Deep Instinct: A New Way to Prevent Malware, With Deep Learning (Updated)

Malware has proven increasingly difficult to detect via signature or heuristic-based methods, which means most Antivirus (AV) programs are woefully ineffective against mutating malware, and especially ineffective against APT attacks (Advanced Persistent Threats). Typical malware consists of about 10,000 lines of code. Changing only 1% of the code renders most AV ineffective. 

Five to six years ago marked the beginning of the use of machine learning to solve non-linear problems such as facial recognition or understanding malware, and what features one needs to extract to uniquely identify such programs. Other techniques, such as sandboxing and machine-based techniques, are not as fast nor as accurate as Deep Learning.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
  • alextheblue
    Yes, switch on Skynet! It will squash this malware.
    Reply
  • Osama68
    That's sounds very similar to what Cylance does. Cylance does not use a Sandbox as the article suggests.
    Reply
  • michaelzehr
    As alluded to, the results would be more impressive if they didn't include the training samples. Additionally while the article mentions low false positive, it doesn't mention a rate. It sounds like it's still based on analyzing the code, not the behavior, which means it can still be beaten. (Though the network analysis one sounds like it will be behavior-based.) But until we see more results, we don't know if it's a neural net that recognizes malware or a neural net that recognizes applications that do a lot of network activity.
    Reply
  • Digmeahole
    Yes, switch on Skynet! It will squash this malware.
    LMAO!
    Reply
  • gibbousmoon100
    I'll never be impressed by a high success rate that isn't accompanied by a concrete and unconcealed low false positive rate. The necessity for both is common sense, imo. Why isn't it talked about more in this article?
    Reply
  • gibbousmoon100
    Accidentally upvoted my own comment, and now it won't let me downvote it. But why are we allowed to upvote our own comments to begin with?
    Reply
  • Urzu1000
    Like others have stated, they really need to include false positive statistics to make this worthwhile.
    Reply
  • HSelden
    They did include some very low false positive rates, but I couldn't publish them. At least in a uniform test, it beat all other competitors - if you blow up the image you can see the mobile test "false positives. "

    I agree, the proof is real world testing, and what would Deep Instinct do with with evolving malware. Could be very interesting - time will tell. Is there an inherent structure or activity to malware that is part of it being malware, so cannot be readily disguised? Did Deep Instinct find this? If malware didn't have these behaviors or elements, it wouldn't be (malicious) malware? How could this be detected?
    Reply