[68] | Proposing a new static analysis method for ransomware detection using feature from raw bytes. Identifying 1000 features as the best for effective ransomware detection. Highlighting the significance of feature selection in improving detection accuracy. Exploring the random forest classifier for ransomware detection. Determining that using 100 trees with a seed number of 1 results in the highest accuracy of 97.74 percent. Valuable results into developing an efficient ransomware detection approach using ML techniques, specifically random forest.
| Not comparing this ransomware detection method to others that use dynamic analysis or a mix of techniques. Not talking enough about how well this static analysis method would work for different kinds of ransomware. Not looking closely at how much computing power this method needs. Worries about making this method work with bigger sets of data or more complicated ransomware types. Not exploring enough how ransomware makers might try to hack this detection method. Not explaining the results of using the random forest classifier clearly enough for monitoring ransomware.
| Compare this new static analysis method with other ransomware detection methods that use dynamic analysis and a mix of techniques. Show why the static analysis approach is effective and different. Talk more about how well this static analysis method works with different types of ransomware. Test it with many kinds of ransomware to see if it can deal with them all. Give a detailed look at how much computer power is needed to use this new method. This helps readers understand if it is practical to use it or not. Think about how this method can handle big sets of data or more complicated ransomware without losing accuracy. Look into ways ransomware creators might try to avoid being detected and come up with ways to stop them. This makes the detection method stronger. Explain how the model decides if something is ransomware or not and which features are most important in making that decision.
|
[38] | It is hard to detect ransomware because it keeps changing with new signatures. This model combines a Markov model and a Random Forest model. Markov model looks at patterns in Windows API calls linked to ransomware. Random Forest helps cut down on wrong detections. This model was 97.3-percent accurate. Looking at the order of Windows API calls is key to detect ransomware. Used dynamic analysis and ML to detect ransomware.
| The study focused only on Windows API call sequences and does not mention other important features for detecting ransomware. The dataset used is not big enough to cover all kinds of ransomware. Using Cuckoo Sandbox for testing may not show how well the detection works in real-time scenarios. The study does not compare with other ways of detecting ransomware.
| Use a bigger dataset covering all ransomware types; this will make the detection models stronger. Test the detection models in real-time environments to see how well they work. This ensures they can detect ransomware quickly when it appears. Add more features and not focusing on Windows API calls. This can make the detection models better at catching new ransomware behaviors. Compare the new detection methods with other ways of detecting ransomware. This will identify why the new approach is better and different.
|
[3] | Identifying the challenges in detecting ransomware attacks early because there are not enough data to understand the behaviors before files get locked. Defining why it is really important to collect data so we can make better tools to detect ransomware. Exploring computer techniques like CNN and LSTM to see if they can help us in detecting ransomware. Importance of feature extraction and selection to build effective detection models for crypto-ransomware attacks. Discussing the limitations of the existing ways to detect ransomware and the importance of addressing these limitations. Looking at how ransomware attacks are changing over time.
| The paper does not address all the different ways to detect crypto-ransomware. There might not be enough real-life examples or data. The research might not go into enough detail about detection challenges, scalability issues, or the impact of evolving ransomware on detection models. The ideas in the paper might not work for every kind of ransomware attack or for different types of companies or organizations. The paper might not compare the different ways to detect ransomware. The paper does not address the limitations and challenges of the proposed method.
| Use real-life examples and data from case studies. Compare the different ways to detect ransomware. Discuss the detection challenges, scalability issues, or the impact of evolving ransomware on detection models in detail. Give advice to different types of companies or organizations so they can deal with ransomware better. Offer detailed advice on how to actually use the methods for detecting ransomware, like how to put them into action and how to mix them with other computer systems.
|
[13] | DAM framework provides different strategies to prevent ransomware attacks and avoid financial losses. One of their strategies is avoidance to protect users and organizations from ransomware. Cyber-hygiene is the effective strategy to avoid ransomware at the individual or user level. Predetection is considered as the optimum solution for various types of ransomware.
