跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2610.39351 · v1

Measuring Duplication, Leakage, and Rendering Dependence in Malware-as-Image Benchmarks

首次提交 2026-10-29 12:44
版本更新 2026-10-29 12:44
雷达观测 2026-10-30 11:25
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Classifying malware binaries rendered as images is a popular approach to malware family identification, and papers on the standard benchmarks for this task report accuracies of 97-99%. In this paper we audit ten of these benchmarks for near-duplicate images and test-train leakage, and retrain standard classifiers under naive and content-aware splits. Deduplicating by file hash, which is the standard practice, does not prevent leakage, because distinct binaries render to identical images. Deduplicating on image content reduces top-1 accuracy by up to 8 points and macro-F1 by up to 15 points on the released benchmarks we find leaky. The rendering step also adds duplication, since byteplots of the same binaries contain 19.7% near-duplicates where static feature vectors contain 2.2%, and changing the width at which bytes are wrapped into rows reduces accuracy by 20 to 33 points, although no byte changes. We recommend that content-level duplication and a non-image baseline be reported alongside accuracy.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-10-29 12:44 · 最新观测版本

Measuring Duplication, Leakage, and Rendering Dependence in Malware-as-Image Benchmarks

Classifying malware binaries rendered as images is a popular approach to malware family identification, and papers on the standard benchmarks for this task report accuracies of 97-99%. In this paper we audit ten of these benchmarks for near-duplicate images and test-train leakage, and retrain standard classifiers under naive and content-aware splits. Deduplicating by file hash, which is the standard practice, does not prevent leakage, because distinct binaries render to identical images. Deduplicating on image content reduces top-1 accuracy by up to 8 points and macro-F1 by up to 15 points on the released benchmarks we find leaky. The rendering step also adds duplication, since byteplots of the same binaries contain 19.7% near-duplicates where static feature vectors contain 2.2%, and changing the width at which bytes are wrapped into rows reduces accuracy by 20 to 33 points, although no byte changes. We recommend that content-level duplication and a non-image baseline be reported alongside accuracy.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