| Literature DB >> 36109570 |
Muhammad Asam1,2, Saddam Hussain Khan1,2,3, Altaf Akbar4, Sameena Bibi5, Tauseef Jamal6,7, Asifullah Khan1,2,6,7, Usman Ghafoor8,9, Muhammad Raheel Bhutta10.
Abstract
Interaction between devices, people, and the Internet has given birth to a new digital communication model, the internet of things (IoT). The integration of smart devices to constitute a network introduces many security challenges. These connected devices have created a security blind spot, where cybercriminals can easily launch attacks to compromise the devices using malware proliferation techniques. Therefore, malware detection is a lifeline for securing IoT devices against cyberattacks. This study addresses the challenge of malware detection in IoT devices by proposing a new CNN-based IoT malware detection architecture (iMDA). The proposed iMDA is modular in design that incorporates multiple feature learning schemes in blocks including (1) edge exploration and smoothing, (2) multi-path dilated convolutional operations, and (3) channel squeezing and boosting in CNN to learn a diverse set of features. The local structural variations within malware classes are learned by Edge and smoothing operations implemented in the split-transform-merge (STM) block. The multi-path dilated convolutional operation is used to recognize the global structure of malware patterns. At the same time, channel squeezing and merging helped to regulate complexity and get diverse feature maps. The performance of the proposed iMDA is evaluated on a benchmark IoT dataset and compared with several state-of-the CNN architectures. The proposed iMDA shows promising malware detection capacity by achieving accuracy: 97.93%, F1-Score: 0.9394, precision: 0.9864, MCC: 0. 8796, recall: 0.8873, AUC-PR: 0.9689 and AUC-ROC: 0.9938. The strong discrimination capacity suggests that iMDA may be extended for the android-based malware detection and IoT Elf files compositely in the future.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36109570 PMCID: PMC9477830 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-18936-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1IoT security challenges.
Figure 2A brief overview of the proposed framework.
Figure 3Detailed overview of training (a) and testing (b) of the proposed framework.
Figure 4(a) The proposed IoT malware detection architecture (b) STM block (c) details of blocks used in the architecture.
Figure 5Image visualization of (a) malware and (b) benign files.
Details of performance metrics.
| Metric symbol | Description |
|---|---|
| Acc | Shows Accuracy as % of the total number of Malware detection |
| R | Shows Recall, which is the proportion of correctly identified malware samples and benign samples |
| P | Shows Precision, a ratio of correctly detected malware samples to the total malware sample |
| F1-Score | F1-Score is the harmonic mean of P and R |
| AUC-PR | Quantifies the area under Precision and Recall Curve |
| AUC-ROC | Quantifies the area under Receiver Operating Characteristic curve |
| MCC | Mathews Correlation Coefficient |
| TP | Correctly Identified Malware Files |
| TN | Correctly Identified Benign Files |
| FP | Incorrectly Identified Malware Files |
| FN | Incorrectly Identified Benign Files |
Comparison of proposed framework with the existing CNN models.
| Models | Accuracy % | F1-score | Precision | MCC | Recall | AUC-PR | AUC-ROC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlexNet | 92.86 | 0.6807 | 0.9960 | 0.5874 | 0.5171 | 0.9041 | 0.9685 |
| VGG16 | 94.72 | 0.9146 | 0.9552 | 0.839 | 0.8772 | 0.9321 | 0.9816 |
| Inceptionv3 | 94.89 | 0.8055 | 0.9920 | 0.7091 | 0.6780 | 0.8972 | 0.9860 |
| VGG19 | 95.38 | 0.8353 | 0.9902 | 0.7429 | 0.7223 | 0.9088 | 0.9739 |
| Resnet50 | 95.62 | 0.8282 | 0.9971 | 0.7379 | 0.7082 | 0.9432 | 0.9848 |
| Shufflenet | 95.93 | 0.8491 | 0.9949 | 0.7621 | 0.7404 | 0.9541 | 0.9901 |
| DenseNet201 | 96.17 | 0.8685 | 0.9917 | 0.7856 | 0.7726 | 0.9471 | 0.9884 |
| Xception | 96.57 | 0.9342 | 0.9737 | 0.8651 | 0.9074 | 0.9527 | 0.9882 |
| GoolgeNet | 96.72 | 0.8934 | 0.9917 | 0.8195 | 0.8128 | 0.9469 | 0.9881 |
| Proposed iMDA | 97.93 | 0.9394 | 0.9864 | 0.8796 | 0.8873 | 0.9731 | 0.9938 |
Figure 6Minimum and maximum performance gain of proposed framework.
Performance of the proposed model.
| Performance metric | Proposed iMDA |
|---|---|
| Accuracy % | 97.93 |
| F1-Score | 0.9394 |
| Precision | 0.9864 |
| MCC | 0.8796 |
| Recall | 0.8873 |
| AUC-PR | 0.9689 |
| AUC-ROC | 0.9938 |
Figure 7F1-score, accuracy, and MCC comparison.
Figure 8Feature space-based performance comparisons.
Figure 9Detection rate analysis of the proposed iMDA in comparison with existing CNN.