| | |
[63] | A novel detection technique for ransomware based on dynamic analysis was proposed. Finite-state machine model to collect information about the victim device was identified. The proposed model aimed to monitor unusual cases in terms of persistence, utilization, lateral movement, and user resources to detect ransomware attacks. When the system discovers malicious activities, alerts will be sent to the decision-making module. In the decision-making stage, FSM is utilized to analyze the operations and events to detect ransomware attacks. Accuracy, effectiveness, and a few false predictions for the finite-state machine model were highlighted in the experimental results.
| Their solution may fail to detect ransomware that uses different ways to enter the system. Ransomware uses different tactics to hide their entity; so, it will be difficult for the proposed model to detect them. The system may not send alerts to the system when the ransomware is not affecting the resources but has access to the system.
| Using advanced techniques to determine different methods used by ransomware. Improving the capabilities of the system to deal with variations of ransomware, such as ransomware that uses evasion techniques, through updating detection techniques to better detect and respond to malicious software. Monitoring capabilities need to be updated to monitor unusual cases in terms of persistence, utilization, lateral movement, and user resources to allow for better detection of ransomware attacks.
|
[69] | Using advanced methods to analyze ransomware at different levels like DLL, function calls, and assembly code. Using AI techniques to understand these different levels and teach a computer program to recognize ransomware. Suggested a ransomware detection system that uses AI and made a tool called AIRaD. Mixing different ways of looking at ransomware to achieve better results. Made special rules for detecting ransomware based on how it acts in computer files. Tried out different computer codes and settings to see how well the ransomware detection system worked. Created special rules for detecting ransomware that other researchers and security experts can use.
| Limited dataset, which might not show all the different types of ransomware. The tool might not work as well on new types of ransomware that act differently or try to avoid being detected. While the tool did well in tests, we are not sure how it will do in the real world, where ransomware is always changing. We are not sure if the tool can handle a lot of ransomware at once or work quickly in busy places where lots of computers are used. The tool needs other computer programs to work. This could make it easier for attackers to hack these programs. The tool might not be able to detect ransomware immediately, which is important for stopping it quickly.
| Include a wider range of ransomware types to make the tool better at detecting different kinds of ransomware. Make sure the tool can handle lots of ransomware at once and still work quickly in real-life situations. Make sure the tool does not rely too much on other computer programs that could make it easier for attackers to hack.
|
[21] | The tools and steps we currently have are not great at detecting and stopping ransomware. No single tool or method can totally protect against it. Malicious emails and links are the main ways ransomware gets into computers. Therefore, it is important to teach people about it and have strict rules for security. In addition, regularly backup important files. Ransomware attacks like CryptoWall3 can cost a lot of money in damage. The future of ransomware detection is likely to rely on AI, particularly ML algorithms.
| The paper only talks about detecting ransomware and ignores other important aspects like how to decrypt files or how the ransom money gets paid. Lack of real-world examples. The paper does not look at different tools or plans for finding ransomware. Therefore, readers cannot see which ones work better.
| Adding real-world examples about real ransomware attacks and how they were detected can give practical ideas and make the suggestions more useful. Compare different methods, tools, and plans for detecting ransomware to show which ones work best.
|
[48] | Monitoring of basic used operations and the need to focus on the detection and prevention efficiency. The proposed solution consists of 3 virtual environments to report and protect against malware in real time, which are the code analysis of malware, behavior analysis of malware, and malware reporting. The importance of monitoring the operations to detect unusual actions conducted by ransomware, such as analyzing DLLs and providing a brief analysis of the operations. There is a significant variation in the CPU, which was explored by using samples analysis of ransomware like ViraLock. The importance to educate and provide a greater level of awareness to avoid ransomware attacks.
| Relying on 3 virtual environments will increase the consumption of the resources and access time, which will decrease the level of protection. The system may not offer protection when the user is offline; in this case, the probability of worms infection is high through using removable drives. The analysis process requires a long time, which may cause a delay in responding to and detecting malicious threats. The difficulty in distinguishing between benign applications and ransomware. False positive or false negative may be shown due to reliance on ML techniques, which may impact the entire process and accuracy of the results.
| Integrating multi-techniques to increase the efficiency of the analysis and improve the detection process. A secure connection channel to transfer data that have been collected will help to minimize the infection risk of ransomware on the analysis machine. Early detection systems to detect malicious actions in a short time, which will help to create a zero-trust security approach to protect against ransomware attacks.
|
[19] | It is important to understand ransomware properties, backup practices that need to be addressed, and protection mechanisms that need to be implemented. Recertification and retesting are necessary for software that is doing frequent updates to achieve security and compatibility. The need for regular and proper backups to avoid ransomware threats.
| A limited number of simultaneously running virtual machines to prevent infection transmission. Based on the limited number of virtual machines, the number of downloads that are allowed to the user will decrease, which affects the scalability and efficiency of the ransomware prevention and detection mechanism. The need for advancements in technology is important to provide effective protection against ransomware threats.
| Using specific virtual machines for each downloaded file to prevent infection. Improving an efficient and scalable detection and prevention mechanism for ransomware through allocating and optimizing resource management within the system. Improving advancements in technology through providing the additional number of virtual machines that a computer can use to provide effective protection for the user against ransomware threats.
|
[20] | Using ML and DL techniques is better than traditional approaches to detecting ransomware attacks. Testing different ways of detecting ransomware on both new and old types helps us see how well they work against new threats.
| The study has more ransomware examples than regular files. This could make it hard to train the model to recognize normal behavior. It could be hard to use the same detection methods on IoT devices. IoT devices work differently to regular computers. As a result, we will need new ways to find ransomware on IoT devices.
| Use more types of ransomware for training to cover a wider range of behaviors, not just focusing on specific ones like Locky and TeslaCrypt. Look at more than just assembly and DLL features to capture the different ways ransomware behaves. Add features that look at how networks are used specifically for IoT devices to make detection methods work better on them. Train the model with more regular files to make a balance between the number of normal and suspicious behaviors. Change the features to match how IoT devices work.
|
[59] | A comprehensive survey about how to detect ransomware using ML and dynamic analysis. Focusing on the security problems that are countered by DL frameworks, exploring protection methods by using DL, and providing a brief dataset to be analyzed. Applying DL to different platforms to be analyzed and evaluated. Assigning red tags to any threats that are conducted by ransomware attacks, like opening a lot of files simultaneously.
| The analysis can be bypassed by ransomware due to the lack of details about datasets in the mentioned studies. Limited period analysis may lead to facilitate evasion techniques used by ransomware. In addition, a lack of data availability during initial encryption may pose a problem. Difficult to detect ransomware that uses evasion techniques, especially when the sample is running for a short time. Ransomware detection programs may be infected during run time, which leads to loss of data. Limited analysis in the ransomware detection studies, leading to inaccurate results.
| Using advanced technology to face evasion tactics that are utilized by ransomware, such as strong analysis techniques that can be used in changing environments. Providing a brief dataset along with details about the size of samples and methodologies used for analysis to ensure transparency and to come up with reproducible and reliable results. Making the data available during the initial encryption phase will improve the capabilities of detection and provide a better understanding of the behavior of ransomware. During execution, it is necessary to analyze the encryption operations to improve advanced detection techniques and to determine whether ransomware uses evasion techniques. Continuous improvement of the detection systems including static, dynamic, and blend of both to enhance the accuracy of the analysis.
|
[70] | An early detection model (CRED) is proposed to specify pre-encryption boundaries and gather the data related to this phase more precisely. Process-centric and data-centric detection methods are employed in the CRED model to integrate data from both API and IRP. To verify the performance of the CRED model, K-fold cross-validation is taken and compared with other models. The proposed model enhances and increases the defensive power and response to any cyberattacks accurately and on time.
| The proposed model needs further stages of validation and development. Concerns regarding the performance of the proposed model and its practical application may arise due to the need for further empirical evidence.
| Performing a lot of experiments and testing on real-world examples by using different datasets to verify the effectiveness and performance of the proposed model. Enhancing the proposed model continuously based on conducting tests on the recent types of crypto-ransomware attacks and integrating new technologies to develop the accuracy of detection.
