Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 334

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

MaMaDroid: Detecting Android Malware by Building Markov Chains of Behavioral Models (Extended Version)

Open access
Onwuzurike, Lucky, Mariconti, Enrico, Andriotis, Panagiotis, Cristofaro, Emiliano De, Ross, Gordon, Stringhini, Gianluca·2019·ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security

Abstract

As Android has become increasingly popular, so has malware targeting it, thus motivating the research community to propose different detection techniques. However, the constant evolution of the Android ecosystem, and of malware itself, makes it hard to design robust tools that can operate for long periods of time without the need for modifications or costly re-training. Aiming to address this issue, we set to detect malware from a behavioral point of view, modeled as the sequence of abstracted API calls. We introduce M A M A D ROID , a static-analysis-based system that abstracts app’s API calls to their class, package, or family, and builds a model from their sequences obtained from the call graph of an app as Markov chains. This ensures that the model is more resilient to API changes and the features set is of manageable size. We evaluate M A M A D ROID using a dataset of 8.5K benign and 35.5K malicious apps collected over a period of 6 years, showing that it effectively detects malware (with up to 0.99 F-measure) and keeps its detection capabilities for long periods of time (up to 0.87 F-measure 2 years after training). We also show that M A M A D ROID remarkably overperforms D ROID APIM INER , a state-of-the-art detection system that relies on the frequency of ( raw ) API calls. Aiming to assess whether M A M A D ROID ’s effectiveness mainly stems from the API abstraction or from the sequencing modeling, we also evaluate a variant of it that uses frequency (instead of sequences), of abstracted API calls. We find that it is not as accurate, failing to capture maliciousness when trained on malware samples that include API calls that are equally or more frequently used by benign apps.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3313391

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 53 references

Cited by

See all 334

Metadata

Authors
Onwuzurike, L., Mariconti, E., Andriotis, P., Cristofaro, E. D., Ross, G., & Stringhini, G.
Venue
ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security
Published
2019-04-09
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
1-34
ISSN
  • 2471-2566 (ISSN-L)
  • 2471-2574
OpenAlex
W2963204406
Cited by
334
References
53
FWCI
22.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: MaMaDroid: Detecting Android Malware by Building Markov Chains of Behavioral Models (Extended Version). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/3313391
The paper
Onwuzurike, L., Mariconti, E., Andriotis, P., Cristofaro, E. D., Ross, G., & Stringhini, G. (2019). MaMaDroid: Detecting Android Malware by Building Markov Chains of Behavioral Models (Extended Version). ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313391

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.