The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Sandboxing and Virtualization: Modern Tools for Combating Malware
Abstract
Malware is probably the most significant computer security threat to enterprises and businesses alike. To address the exposure gap left by antivirus products, an emerging category of desktop security products that use application-level sandboxing attempts to address malware threats by containing their malicious behavior. High profile applications that now employ sandboxing include the Google Chrome browser, Internet Explorer Protect Mode, and Adobe Reader X. Partial virtualization techniques usually involve a combination of privilege restrictions by user ac counts and a virtual file system. Other terms for this approach include lightweight virtualiza tion, OS virtualization, process virtualization, and process confinement. Full virtualization techniquesare also called hardware virtu alization because the hardware layer and resources, including de vice drivers, are virtualized for a "guest" OS by a hypervisor layer.Utilizing hardware virtualization based techniques, a malware pro tection solution runs the target application in its own OS in a virtual machine.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Through taxonomic research and development, defence systems have employed techniques that analyse relationships between application behaviour and response (sandboxing [Blasing et al. 2010; Greamo and A.Ghosh 2011], dynamic anomaly based scanning [Tavallaee et al. 2010] etc.).”
From A Taxonomy of Attacks and a Survey of Defence Mechanisms for Semantic Social Engineering Attacks (2016) · cites this paper as Greamo and A.Ghosh 2011
In the citing paper
“A sandboxing environment can check and analyse characteristics associated with an attack by categorising behaviour for anomaly detection [Greamo and A.Ghosh 2011].”
From A Taxonomy of Attacks and a Survey of Defence Mechanisms for Semantic Social Engineering Attacks (2016) · cites this paper as Greamo and A.Ghosh 2011
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- 2010, Google Chrome before 5.0.375.125 Does Not Properly Mitigate an Unspecified Flaw in the GMU C Library, which Has Unknown Impact and Attack Vectors, CVE-2010-2898
- leblanc, 2007, Practical Windows Sandboxing Part 1, Blog
- 2010, Google Chrome before 5.0.375.125 Does Not Properly Mitigate an Unspecified Flaw in the Windows Kernel, which Has Unknown Impact and Attack Vectors, CVE-2010-2897
- 2010, Email Messages with Subject ‘LinkedIn Alert’ Lead to Malware, Blog
Cited by
A Taxonomy of Attacks and a Survey of Defence Mechanisms for Semantic Social Engineering Attacks
Heartfield, R., & Loukas, G. (2016) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/2835375 · Cited by 202
Metadata
- Authors
- Greamo, C., & Ghosh, A.
- ORCID
- Ghosh, Anup
- Venue
- IEEE Security & Privacy Magazine
- Published
- 2011-03
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 79-82
- ISSN
- 1540-7993 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2019509629
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 2.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Security & Privacy (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Security and Verification in Computing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Advanced Malware Detection Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital Rights Management and Security
- Keywords
- sandboxing, virtualization, malware removal, antivirus limitations, hardware virtualization, hypervisor, virtual machines, virtual file system
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