|
[71] | The authors presented DNAact-Ran, a digital DNA sequencing engine, to detect ransomware before establishing any attack by using ML. K-mer frequency vector and digital DNA sequencing design constraints are used by DNAact-Ran. DNAact defines primary features from previously processed data using BCS and MOGWO algorithms. The results show that DNAact-Run can detect ransomware more effectively and precisely.
| They used limited datasets for testing and training, which may limit the effectiveness of their proposed method. There is a lack of discussion about the possibility of applying their proposed method to different types of ransomware. Lack of detailed analysis of performance measures used to assess the effectiveness of their proposed method.
| Using diverse datasets that consist of different types of ransomware for testing and training will help to enhance the effectiveness of their proposed method. Providing a detailed analysis of performance measures and implementing cross-validation methods to assess the effectiveness of the proposed model.
|
[72] | A behavioral-based dynamic analysis framework for HSR along with sets of valuable features was proposed. TF-IDF used to choose the most valuable features. ANN and SVM are used to evolve and apply a detection model based on ML that can realize specific behavioral traits of highly survivable ransomware attacks. The presented framework achieved a few false-positive rates and an area under the ROC curve in the experimental evaluation. The proposed framework can predetect highly survivable ransomware accurately.
| Limited scope of the study due to the limited types of ransomware analyzed and tested. The lack of detailed analysis of performance measures used to assess the effectiveness of their proposed method. The need to practically implement the proposed framework in real-world scenarios.
| Using diverse datasets that consist of different types of ransomware for testing and training will help to enhance the effectiveness of their proposed method. Providing a detailed analysis of performance measures and implementing new techniques to assess the effectiveness of the proposed model. Performing a lot of experiments and testing on real-world examples by using different datasets to verify the effectiveness and performance of the proposed model.
|
[29] | A novel detection method for ransomware based on ML algorithms was presented. The proposed model can differentiate between benign files and ransomware. To identify ransomware, six machine-learning algorithms were tested. CF-NCF is a modification of TF-IDF. CF-NCF is focused on the appearance feature in every category. TF-IDF is focused on the appearance feature in every document. The experimental findings demonstrate that the suggested method is capable of accurately identifying ransomware among malicious and benign files.
| This study only examined a small number of ransomware samples, which might affect the generalization of their method. Using different detection techniques to detect most ransomware behavior and techniques rather than focusing on API Invocation Sequences. The need to practically implement the proposed method in real-world scenarios.
| Using diverse datasets that consist of different types of ransomware for testing and training will help to enhance the effectiveness of their proposed method. Using different sources of data to detect different types of ransomware techniques and behaviors. Performing a lot of experiments and testing on real-world examples by using different datasets to verify the effectiveness and performance of the proposed method.
|
[9] | A brief survey about existing trends and future directions for the automated detection of ransomware was presented. A comprehensive overview and history of ransomware along with their background. Several methods to detect, avoid, mitigate, and recover from ransomware are explained in this survey. Readers will benefit from having this information to stay up-to-date on the most recent developments in automated ransomware detection, prevention, mitigation, and recovery. For those who are interested in studying ransomware detection, prevention, mitigation, and recovery, this research also highlights open challenges and potential research problems for future research areas.
| Using different detection techniques to detect most ransomware behavior and techniques rather than focusing on ML techniques. This study only examined a small number of ransomware samples, which might affect the generalization of their method. The lack of detailed analysis of performance measures used to assess the effectiveness of their proposed method. The need to practically implement the proposed method in real-world scenarios.
| Using diverse datasets that consist of different types of ransomware for testing and training will help to enhance the effectiveness of their proposed method. Using different sources of data to detect different types of ransomware techniques and behaviors. Providing a detailed analysis of performance measures and implementing new techniques to assess the effectiveness of the proposed model. Performing a lot of experiments and testing on real-world examples by using different datasets to verify the effectiveness and performance of the proposed method.
|
[73] | Differential area analysis is introduced for finding files encrypted by ransomware. The method works to distinguish between regular files and ransomware-generated encrypted files. The randomness of file data (file entropy) is identified as a trustworthy way to detect encrypted files.
