On the Limitations of Continual Learning for Malware Classification
Authors: Mohammad Saidur Rahman, Scott E. Coull, Matthew Wright
AI-generated Key Points
- Malware classification is challenging due to the large volume of new samples received daily and the evolution of malware
- Sequential training using CL techniques could reduce training and storage overhead
- 11 CL techniques were investigated in three scenarios using two real-world malware datasets
- Performance was evaluated on binary and multi-class malware family classification tasks
- Continual learning methods underperformed naive Joint replay in almost all settings, reducing accuracy by more than 70 percentage points in some cases
- Selectively replaying 20% of stored data achieved better performance with only 50% of the training time compared to Joint replay
- The study discusses potential reasons for poor performance and hopes to spur further research on developing more effective techniques for malware classification using CL.
- This work highlights the limitations and challenges associated with applying CL techniques to address catastrophic forgetting in malware classification tasks.
Abstract: Malicious software (malware) classification offers a unique challenge for continual learning (CL) regimes due to the volume of new samples received on a daily basis and the evolution of malware to exploit new vulnerabilities. On a typical day, antivirus vendors receive hundreds of thousands of unique pieces of software, both malicious and benign, and over the course of the lifetime of a malware classifier, more than a billion samples can easily accumulate. Given the scale of the problem, sequential training using continual learning techniques could provide substantial benefits in reducing training and storage overhead. To date, however, there has been no exploration of CL applied to malware classification tasks. In this paper, we study 11 CL techniques applied to three malware tasks covering common incremental learning scenarios, including task, class, and domain incremental learning (IL). Specifically, using two realistic, large-scale malware datasets, we evaluate the performance of the CL methods on both binary malware classification (Domain-IL) and multi-class malware family classification (Task-IL and Class-IL) tasks. To our surprise, continual learning methods significantly underperformed naive Joint replay of the training data in nearly all settings -- in some cases reducing accuracy by more than 70 percentage points. A simple approach of selectively replaying 20% of the stored data achieves better performance, with 50% of the training time compared to Joint replay. Finally, we discuss potential reasons for the unexpectedly poor performance of the CL techniques, with the hope that it spurs further research on developing techniques that are more effective in the malware classification domain.
Tools for this paper
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
We compare the title and abstract with papers indexed in our database. For arXiv papers, we search within the same category; for DOI and other sources, we search across sources and subjects. You can rerun the search as our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.