute features, computing first-order and second-order adjacency matrices, generating feature embeddings with GCN, converting these embeddings into grayscale images, and finally classifying the images using CNN.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

An example of computing the first-order and second-order adjacency matrices for a graph.

A:Example of first-order vertex computation. B: Example of Second-order-indegree . C: Example of Second-order-outdegree.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 1.

Descriptions of the API node attributes.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 3.

The overall process of the first-order and second-order graph convolutional networks.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

The distribution of samples in Dataset 1 and Dataset 2. (A) is Dataset1, (B) is Dataset2.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 2.

Dataset overview.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 5.

Examples of normalized grayscale images for samples of three different types of malware graph embedding representations after transformation in Dataset 1.

(a), (b), and (c) belong to the Normal type, while (d), (e), and (f) belong to the Ransom type, and (g), (h), and (i) belong to the Miner type.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 3.

Performance compared with traditional malware classification methods on two datasets.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Performance compared with graph convolution based malware classification algorithms.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 6.

The loss curves of GCN, GraphSAGE, GAT, and our model.

(a): The loss curves of GCN. (b): The loss curves of GraphSAGE. (c):he loss curves of GAT. (d):The loss curves of Our work.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 5.

Performance Comparison of our work with state-of-arts-methods.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Ablation analysis of the dimensionality of node attribute features in our method across two datasets.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Multi-dimensinal feature Precision-Recall (PR) performance of our work in dataset2.

(a): The Precision-Recall curves of 1-dimensional feature. (b): The Precision-Recall curves of 3-dimensional feature. (c):The Precision-Recall curves of 5-dimensional feature. (d):The Precision-Recall curves of 7-dimensional feature.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Visualization of the t-SNE feature space for dimensions 1, 3, 5, and 7 of our model in dataset2.

(a): The t-SNE view of 1-dimensional feature. (b): The t-SNE view of 3-dimensional feature. (c):Thet-SNE view of 5-dimensional feature. (d):The t-SNE view of 7-dimensional feature.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Confusion matrix performance of multi-dimensinal feature in dataset2.

(a): Confusion matrix performance of 1-dimensional feature. (b): Confusion matrix performance of 3-dimensional feature. (c):Confusion matrix performance of 5-dimensional feature. (d):Confusion matrix performance of 7-dimensional feature.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Table 7.

Ablation analysis of our method on Dataset 2 With and without SMOTE.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Fig 10.

Comparison of loss curves for dataset 2 with 5-dimensional features: w/o SMOTE vs. w/ SMOTE.

More »

Fig 10 Expand