| The method relies heavily on the accuracy of entropy (randomness) values to tell normal files from encrypted ones. This accuracy can change depending on the type of file and how it is compressed. There might be difficulties in using this technique on a large scale efficiently, especially with a lot of files. The technique has not been tested in real-time situations where ransomware is actively attacking.
| Taking into their consideration various types of files and how they are compressed. This will make the method more accurate and reliable. Look into ways to make the differential area analysis method more efficient so it can handle large numbers of files without issues. Test the proposed technique in real-time situations where ransomware attacks are happening to see how well it works in the real world.
|
[49] | A new way to detect ransomware by turning the PE header of executable files into images for analysis. The method makes use of CNNs to effectively uncover hidden features in the created images, leading to better ransomware detection rates. This approach achieves a 93.3-percent accuracy rate in detecting ransomware, which identifies it as an effective early detection tool. It successfully separates harmless files from ransomware by analyzing the unique patterns and features found in the PE header data.
| The study does not clearly specify how long to monitor programs to accurately assess their behavior. The approach relies heavily on the PE header format, making it less effective for non-PE files.
| |
[74] | Intelligent algorithms are effective in detecting ransomware attacks. DL algorithms show promise in handling large datasets for ransomware detection. There is a growing interest in using advanced algorithms for ransomware defense. Some ransomware families, like Sage and Hidden Tear, are frequently encountered in the literature.
| Challenges in differentiating ransomware traffic from normal traffic patterns. Limited application of certain DL architectures for ransomware detection. Potential failure of systems during data recovery from ransomware attacks.
| Explore more DL architectures for improved ransomware detection. Develop hybrid DL algorithms for detecting ransomware on big data platforms. Implement ML approaches to enhance ransomware detection accuracy. Address challenges through research in DL and big data analytics for better defense against ransomware attacks.
|
[75] | Wrapper RF classification and Chi-squared or OneR feature selection methods are effective for semi-supervised ransomware detection. Ransomware detection using family datasets separately is more effective than binary classification. The Simplified Silhouette Filter (SSF) unsupervised feature selection method yielded poor results. Semi-supervised feature selection methods need to be explored for improved ransomware detection in future works.
| The applied feature selection methods were supervised, limiting the effectiveness of the study. The collective IBK method did not perform well for ransomware classification. The SSF unsupervised feature selection method did not provide satisfactory results.
| Investigate and propose semi-supervised feature selection methods for ransomware detection in future research. Explore alternative feature selection techniques that are more suitable for semi-supervised learning. Consider the effectiveness of feature selection methods in improving ransomware detection accuracy.
|
[76] | Loss of technology availability during attacks, leading to complete computer downtime and unavailability of emergency care protocols. Transition to paper-based charting systems, causing inefficiencies and challenges in tracking patient status. Staff reliance on paper charting forms, despite being unfamiliar with traditional methods. Use of whiteboards to replace digital tracking systems, resulting in confusion and difficulties in patient status reporting. Hospitals facing significant disruptions in patient care and operational efficiency during ransomware attacks. Importance of hospitals being prepared to respond effectively to cyber threats to safeguard patient care.
| Limited willingness of healthcare organizations to participate in the study due to concerns about the sensitivity of the topic. Small number of participants per incident, ranging from one to three interviewees, which may limit the depth of understanding for each case. Potential selection bias as the study focused on major ransomware attacks, possibly overlooking minor incidents or successful cyber-defense cases. Small sample size of incidents (n=4), which may impact the generalizability of the findings. Challenges in increasing the sample size and participation rate, indicating the need for reassurance and further studies on barriers to participation in cyberattack research in healthcare.
| Address concerns about the sensitivity of the topic to increase willingness of healthcare organizations to participate in the study. Increase the number of participants per incident to provide a broader understanding of each case. Consider including minor incidents and successful cyber-defense cases in future studies to provide a more comprehensive analysis. Provide reassurance to potential participants about the safety and confidentiality of their involvement in the study to encourage participation. Conduct further research on barriers and facilitators of participation in studies on cyberattacks in healthcare to improve engagement and data collection.
|