| # DikeDataset ποΈ | |
| ## Table of Content π | |
| - [DikeDataset ποΈ](#dikedataset-οΈ) | |
| - [Table of Content π](#table-of-content-) | |
| - [Description ποΈ](#description-οΈ) | |
| - [Labels Exploration π](#labels-exploration-) | |
| - [Methodology π·](#methodology-) | |
| - [Downloading Step](#downloading-step) | |
| - [Renaming Step](#renaming-step) | |
| - [Scanning Step](#scanning-step) | |
| - [Labeling Step](#labeling-step) | |
| - [Sources Β©οΈ](#sources-οΈ) | |
| - [Folders Structure π](#folders-structure-) | |
| - [Citations π](#citations-) | |
| ## Description ποΈ | |
| **DikeDataset** is a **labeled dataset** containing **benign and malicious PE and OLE files**. | |
| Considering the number, the types, and the meanings of the labels, DikeDataset can be used for training artificial intelligence algorithms to predict, for a PE or OLE file, the **malice** and the **membership to a malware family**. The artificial intelligence approaches can vary from machine learning (with algorithms such as regressors and soft multi-label classifiers) to deep learning, depending on the requirements. | |
| It is worth mentioning that the numeric labels, with values between `0` and `1`, can be transformed into discrete ones to respect the constraints of standard classification. For example, if a superior malice limit for benign files is set to `0.4`, a file having the malice of `0.593` is considered malicious. | |
| ## Labels Exploration π | |
| <details> | |
| <summary>Samples Distribution</summary> | |
| <img src="others/images/distribution.png" alt="Plot with the distribution of samples" width=600> | |
| </details> | |
| <details> | |
| <summary>Labels Identification</summary> | |
| | Name | Type | | |
| | ---------- | ------- | | |
| | type | int64 | | |
| | hash | object | | |
| | malice | float64 | | |
| | generic | float64 | | |
| | trojan | float64 | | |
| | ransomware | float64 | | |
| | worm | float64 | | |
| | backdoor | float64 | | |
| | spyware | float64 | | |
| | rootkit | float64 | | |
| | encrypter | float64 | | |
| | downloader | float64 | | |
| </details> | |
| <details> | |
| <summary>Mean, Standard Deviation, Minimum and Maximum</summary> | |
| | | malice | generic | trojan | ransomware | worm | backdoor | spyware | rootkit | encrypter | downloader | | |
| | ---- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ---------- | --------- | --------- | ---------- | ---------- | --------- | ---------- | | |
| | mean | 0.876484 | 0.412354 | 0.44581 | 0.00503229 | 0.0086457 | 0.0117696 | 0.00030322 | 0.00614807 | 0.0719921 | 0.037945 | | |
| | std | 0.0779914 | 0.0779332 | 0.0891624 | 0.0192288 | 0.0189522 | 0.0333144 | 0.00227205 | 0.0263416 | 0.0622346 | 0.0699552 | | |
| | min | 0.235294 | 0.140351 | 0.05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | |
| | max | 0.981132 | 0.916667 | 0.76087 | 0.307692 | 0.59 | 0.290323 | 0.0212766 | 0.307692 | 0.3125 | 0.307692 | | |
| </details> | |
| <details> | |
| <summary>Histograms</summary> | |
| <img src="others/images/histograms.png" alt="Plot containing a histogram for each numeric label" width=800> | |
| </details> | |
| ## Methodology π· | |
| > **Observation**: A Bash [script](others/scripts/get_files.sh) can be used to replicate the downloading and the renaming steps. On the other hand, the last two steps consist of using functionalities that are available only in the `dike`, namely in [this](https://github.com/iosifache/dike/blob/main/codebase/scripts/continuous_vt_scan.py) Python script. | |
| ### Downloading Step | |
| 1. For PE files, a dataset (see the [Sources](#sources-οΈ) section) created for a paper was downloaded. As the files were packed inside multiple folders (one for each malware family considered in the study), they were moved into two new folders, malice oriented. | |
| 2. For malicious OLE files, 12 daily (one from each 15th of the 12 previous months) archives were downloaded from MalwareBazaar (see the [Sources](#sources-οΈ) section). After unarchiving, the files were filtered by certain extensions (`.doc`, `.docx` `.docm` `.xls` `.xlsx` `.xlsm` `.ppt` `.pptx` `.pptm`). | |
| 3. For benign OLE files, 100 files were manually downloaded from the results of random DuckDuckGo searches. | |
| ### Renaming Step | |
| 1. All resulting files were renamed by their SHA256 hash. | |
| 2. The OLE files, having the Office-specific extensions mentioned in the last paragraph, were replaced with `.ole`. | |
| ### Scanning Step | |
| 1. The hashes of all malicious files were dumped into a file. | |
| 2. The file containing hashes was uploaded into a bucket in Google Cloud Storage. | |
| 3. A Google Cloud Function was created, containing a Python script (*see the observation above*) and triggered by a Google Cloud Scheduler four times in a minute (to respect the API quota). It consumed the hashes by scanning them with the VirusTotal API and dumping specific parts of the results (antivirus engines votes and tags) into a [file](others/vt_data.csv). | |
| ### Labeling Step | |
| 1. The file containing the VirusTotal data, which resulted from the scanning step, was moved locally, where `dike` was already set. | |
| 2. To compute the malice, the weighted formula below was used, where the `MALIGN_BENIGN_RATIO` constant was set to `2`. This means that one antivirus engine considering that the file was malicious has the same weight (on a scale) as two engines considering it is benign. | |
| ``` | |
| malign_weight = MALIGN_BENIGN_RATIO * malign_votes | |
| benign_weight = benign_votes | |
| malice = malign_weight / (malign_weight + benign_weight) | |
| ``` | |
| 3. To compute the membership on each malware family, a transformer was developed (*see the observation above*) to "*vote*" for each available family. For example, if an antivirus engine tag was `Trj`, then one vote for the trojan family was offered. All tags were consumed in this way and the votes for all families were normalized. | |
| 4. For the benign files, the process was straight-forward as the malice and the memberships were set to `0`. | |
| ## Sources Β©οΈ | |
| 1. [Malware Detection PE-Based Analysis Using Deep Learning Algorithm Dataset](https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Malware_Detection_PE-Based_Analysis_Using_Deep_Learning_Algorithm_Dataset/6635642), containing malicious and benign PE files and having CC BY 4.0 license | |
| 2. [MalwareBazaar](https://bazaar.abuse.ch), containing (among others) malicious OLE files and having CC0 license | |
| 3. [DuckDuckGo](https://duckduckgo.com/), that was used for searching benign documents with patterns such as `filetype:doc` | |
| ## Folders Structure π | |
| ``` | |
| DikeDataset root folder | |
| βββ files folder with all samples | |
| β βββ benign folder for benign samples | |
| β β βββ ... | |
| β βββ malware folder for malicious samples | |
| β βββ ... | |
| βββ labels folder with all labels | |
| β βββ benign.csv labels folder for benign samples | |
| β βββ malware.csv labels folder for malicious samples | |
| βββ others folder with miscellaneous files | |
| β βββ images folder with generated images | |
| β β βββ distribution.png image with a plot with the distribution of samples | |
| β β βββ histograms.png image containing the histograms for each numeric label | |
| β βββ scripts folder with used scripts | |
| β | βββ explore.py Python 3 script for labels exploration | |
| β | βββ get_files.sh Shell script for downloading a large part of the samples | |
| β | βββ requirements.txt Python 3 dependencies for the explore.py script | |
| β βββ tables folder with generated tables | |
| β β βββ labels.md table in Markdown format containing the identification | |
| β β β of labels | |
| β β βββ univariate_analysis.md table in Markdown format containing the results of a | |
| β β univariate analysis | |
| β βββ vt_data.csv raw VirusTotal scan results | |
| βββ README.md this file | |
| ``` | |
| ## Citations π | |
| DikeDataset was proudly used in: | |
| - **Academic studies** with BibTeX references in [`others/citations.bib`](others/citations.bib) | |
| - "*A Corpus of Encoded Malware Byte Information as Images for Efficient Classification*" | |
| - "*Adversarial Robustness of Learning-based Static Malware Classifiers*" | |
| - "*An ensemble deep learning classifier stacked with fuzzy ARTMAP for malware detection*" | |
| - "*AutoEncoder κΈ°λ° μλλ ν μ¬μ νμ΅ λ° μ μ΄νμ΅μ ν΅ν μ μ±μ½λ νμ§ λ°©λ²λ‘ *" | |
| - "*Comparison of Feature Extraction and Classification Techniques of PE Malware*" | |
| - "*Deep Learning based Residual Attention Network for Malware Detection in CyberSecurity*" | |
| - "*Detecting Malware Activities with MalpMiner: A Dynamic Analysis Approach*" | |
| - "*Effective Call Graph Fingerprinting for the Analysis and Classification of Windows Malware*" | |
| - "*Evaluation and survey of state of the art malware detection and classification techniques: Analysis and recommendation*" | |
| - "*Intelligent Endpoint-based Ransomware Detection Framework*" | |
| - "*Knowledge Graph creation on Windows malwares and completion using knowledge graph embedding*" | |
| - "*Machine Learning for malware characterization and identification*" | |
| - "*Malware Detection by Control-Flow Graph Level Representation Learning With Graph Isomorphism Network*" | |
| - "*Malware Detection in URL Using Machine Learning Approach*" | |
| - "*SoK: Use of Cryptography in Malware Obfuscation*" | |
| - "*TΓ©cnicas de aprendizaje mΓ‘quina para anΓ‘lisis de malware*" | |
| - "*Toward a methodology for malware analysis and characterization for Machine Learning application*" | |
| - "*Toward identifying APT malware through API system calls*" | |
| - "*Uso de algoritmos de machine learning para la detecciΓ³n de archivos malware*" | |
| - **Projects** | |
| - [`dike`](https://github.com/iosifache/dike), a platform that uses artificial intelligence techniques in the process of malware analysis | |
| - [Various open source projects](https://github.com/search?q=dikedataset&type=code). | |
| > **Notice**: If you're using DikeDataset in an academic study or project, please open an issue or submit a PR if you want to be cited in the above list and the citations file. | |