Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Comprehensive Survey on Adversarial Examples in Cybersecurity: Impacts, Challenges, and Mitigation Strategies

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A survey of 71 studies concludes that adversarial examples reliably degrade deep-learning security systems across every major cybersecurity application the field has tested.

desk verdict A readable but sloppy survey whose citation inflation and missing methodology make it unreliable as a reference; the core claim is safe, the execution is not. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12217 v1 pith:MVQGYAGN submitted 2024-12-16 cs.CR cs.LG

Li Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRcs.LG
keywords adversarialexamplesdeeplearningcybersecuritymalwaredetectionintrusionDGAspeakerverificationdefensemechanisms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This survey argues that adversarial examples—small, carefully crafted perturbations to input data—are an effective and cross-domain threat to deep-learning-based security tools. By reviewing published attacks on malware classifiers, botnet and DGA detectors, intrusion detection systems, user authentication, and encrypted traffic analysis, the paper finds that such examples can force high misclassification rates and evade detection in each domain. The paper also catalogs defenses such as gradient masking, adversarial training, feature squeezing, and distillation, noting that they reduce but do not eliminate vulnerability. The intended takeaway is that adversarial robustness must be a primary design criterion for deploying deep learning in cybersecurity.

What carries the argument

The core mechanism is a domain-by-domain survey that organizes reported attack and defense results by cybersecurity application. For each domain it identifies the attack generation technique (forward derivatives, GAN-based generators, saliency maps, universal perturbations, query-based black-box methods) and the defense evaluated (adversarial training, distillation, feature squeezing, ensemble voting), then uses the cited paper's quantitative outcomes—such as misclassification rates, attack success rates, and AUC changes—as evidence that adversarial examples degrade model performance.

What would settle it

A systematic replication study that reruns the key reported experiments—such as COPYCAT on Windows malware, CharBot against FANCI, Tiki-Taka against CSE-CIC-IDS2018, and VMask against VGGVox—under the original conditions and finds materially lower attack success rates, or that shows production-grade security models resist the described perturbations, would weaken the survey's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes, through a literature review, that adversarial examples cause significant performance deterioration in machine-learning and deep-learning-based security systems. Across the surveyed domains, attackers can craft inputs that evade detection with minimal or functionality-preserving modifications: malware classifiers are fooled at rates from 63% to 100%, DGA classifiers see recall plummet with only two character changes, intrusion detection systems are bypassed with less than 0.005% byte modification, and practical speaker verification is tricked by universal perturbations. The survey concludes that the destructive power of adversarial attacks on security models is real and that defenses like adversarial retraining improve resilience without making systems impervious.

Load-bearing premise

The survey's conclusions rest on the premise that the quantitative results reported in the cited papers are accurate and that the 71 included references fairly represent the field, since no systematic search or inclusion criteria are provided.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Malware and IoT-malware classifiers can be evaded at high rates, up to 100% in graph-based IoT detectors, when attackers use feature-preserving perturbations.
  • Simple character-level modifications to domain names, as in CharBot and CLETer, can reduce state-of-the-art DGA classifier recall from near 99% to a few percent.
  • Intrusion detection systems are vulnerable to black-box attacks that require only small packet modifications, and universal perturbations threaten practical speaker verification systems.
  • Defenses such as ensemble adversarial training, query detection, and feature squeezing lower attack success rates but also introduce trade-offs like increased false positives or reduced clean accuracy.
  • Encrypted traffic classifiers and website fingerprinting defenses can be evaded or improved using adversarial traces, with bandwidth overhead depending on the technique.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The survey implies that adversarial robustness should be reported alongside accuracy for any security-related deep learning model, since evasion is a realistic operational risk rather than a theoretical artifact.
  • Many of the quantitative results are drawn from single papers with specific datasets and assumptions, so field effectiveness will vary; the pattern of vulnerability across domains is stronger evidence than any single number.
  • The repeated success of lightweight, black-box attacks suggests that attackers do not need white-box access or large compute budgets to threaten deployed security systems.
  • Defenses borrowed from computer vision, such as distillation and feature squeezing, need re-validation in security settings where perturbing inputs must preserve functional semantics like executability or protocol compliance.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a survey of adversarial example (AE) attacks on deep learning (DL) systems operating in five cybersecurity domains: malware detection, botnet/DGA detection, network intrusion detection, user authentication, and encrypted traffic analysis. For each domain it recounts a set of selected attack and defense studies, quoting quantitative results such as misclassification rates, AUC values, and attack success rates, and it closes with a short countermeasures section and a conclusion arguing that AEs can significantly degrade the performance of ML/DL-based security systems. The abstract promises a comprehensive review covering attack generation methods, domain-specific impacts, trade-offs, and defense mechanisms.

