On the Limitations of Continual Learning for Malware Classification

Authors: Mohammad Saidur Rahman, Scott E. Coull, Matthew Wright

19 pages, 11 figures, and 2 tables, Accepted at the Conference on Lifelong Learning Agents - CoLLAs 2022
License: CC BY 4.0

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2208.06568v1

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Key points
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
The classification of malicious software (malware) poses a unique challenge for continual learning (CL) regimes due to the large volume of new samples received on a daily basis and the evolution of malware to exploit new vulnerabilities. Sequential training using CL techniques could provide substantial benefits in reducing training and storage overhead. However, there has been no exploration of CL applied to malware classification tasks. In this study, 11 CL techniques were investigated in three scenarios using two large real-world malware datasets. The performance of the CL methods was evaluated on both binary malware classification (Domain-IL) and multi-class malware family classification (Task-IL and Class-IL) tasks. Surprisingly, the results showed that continual learning methods significantly underperformed naive Joint replay of the training data in almost all settings, reducing accuracy by more than 70 percentage points in some cases. A simple approach of selectively replaying 20% of the stored data achieved better performance with only 50% of the training time compared to Joint replay. The study discusses potential reasons for the unexpectedly poor performance of the CL techniques and hopes that it spurs further research on developing more effective techniques for malware classification using CL. Overall, this work highlights the limitations and challenges associated with applying CL techniques to address catastrophic forgetting in malware classification tasks.
AI-generated keywords: Malware Classification CL Joint Replay Catastrophic Forgetting Training Time

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.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

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.

Submitted to arXiv on 13 Aug. 2022

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Export BibTeX · RIS (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote) · Markdown (Notion, Obsidian) · Premium
Citation alerts Premium
Journal club Slides to present it Premium
For journalists Press kit and hype check Premium

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

Figures and plots

Ask about a figure by number or use its question button to request visual analysis. Up to two figures and four image panels per question. Values read from plots are approximate; check the original data.

AI assistant instructions?

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

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 representation

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.