{"about":{"site":"https://codewithpapers.app","non_affiliation":"Code with Papers and Syntology are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Papers with Code, Meta, or the pwc-archive mirror.","licence":"CC BY-SA 4.0","licence_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode","attribution":"https://codewithpapers.app/attribution","modified":"archive material modified by Syntology; see the attribution page"},"url":"/paper/easy-to-fool-testing-the-anti-evasion","title":"Easy to Fool? Testing the Anti-evasion Capabilities of PDF Malware Scanners","arxiv_id":"1901.05674","date":"2019-01-17","proceeding":null,"authors":["Saeed Ehteshamifar","Antonio Barresi","Thomas R. Gross","Michael Pradel"],"abstract":"Malware scanners try to protect users from opening malicious documents by statically or dynamically analyzing documents. However, malware developers may apply evasions that conceal the maliciousness of a document. Given the variety of existing evasions, systematically assessing the impact of evasions on malware scanners remains an open challenge. This paper presents a novel methodology for testing the capability of malware scanners to cope with evasions. We apply the methodology to malicious Portable Document Format (PDF) documents and present an in-depth study of how current PDF evasions affect 41 state-of-the-art malware scanners. The study is based on a framework for creating malicious PDF documents that use one or more evasions. Based on such documents, we measure how effective different evasions are at concealing the maliciousness of a document. We find that many static and dynamic scanners can be easily fooled by relatively simple evasions and that the effectiveness of different evasions varies drastically. Our work not only is a call to arms for improving current malware scanners, but by providing a large-scale corpus of malicious PDF documents with evasions, we directly support the development of improved tools to detect document-based malware. Moreover, our methodology paves the way for a quantitative evaluation of evasions in other kinds of malware.","url_abs":"http://arxiv.org/abs/1901.05674v2","url_pdf":"http://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.05674v2.pdf","source":{"archive":"pwc-archive (Hugging Face), CC BY-SA 4.0","snapshot":"2025-07-28","licence_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode","row_kind":"links_only","authors_date_abstract":"arXiv metadata, CC0 1.0 (https://info.arxiv.org/help/license), from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12"},"code_links":[{"paper_slug":"easy-to-fool-testing-the-anti-evasion","repo_url":"https://github.com/sola-da/Chameleon","is_official":1,"mentioned_in_paper":1,"mentioned_in_github":1,"framework":"none","reach":null}],"tasks":[],"methods":[],"datasets_introduced":[],"methods_introduced":[],"results":[],"syntology":{"syntology_url":null,"atlas_url":null,"mcp":null,"developers":"https://syntology.ai/developers"},"arxiv_metadata":null,"syntology_extracted_results":null}