Significance. The topic is important and timely: the resilience of DL-based security tools under adversarial perturbation is a central question in applied machine learning security. The manuscript correctly identifies recurring themes, such as the functionality-preservation constraint on malware perturbation and the black-box nature of many network attacks, and it brings together studies from several application areas within one narrative. The broad qualitative conclusion that adversarial examples can degrade DL-based security classifiers has independent support in the literature. However, the paper's evidentiary value is currently limited by extensive duplicate citations, a missing survey methodology, and a lack of any verifiable audit trail for the many quantitative results it reports. These problems affect the central claim of comprehensiveness and must be corrected for the survey to be citable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Reference list; Sections II–VI] The survey presents the same studies as multiple independent references. For example, [41] and [23] are the same paper (Grosse et al., arXiv:1606.04435), [42] is the ESORICS 2017 version of the same work, [26]=[47] (DeepDGA), [27]=[48] (CharBot), [28]=[6], [29]=[7], [30]=[8], [31]=[54], [32]=[55], [33]=[60], [34]=[59], [35]=[58], [36]=[61], [38]=[65], [39]=[64], and [40]=[63]. Section III first mentions [26] and [27], then devotes individual paragraphs to [47] and [48], which are the same two papers, and Section IV repeats this pattern for [30]/[56] and [29]/[57]. This duplication inflates the apparent evidence base and makes the 'comprehensive' claim unverifiable. The reference list must be deduplicated, the text renumbered, and the number of distinct studies stated explicitly.
  2. [Section I (Introduction) and Section VIII (Conclusion)] The paper does not state a survey methodology. There is no search strategy, database list, inclusion or exclusion criteria, time window, or deduplication procedure, and the conclusion's claim of comprehensiveness is therefore unsupported. Section I only announces the paper structure, while Section VIII asserts that the review is comprehensive without defining the corpus. A survey claiming to be 'comprehensive' must either specify how its references were collected and selected or temper the claim. Please add a methodology subsection and a limitations paragraph.
  3. [Section I, refs. [15], [71]] References [15] and [71], cited together at the end of the first paragraph of Section I to support the claim that deep learning 'enables and facilitates many security-based applications,' are not about cybersecurity applications of deep learning. Reference [15] is titled 'Mitigating Challenges in Ethereum's Proof-of-Stake Consensus: Evaluating the Impact of EigenLayer and Lido' and reference [71] is 'Strengthening DeFi Security: A Static Analysis Approach to Flash Loan Vulnerabilities.' Neither supports the cited sentence. Reference [15] should be removed or replaced with a relevant citation, and the citation chain for the introduction should be checked for relevance.
  4. [Sections II–VI] The survey reports many exact quantitative results (e.g., 85% misclassification in [41], 63–69% in [42], 98.9%/96.5% in [43], AUC 0.9710 to 0.9319 in [47], 35.7% ASR in [55], 98.86% in [56], 94.31% in [57], 95% in [59], 98.43%/96.63% in [60]) without any audit trail: there is no summary table, no page or table numbers from the cited papers, and no indication of how each number was extracted. Because the conclusion aggregates these figures, a single misquotation would propagate directly into the survey's main claim. Please add a verification appendix or a table that maps each reported metric to its original source location, and state explicitly whether the numbers were checked against the originals.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III; Section I] Section III's opening says 'modifying the AGD names' but should read 'modifying the DGA names,' and the paper-structure paragraph in Section I uses 'zombie networks' where 'botnets' is meant.
  2. [Section VII] Section VII is titled 'Countermeasures' but covers only gradient masking, distillation, and feature compression; the abstract promises a discussion of adversarial training, which is absent from this section. Either add a subsection on adversarial training or revise the abstract.
  3. [Overall] The paper would benefit from a comparative summary table (attack, domain, dataset, target model, metric, result, source), both to improve readability and to make the audit trail for reported numbers explicit.
  4. [References] Reference formatting is inconsistent: entry [46] lists 'Dl-fhmc' instead of 'DL-FHMC', entries [53] and [71] use nonstandard quotation marks, and several entries have mixed title capitalization. A careful copyedit of the bibliography is needed.
  5. [Section II] The paragraph on [44] mentions eight well-known off-the-shelf adversarial learning methods without naming them; naming these methods is necessary for the reader to assess the comparison.
  6. [Section VIII] The conclusion repeats generalities about stability, resilience, and security but does not state the limitations of the survey or concrete open questions; adding these would strengthen the paper's usefulness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the survey aggregates external results and derives no predictions from its own inputs; the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing general reference.

