The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A deep learning approach for detecting malicious JavaScript code
Abstract
Malicious JavaScript code in webpages on the Internet is an emergent security issue because of its universality and potentially severe impact. Because of its obfuscation and complexities, detecting it has a considerable cost. Over the last few years, several machine learning‐based detection approaches have been proposed; most of them use shallow discriminating models with features that are constructed with artificial rules. However, with the advent of the big data era for information transmission, these existing methods already cannot satisfy actual needs. In this paper, we present a new deep learning framework for detection of malicious JavaScript code, from which we obtained the highest detection accuracy compared with the control group. The architecture is composed of a sparse random projection, deep learning model, and logistic regression. Stacked denoising auto‐encoders were used to extract high‐level features from JavaScript code; logistic regression as a classifier was used to distinguish between malicious and benign JavaScript code. Experimental results indicated that our architecture, with over 27 000 labeled samples, can achieve an accuracy of up to 95%, with a false positive rate less than 4.2% in the best case. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition
Lecun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., & Haffner, P. (1998) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/5.726791 · Cited by 58,805
Greedy layer-wise training of deep networks
Bengio, Y., Lamblin, P., Popovici, D., & Larochelle, H. (2007) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19 · doi:10.7551/mitpress/7503.003.0024 · Cited by 4,841
A Beginner’s Guide to Factor Analysis: Focusing on Exploratory Factor Analysis
Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013) · Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology · doi:10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079 · Cited by 3,304 · cited 1×
“…mainly concerned with the TP rate, FP rate, and the overall classi fi cation accuracy de fi ned as follows: ≈ 94 : 82 % Then we compared the SdA model with other feature extraction models, including principle component analysis [32], independent component analysis [33], and factor analysis (FA) [34].”
MethodDetection and analysis of drive-by-download attacks and malicious JavaScript code
Cova, M., Kruegel, C., & Vigna, G. (2010) · Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web · doi:10.1145/1772690.1772720 · Cited by 580
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, Y., Cai, W., & Wei, P.
- Venue
- Security and Communication Networks
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-02-11
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1520-1534
- ISSN
- 1939-0114 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-0122
- OpenAlex
- W2290933337
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 17.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.