The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Limits of Static Analysis for Malware Detection
Abstract
Malicious code is an increasingly important problem that threatens the security of computer systems. The traditional line of defense against malware is composed of malware detectors such as virus and spyware scanners. Unfortunately, both researchers and malware authors have demonstrated that these scanners, which use pattern matching to identify malware, can be easily evaded by simple code transformations. To address this shortcoming, more powerful malware detectors have been proposed. These tools rely on semantic signatures and employ static analysis techniques such as model checking and theorem proving to perform detection. While it has been shown that these systems are highly effective in identifying current malware, it is less clear how successful they would be against adversaries that take into account the novel detection mechanisms. The goal of this paper is to explore the limits of static analysis for the detection of malicious code. To this end, we present a binary obfuscation scheme that relies on the idea of opaque constants, which are primitives that allow us to load a constant into a register such that an analysis tool cannot determine its value. Based on opaque constants, we build obfuscation transformations that obscure program control flow, disguise access to local and global variables, and interrupt tracking of values held in processor registers. Using our proposed obfuscation approach, we were able to show that advanced semantics-based malware detectors can be evaded. Moreover, our opaque constant primitive can be applied in a way such that is provably hard to analyze for any static code analyzer. This demonstrates that static analysis techniques alone might no longer be sufficient to identify malware.
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
Cited by
An Android Application Sandbox system for suspicious software detection
Bläsing, T., Batyuk, L., Schmidt, A.-D., Camtepe, S. A., & Albayrak, S. (2010) · 2010 5th International Conference on Malicious and Unwanted Software · doi:10.1109/malware.2010.5665792 · Cited by 452
Novel Feature Extraction, Selection and Fusion for Effective Malware Family Classification
Ahmadi, M., Ulyanov, D., Semenov, S., Trofimov, M., & Giacinto, G. (2016) · Proceedings of the Sixth ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy · doi:10.1145/2857705.2857713 · Cited by 359
McIntosh, T., Kayes, A. S. M., Chen, Y.-P. P., Ng, A., & Watters, P. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3479393 · Cited by 146
Firdaus, A., Anuar, N. B., Razak, M. F. A., Hashem, I. A. T., Bachok, S., & Sangaiah, A. K. (2018) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-018-0966-x · Cited by 73
Metadata
- Authors
- Moser, A., Kruegel, C., & Kirda, E.
- Venue
- Twenty-Third Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC 2007)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2007-12
- Pages
- 421-430
- OpenAlex
- W2132874238
- Cited by
- 813
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.52
- Type
- conference paper
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Limits of Static Analysis for Malware Detection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/acsac.2007.21
- The paper
- Moser, A., Kruegel, C., & Kirda, E. (2007). Limits of Static Analysis for Malware Detection. Twenty-Third Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC 2007). https://doi.org/10.1109/acsac.2007.21
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.