full rationale

This is a survey paper that aggregates externally published experimental results; it does not attempt a mathematical derivation, fit parameters to data and then relabel them as predictions, or invoke author-supplied uniqueness theorems to force a conclusion. The central claim, that 'A literature review underscores the effectiveness of attacks utilizing adversarial examples against ML/DL-based security systems, resulting in potential performance deterioration,' is a summary of cited experiments rather than a reduction of an output to an input. No equation in the paper defines one measured quantity in terms of another, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a predicted result. The self-citation [15] (Li, arXiv:2410.23422) appears only in the introduction as general support for the claim that deep learning 'enables and facilitates many security-based applications [15], [71]'; it is not used to justify any domain-specific finding, attack-success rate, or defense conclusion, so it is not load-bearing. The duplicate reference pairs (e.g., [23]=[41], [24]=[45], [25]=[43], [26]=[47], [27]=[48], [28]=[6], [29]=[7], [30]=[8], [31]=[54], [33]=[60], [34]=[59], [35]=[58], [36]=[61], [38]=[65], [39]=[64], [40]=[63]) reduce the effective size of the reviewed corpus and are a legitimate completeness or accuracy concern, but duplication of external citations is not circular reasoning. The survey's conclusion is therefore not circular; its weakness, if any, lies in unverified fidelity of recounted numbers and corpus representativeness, which are correctness risks rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The survey introduces no free parameters or invented entities. It relies on the accuracy and representativeness of the cited literature, which is a domain assumption not independently tested.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The cited papers' quantitative results (e.g., attack success rates, AUCs, accuracy figures) are reported accurately in this survey.
    The survey's summaries quote precise numbers from each cited study, and the survey provides no critical re-analysis or access to the original datasets to verify them.
  • domain assumption The set of referenced papers is representative and comprehensive enough to support the claim of a 'comprehensive survey'.
    No search strategy or inclusion criteria are described, so the representativeness of the 71 references is assumed rather than demonstrated.
  • domain assumption The classification of applications into five categories (malware, botnet, intrusion detection, user authentication, encrypted traffic) is an appropriate organizing principle.
    The paper organizes its review by these categories but offers no justification for why these categories are complete or how overlapping work is assigned.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comprehensive Survey on Adversarial Examples in Cybersecurity: Impacts, Challenges, and Mitigation Strategies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MVQGYAGN

@misc{pith2026241212217,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comprehensive Survey on Adversarial Examples in Cybersecurity: Impacts, Challenges, and Mitigation Strategies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MVQGYAGN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12217}
}
read the original abstract

