Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
ZENODOarrow_drop_down
ZENODO
Article . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Article . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Malware Detection Using Machine Learning & Performance Evaluation

Authors: I.Sravani; D. Lakshmi; M.Ushaswini; L.Aswini; C. Subramanyam;

Malware Detection Using Machine Learning & Performance Evaluation

Abstract

Malware is any type of program that is intended to wreak havoc to the computer system and network. Examples of malware are bot, ransomware, adware, keyloggers, viruses, trojan horses, worms and others. The exponential growth of malware is posing a great danger to the security of confidential information. The problem with many of the existing classification algorithms is their low performance in term of their ability to detect and prevent malware from infecting the computer system. There is an urgent need to evaluate the performance of the existing Machine Learning classification algorithms used for malware detection. This will help in creating more robust and efficient algorithms that have the capacity to overcome the weaknesses of the existing algorithms. This study did the performance evaluation of some classification algorithms such as J45, LMT, Naïve Bayes, Random Forest, MLP Classifier, Random Tree, REP Tree, Bagging, AdaBoost, KStar, SimpleLogistic, IBK, LWL, SVM, and RBF Network. The performance of the algorithms was evaluated in terms of Accuracy, Precision, Recall, Kappa Statistics, F-Measure, Matthew Correlation Coefficient, Receiver Operator Characteristics Area and Root Mean Squared Error using WEKA machine learning and data mining simulation tool. Our experimental results showed that Random Forest algorithm produced the best accuracy of 99.2%. This positively indicates that the Random Forest algorithm achieves good accuracy rates in detecting malware.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!