REVIEW 2 cited by
Feasibility Study for Supporting Static Malware Analysis Using LLM
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are becoming more advanced and widespread and have shown their applicability to various domains, including cybersecurity. Static malware analysis is one of the most important tasks in cybersecurity; however, it is time-consuming and requires a high level of expertise. Therefore, we conducted a demonstration experiment focusing on whether an LLM can be used to support static analysis. First, we evaluated the ability of the LLM to explain malware functionality. The results showed that the LLM can generate descriptions that cover functions with an accuracy of up to 90.9\%. In addition, we asked six static analysts to perform a pseudo static analysis task using LLM explanations to verify that the LLM can be used in practice. Through subsequent questionnaires and interviews with the participants, we also demonstrated the practical applicability of LLMs. Lastly, we summarized the problems and required functions when using an LLM as static analysis support, as well as recommendations for future research opportunities.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Can Small GenAI Language Models Rival Large Language Models in Understanding Application Behavior?
A five-model benchmark on a self-built malware dataset shows the smallest strong model, Phi-4-mini, outperforming 7-8B models, contradicting the paper's own 'larger models win' framing.
-
A Contemporary Survey of Large Language Model Assisted Program Analysis
A review that catalogs how large language models are used in static, dynamic, and hybrid program analysis, and outlines open challenges.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.