Deep learning (DL) has significantly transformed cybersecurity, enabling advancements in malware detection, botnet identification, intrusion detection, user authentication, and encrypted traffic analysis. However, the rise of adversarial examples (AE) poses a critical challenge to the robustness and reliability of DL-based systems. These subtle, crafted perturbations can deceive models, leading to severe consequences like misclassification and system vulnerabilities. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the impact of AE attacks on key cybersecurity applications, highlighting both their theoretical and practical implications. We systematically examine the methods used to generate adversarial examples, their specific effects across various domains, and the inherent trade-offs attackers face between efficacy and resource efficiency. Additionally, we explore recent advancements in defense mechanisms, including gradient masking, adversarial training, and detection techniques, evaluating their potential to enhance model resilience. By summarizing cutting-edge research, this study aims to bridge the gap between adversarial research and practical security applications, offering insights to fortify the adoption of DL solutions in cybersecurity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Blockchain-Based Secure Vehicle Auction System with Smart Contracts

    cs.CR 2025-01 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A student prototype applies Ethereum smart contracts to used-car auctions, claiming security and privacy gains, but ships no code and offers no comparison to existing systems.

  2. Accelerating Sparse Graph Neural Networks with Tensor Core Optimization

    cs.LG 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    FTC-GNN is a TC-GNN-style framework that combines Tensor Cores and CUDA Cores for sparse GNN kernels, but its claimed AGNN speedup over DGL is contradicted by its own tables.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [41]

    Adversarial perturbations against deep neural networks f or malware classification,

    K. Grosse, N. Papernot, P . Manoharan, M. Backes, and P . M cDaniel, “Adversarial perturbations against deep neural networks f or malware classification,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.04435 , 2016

    arXiv 2016

  2. [26]

    DeepDGA: A dversarially- tuned domain generation and detection,

    H. S. Anderson, J. Woodbridge, and B. Filar, “DeepDGA: A dversarially- tuned domain generation and detection,” in Proceedings of the 2016 ACM W orkshop on Artificial Intelligence and Security , pp. 13–21, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [47]

    DeepDGA: A dversarially- tuned domain generation and detection,

    H. S. Anderson, J. Woodbridge, and B. Filar, “DeepDGA: A dversarially- tuned domain generation and detection,” in Proceedings of the 2016 ACM workshop on artificial intelligence and security , pp. 13–21, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [48]

    CharBot: A simple and effective method for evading DGA classifiers,

    J. Peck, C. Nie, R. Sivaguru, C. Grumer, F. Olumofin, B. Y u , A. Nascimento, and M. De Cock, “CharBot: A simple and effective method for evading DGA classifiers,” IEEE Access , vol. 7, pp. 91759–91771, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [6]

    FGMD: A robust detector aga inst adversarial attacks in the IoT network,

    H. Jiang, J. Lin, and H. Kang, “FGMD: A robust detector aga inst adversarial attacks in the IoT network,” Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 132, pp. 194–210, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [28]

    FGMD: A robust detector ag ainst adversarial attacks in the IoT network,

    H. Jiang, J. Lin, and H. Kang, “FGMD: A robust detector ag ainst adversarial attacks in the IoT network,” Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 132, pp. 194–210, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [15]

    Mitigating Challenges in Ethereum’s Proof-of- Stake Consensus: Evaluating the Impact of EigenLayer and Lido,

    L. Li, “Mitigating Challenges in Ethereum’s Proof-of- Stake Consensus: Evaluating the Impact of EigenLayer and Lido,” arXiv, arXiv:2410.23422, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23422

    arXiv 2024

  8. [42]

    Adversarial examples for malware detection,

    K. Grosse, N. Papernot, P . Manoharan, M. Backes, and P . M cDaniel, “Adversarial examples for malware detection,” in Computer Security– ESORICS 2017: 22nd European Symposium on Research in Comput er Security, Oslo, Norway, September 11-15, 2017, Proceeding s, Part II 22, pp. 62–79, 2017

    work page 2017

  9. [7]

    Adve rsarial attacks against network intrusion detection in IoT systems ,

    H. Qiu, T. Dong, T. Zhang, J. Lu, G. Memmi, and M. Qiu, “Adve rsarial attacks against network intrusion detection in IoT systems ,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 8, no. 13, pp. 10327–10335, 2020

    work page 2020

  10. [8]

    Gene rative adversarial attacks against intrusion detection systems u sing active learning,

    D. Shu, N. O. Leslie, C. A. Kamhoua, and C. S. Tucker, “Gene rative adversarial attacks against intrusion detection systems u sing active learning,” in Proceedings of the 2nd ACM W orkshop on Wireless Security and Machine Learning , pp. 1–6, 2020

    work page 2020

  11. [54]

    Analyzing advers arial attacks against deep learning for intrusion detection in IoT networ ks,

    O. Ibitoye, O. Shafiq, and A. Matrawy, “Analyzing advers arial attacks against deep learning for intrusion detection in IoT networ ks,” in 2019 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) , pp. 1–6, 2019

    work page 2019

  12. [32]

    Tiki-taka: A ttacking and de- fending deep learning-based intrusion detection systems,

    C. Zhang, X. Costa-P´ erez, and P . Patras, “Tiki-taka: A ttacking and de- fending deep learning-based intrusion detection systems,” in Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Cloud Computing Securit y W orkshop, pp. 27–39, 2020

    work page 2020

  13. [55]

    Tiki-taka: A ttacking and de- fending deep learning-based intrusion detection systems,

    C. Zhang, X. Costa-P´ erez, and P . Patras, “Tiki-taka: A ttacking and de- fending deep learning-based intrusion detection systems, ” in Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Cloud Computing Securit y W orkshop, pp. 27–39, 2020

    work page 2020

  14. [60]

    Attack on practical speaker verification system using u niversal adversarial perturbations,

    W. Zhang, S. Zhao, L. Liu, J. Li, X. Cheng, T. F. Zheng, and X. Hu, “Attack on practical speaker verification system using u niversal adversarial perturbations,” in ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICA SSP), pp. 2575–2579, 2021

    work page 2021

  15. [59]

    V o iceprint mimicry attack towards speaker verification system in smart home,

    L. Zhang, Y . Meng, J. Y u, C. Xiang, B. Falk, and H. Zhu, “V o iceprint mimicry attack towards speaker verification system in smart home,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2020-IEEE Conference on Computer Communicati ons, pp. 377–386, 2020

    work page 2020

  16. [58]

    Adversarial attacks on remote user authentication using b ehavioural mouse dynamics,

    Y . X. M. Tan, A. Iacovazzi, I. Homoliak, Y . Elovici, and A . Binder, “Adversarial attacks on remote user authentication using b ehavioural mouse dynamics,” in 2019 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) , pp. 1–10, 2019

    work page 2019

  17. [61]

    Adv-makeup: A new imperceptible and transferable att ack on face recognition,

    B. Yin, W. Wang, T. Y ao, J. Guo, Z. Kong, S. Ding, J. Li, and C. Liu, “Adv-makeup: A new imperceptible and transferable att ack on face recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03162 , 2021

    arXiv 2021

  18. [65]

    Mocki ngbird: Defending against deep-learning-based website fingerprin ting attacks with adversarial traces,

    M. S. Rahman, M. Imani, N. Mathews, and M. Wright, “Mocki ngbird: Defending against deep-learning-based website fingerprin ting attacks with adversarial traces,” IEEE Transactions on Information F orensics and Security , vol. 16, pp. 1594–1609, 2020

    work page 2020

  19. [64]

    Black- box adversarial machine learning attack on network traffic clas sification,

    M. Usama, A. Qayyum, J. Qadir, and A. Al-Fuqaha, “Black- box adversarial machine learning attack on network traffic clas sification,” in 2019 15th International Wireless Communications & Mobile C omputing Conference (IWCMC), pp. 84–89, 2019

    work page 2019

  20. [63]

    Net- work traffic obfuscation: An adversarial machine learning a pproach,

    G. V erma, E. Ciftcioglu, R. Sheatsley, K. Chan, and L. Sc ott, “Net- work traffic obfuscation: An adversarial machine learning a pproach,” in MILCOM 2018-2018 IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM), pp. 1–6, 2018

    work page 2018

  21. [56]

    Gen erative adversarial attacks against intrusion detection systems u sing active learning,

    D. Shu, N. O. Leslie, C. A. Kamhoua, and C. S. Tucker, “Gen erative adversarial attacks against intrusion detection systems u sing active learning,” in Proceedings of the 2nd ACM W orkshop on Wireless Security and Machine Learning , pp. 1–6, 2020

    work page 2020

  22. [57]

    Adv ersarial attacks against network intrusion detection in IoT systems ,

    H. Qiu, T. Dong, T. Zhang, J. Lu, G. Memmi, and M. Qiu, “Adv ersarial attacks against network intrusion detection in IoT systems ,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 8, no. 13, pp. 10327–10335, 2020

    work page 2020

  23. [71]

    K. W. Wu, ”Strengthening DeFi Security: A Static Analys is Approach to Flash Loan Vulnerabilities,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01230 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  24. [43]

    COPYCAT: Practical Adversarial Attacks on Visualization-Based Malware Detection

    A. Khormali, A. Abusnaina, S. Chen, D. Nyang, and A. Moha isen, “COPYCA T: practical adversarial attacks on visualization -based mal- ware detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.09735 , 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1909

Show all 56 references
  1. [1]

    Botnet detection using r ecur- rent variational autoencoder,

    J. Kim, A. Sim, J. Kim, and K. Wu, “Botnet detection using r ecur- rent variational autoencoder,” in GLOBECOM 2020-2020 IEEE Global Communications Conference, pp. 1–6, 2020

    2020

  2. [2]

    A visualized botnet detection system based deep learning for the internet of things networks of smart cities ,

    R. Vinayakumar, M. Alazab, S. Srinivasan, Q.-V . Pham, S. K. Padan- nayil, and K. Simran, “A visualized botnet detection system based deep learning for the internet of things networks of smart cities ,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications , vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 4436–4456, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Detecting DGA domains with recurrent neural net works and side information,

    R. R. Curtin, A. B. Gardner, S. Grzonkowski, A. Kleymenov , and A. Mosquera, “Detecting DGA domains with recurrent neural net works and side information,” in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security , pp. 1–10, 2019

    2019

  4. [4]

    A LST M- based framework for handling multiclass imbalance in DGA bo tnet detection,

    D. Tran, H. Mac, V . Tong, H. A. Tran, and L. G. Nguyen, “A LST M- based framework for handling multiclass imbalance in DGA bo tnet detection,” Neurocomputing, vol. 275, pp. 2401–2413, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    Detecting st ealthy domain generation algorithms using heterogeneous deep neu ral network framework,

    L. Y ang, G. Liu, Y . Dai, J. Wang, and J. Zhai, “Detecting st ealthy domain generation algorithms using heterogeneous deep neu ral network framework,” IEEE Access , vol. 8, pp. 82876–82889, 2020

    2020

  6. [9]

    MAND A: On Adversarial Example Detection for Network Intrusion Det ection System,

    N. Wang, Y . Chen, Y . Xiao, Y . Hu, W. Lou, and Y . T. Hou, “MAND A: On Adversarial Example Detection for Network Intrusion Det ection System,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing , vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1139–1153, 2023

    2023

  7. [10]

    Biometric face presentation attack detection wit h multi-channel convolutional neural network,

    A. George, Z. Mostaani, D. Geissenbuhler, O. Nikisins, A. Anjos, and S. Marcel, “Biometric face presentation attack detection wit h multi-channel convolutional neural network,” IEEE Transactions on Information F oren- sics and Security , vol. 15, pp. 42–55, 2019

    2019

  8. [11]

    Deep representations for iris, face, and finger- print spoofing detection,

    D. Menotti, G. Chiachia, A. Pinto, W. R. Schwartz, H. Ped rini, A. X. Falcao, and A. Rocha, “Deep representations for iris, face, and finger- print spoofing detection,” IEEE Transactions on Information F orensics and Security , vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 864–879, 2015

    2015

  9. [12]

    Presentatio n attack detection using a tiny fully convolutional network,

    E. Park, X. Cui, T. H. B. Nguyen, and H. Kim, “Presentatio n attack detection using a tiny fully convolutional network,” IEEE Transactions on Information F orensics and Security , vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 3016–3025, 2019

    2019

  10. [13]

    Deep Boltzmann machines for robust fingerprint spoofi ng attack detection,

    G. B. Souza, D. F. S. Santos, R. G. Pires, A. N. Marana, and J. P . Papa, “Deep Boltzmann machines for robust fingerprint spoofi ng attack detection,” in 2017 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pp. 1863–1870, 2017

    2017

  11. [14]

    Mob ile encrypted traffic classification using deep learning,

    G. Aceto, D. Ciuonzo, A. Montieri, and A. Pescap´ e, “Mob ile encrypted traffic classification using deep learning,” in 2018 Network Traffic Measurement and Analysis Conference (TMA) , pp. 1–8, 2018

    2018

  12. [16]

    Multitask learning for network tr affic classifica- tion,

    S. Rezaei and X. Liu, “Multitask learning for network tr affic classifica- tion,” in 2020 29th International Conference on Computer Communica- tions and Networks (ICCCN) , pp. 1–9, 2020

    2020

  13. [17]

    Flowpic: Encrypted interne t traffic classi- fication is as easy as image recognition,

    T. Shapira and Y . Shavitt, “Flowpic: Encrypted interne t traffic classi- fication is as easy as image recognition,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2019- IEEE Conference on Computer Communications W orkshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), pp. 680–687, 2019

    2019

  14. [18]

    Deep fing erprinting: Undermining website fingerprinting defenses with deep lear ning,

    P . Sirinam, M. Imani, M. Juarez, and M. Wright, “Deep fing erprinting: Undermining website fingerprinting defenses with deep lear ning,” in Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer an d Communications Security , pp. 1928–1943, 2018

    2018

  15. [19]

    Adversarial examples: A survey and experimental eva luation of practical attacks on machine learning for windows malware d etection,

    L. Demetrio, S. E. Coull, B. Biggio, G. Lagorio, A. Arman do, and F. Roli, “Adversarial examples: A survey and experimental eva luation of practical attacks on machine learning for windows malware d etection,” ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security (TOPS) , vol. 24, no. 4, p...

    2021

  16. [20]

    DL-FHMC: Deep learning-b ased fine-grained hierarchical learning approach for robust mal ware classifi- cation,

    A. Abusnaina, M. Abuhamad, H. Alasmary, A. Anwar, R. Jan g, S. Salem, D. Nyang, and D. Mohaisen, “DL-FHMC: Deep learning-b ased fine-grained hierarchical learning approach for robust mal ware classifi- cation,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing , vol. 19, no. ...

    2021

  17. [22]

    Soteria: Detecting adversarial ex amples in control flow graph-based malware classifiers,

    H. Alasmary, A. Abusnaina, R. Jang, M. Abuhamad, A. Anwa r, D. Nyang, and D. Mohaisen, “Soteria: Detecting adversarial ex amples in control flow graph-based malware classifiers,” in 2020 IEEE 40th International Conference on Distributed Computing System s (ICDCS) , pp. 888–898, 2020

    2020

  18. [37]

    Intriguing properties of neural networks,

    C. Szegedy, W. Zaremba, I. Sutskever, J. Bruna, D. Erhan , I. Goodfellow, and R. Fergus, “Intriguing properties of neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6199, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  19. [44]

    Adversarial learning attacks on graph-based Io T malware detection systems,

    A. Abusnaina, A. Khormali, H. Alasmary, J. Park, A. Anwa r, and A. Mohaisen, “Adversarial learning attacks on graph-based Io T malware detection systems,” in 2019 IEEE 39th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS) , pp. 1296–1305, 2019

    2019

  20. [45]

    Securing malware cogn itive sys- tems against adversarial attacks,

    Y . Ji, B. Bowman, and H. H. Huang, “Securing malware cogn itive sys- tems against adversarial attacks,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Computing (ICCC) , pp. 1–9, 2019

    2019

  21. [46]

    Dl-fhmc: Deep learning-b ased fine-grained hierarchical learning approach for robust mal ware classifi- cation,

    A. Abusnaina, M. Abuhamad, H. Alasmary, A. Anwar, R. Jan g, S. Salem, D. Nyang, and D. Mohaisen, “Dl-fhmc: Deep learning-b ased fine-grained hierarchical learning approach for robust mal ware classifi- cation,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing , vol. 19, no. ...

    2021

  22. [49]

    MaskDGA: A black-bo x evasion technique against DGA classifiers and adversarial defenses ,

    L. Sidi, A. Nadler, and A. Shabtai, “MaskDGA: A black-bo x evasion technique against DGA classifiers and adversarial defenses ,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.08909 , 2019

    1902 arXiv

  23. [50]

    Khaos: An adversarial neural network DGA with high anti-detection ability,

    X. Y un, J. Huang, Y . Wang, T. Zang, Y . Zhou, and Y . Zhang, “ Khaos: An adversarial neural network DGA with high anti-detection ability,” IEEE Transactions on Information F orensics and Security , vol. 15, pp. 2225–2240, 2019

    2019

  24. [51]

    CLETer: A Charac ter- level Evasion Technique Against Deep Learning DGA Classifie rs,

    W. Liu, Z. Zhang, C. Huang, and Y . Fang, “CLETer: A Charac ter- level Evasion Technique Against Deep Learning DGA Classifie rs,” EAI Endorsed Transactions on Security and Safety , vol. 7, no. 24, pp. e5–e5, 2021

    2021

  25. [52]

    Demystifying the transferability of advers arial attacks in computer networks,

    E. Nowroozi, Y . Mekdad, M. H. Berenjestanaki, M. Conti, and A. El Fergougui, “Demystifying the transferability of advers arial attacks in computer networks,” IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 3387–3400, 2022

    2022

  26. [53]

    Zhang, S

    C. Zhang, S. Shi, N. Wang, X. Xu, S. Li, L. Zheng, R. Marcha ny, M. Gardner, Y . T. Hou, and W. Lou, ”Hermes: Boosting the Perform ance of Machine-Learning-Based Intrusion Detection System throu gh Geometric Feature Learning,” in Proc. 25th Int. Symp. Theory, Algorithmic F oun...

    2024

  27. [62]

    Adversarial sample detection for speaker ve rification by neural vocoders,

    H. Wu, P .-C. Hsu, J. Gao, S. Zhang, S. Huang, J. Kang, Z. Wu , H. Meng, and H.-Y . Lee, “Adversarial sample detection for speaker ve rification by neural vocoders,” in ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , pp. 236–...

    2022

  28. [66]

    Attack versus attack : Toward adversarial example defend website fingerprinting attack,

    C. Hou, J. Shi, M. Cui, and Q. Y ang, “Attack versus attack : Toward adversarial example defend website fingerprinting attack, ” in 2021 IEEE 20th International Conference on Trust, Security and P rivacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom) , pp. 766–773, 2021

    2021

  29. [67]

    Adversar ial network traffic: Towards evaluating the robustness of deep-learnin g-based net- work traffic classification,

    A. M. Sadeghzadeh, S. Shiravi, and R. Jalili, “Adversar ial network traffic: Towards evaluating the robustness of deep-learnin g-based net- work traffic classification,” IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1962–1976, 2021

    1962

  30. [68]

    A survey of adversarial machine learning in c yber warfare,

    V . Duddu, “A survey of adversarial machine learning in c yber warfare,” Defence Science Journal , vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 356, 2018

    2018

  31. [69]

    Distilling the know ledge in a neural network,

    G. Hinton, O. Vinyals, and J. Dean, “Distilling the know ledge in a neural network,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531 , 2015

    2015 arXiv

  32. [70]

    Feature squeezing: Detectin g adversarial examples in deep neural networks,

    W. Xu, D. Evans, and Y . Qi, “Feature squeezing: Detectin g adversarial examples in deep neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.01155 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.