Papers › Mate! Are You Really Aware? An Explainability-Guided Testing Framework for Robustness...
Mate! Are You Really Aware? An Explainability-Guided Testing Framework for Robustness of Malware Detectors
Ruoxi Sun, Minhui Xue, Gareth Tyson, Tian Dong, Shaofeng Li, Shuo Wang, Haojin Zhu, Seyit Camtepe, Surya Nepal
Numerous open-source and commercial malware detectors are available. However, their efficacy is threatened by new adversarial attacks, whereby malware attempts to evade detection, e.g., by performing feature-space manipulation. In this work, we propose an explainability-guided and model-agnostic testing framework for robustness of malware detectors when confronted with adversarial attacks. The framework introduces the concept of Accrued Malicious Magnitude (AMM) to identify which malware features could be manipulated to maximize the likelihood of evading detection. We then use this framework to test several state-of-the-art malware detectors' abilities to detect manipulated malware. We find that (i) commercial antivirus engines are vulnerable to AMM-guided test cases; (ii) the ability of a manipulated malware generated using one detector to evade detection by another detector (i.e., transferability) depends on the overlap of features with large AMM values between the different detectors; and (iii) AMM values effectively measure the fragility of features (i.e., capability of feature-space manipulation to flip the prediction results) and explain the robustness of malware detectors facing evasion attacks. Our findings shed light on the limitations of current malware detectors, as well as how they can be improved.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections