Detecting Machine-obfuscated Plagiarism

Related dataset is at https://doi.org/10.7302/bewj-qx93 and also listed in the dc.relation field of the full item record.Research on academic integrity has identified online paraphrasing tools as a severe threat to the effectiveness of plagiarism detection systems. To enable the automated identification of machine-paraphrased text, we make three contributions. First, we evaluate the effectiveness of six prominent word embedding models in combination with five classifiers for distinguishing human-written from machine-paraphrased text. The best performing classification approach achieves an accuracy of 99.0% for documents and 83.4% for paragraphs. Second, we show that the best approach outperforms human experts and established plagiarism detection systems for these classification tasks. Third, we provide a Web application that uses the best performing classification approach to indicate whether a text underwent machine-paraphrasing. The data and code of our study are openly available.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152346/1/Foltynek2020_Paraphrase_Detection.pdfDescription of Foltynek2020_Paraphrase_Detection.pdf : Foltynek2020_Paraphrase_Detectio

Tackling the PAN’09 External Plagiarism Detection Corpus with a Desktop Plaigiarism Detector

Ferret is a fast and effective tool for detecting similarities in a group of files. Applying it to the PAN’09 corpus required modifications to meet the requirements of the competition, mainly to deal with the very large number of files, the large size of some of them, and to automate some of the decisions that would normally be made by a human operator. Ferret was able to detect numerous files in the development corpus that contain substantial similarities not marked as plagiarism, but it also identified quite a lot of pairs where random similarities masked actual plagiarism. An improved metric is therefore indicated if the “plagiarised” or “not plagiarised” decision is to be automated

The zombies strike back: Towards client-side beef detection

A web browser is an application that comes bundled with every consumer operating system, including both desktop and mobile platforms. A modern web browser is complex software that has access to system-level features, includes various plugins and requires the availability of an Internet connection. Like any multifaceted software products, web browsers are prone to numerous vulnerabilities. Exploitation of these vulnerabilities can result in destructive consequences ranging from identity theft to network infrastructure damage. BeEF, the Browser Exploitation Framework, allows taking advantage of these vulnerabilities to launch a diverse range of readily available attacks from within the browser context. Existing defensive approaches aimed at hardening network perimeters and detecting common threats based on traffic analysis have not been found successful in the context of BeEF detection. This paper presents a proof-of-concept approach to BeEF detection in its own operating environment – the web browser – based on global context monitoring, abstract syntax tree fingerprinting and real-time network traffic analysis

The Effect of Code Obfuscation on Authorship Attribution of Binary Computer Files

In many forensic investigations, questions linger regarding the identity of the authors of the software specimen. Research has identified methods for the attribution of binary files that have not been obfuscated, but a significant percentage of malicious software has been obfuscated in an effort to hide both the details of its origin and its true intent. Little research has been done around analyzing obfuscated code for attribution. In part, the reason for this gap in the research is that deobfuscation of an unknown program is a challenging task. Further, the additional transformation of the executable file introduced by the obfuscator modifies or removes features from the original executable that would have been used in the author attribution process. Existing research has demonstrated good success in attributing the authorship of an executable file of unknown provenance using methods based on static analysis of the specimen file. With the addition of file obfuscation, static analysis of files becomes difficult, time consuming, and in some cases, may lead to inaccurate findings. This paper presents a novel process for authorship attribution using dynamic analysis methods. A software emulated system was fully instrumented to become a test harness for a specimen of unknown provenance, allowing for supervised control, monitoring, and trace data collection during execution. This trace data was used as input into a supervised machine learning algorithm trained to identify stylometric differences in the specimen under test and provide predictions on who wrote the specimen. The specimen files were also analyzed for authorship using static analysis methods to compare prediction accuracies with prediction accuracies gathered from this new, dynamic analysis based method. Experiments indicate that this new method can provide better accuracy of author attribution for files of unknown provenance, especially in the case where the specimen file has been obfuscated

Understanding Android Obfuscation Techniques: A Large-Scale Investigation in the Wild

In this paper, we seek to better understand Android obfuscation and depict a holistic view of the usage of obfuscation through a large-scale investigation in the wild. In particular, we focus on four popular obfuscation approaches: identifier renaming, string encryption, Java reflection, and packing. To obtain the meaningful statistical results, we designed efficient and lightweight detection models for each obfuscation technique and applied them to our massive APK datasets (collected from Google Play, multiple third-party markets, and malware databases). We have learned several interesting facts from the result. For example, malware authors use string encryption more frequently, and more apps on third-party markets than Google Play are packed. We are also interested in the explanation of each finding. Therefore we carry out in-depth code analysis on some Android apps after sampling. We believe our study will help developers select the most suitable obfuscation approach, and in the meantime help researchers improve code analysis systems in the right direction

Similarity of Source Code in the Presence of Pervasive Modifications

Source code analysis to detect code cloning, code plagiarism, and code reuse suffers from the problem of pervasive code modifications, i.e. transformations that may have a global effect. We compare 30 similarity detection techniques and tools against pervasive code modifications. We evaluate the tools using two experimental scenarios for Java source code. These are (1) pervasive modifications created with tools for source code and bytecode obfuscation and (2) source code normalisation through compilation and decompilation using different decompilers. Our experimental results show that highly specialised source code similarity detection techniques and tools can perform better than more general, textual similarity measures. Our study strongly validates the use of compilation/decompilation as a normalisation technique. Its use reduced false classifications to zero for six of the tools. This broad, thorough study is the largest in existence and potentially an invaluable guide for future users of similarity detection in source code

A comparison of code similarity analysers

Copying and pasting of source code is a common activity in software engineering. Often, the code is not copied as it is and it may be modified for various purposes; e.g. refactoring, bug fixing, or even software plagiarism. These code modifications could affect the performance of code similarity analysers including code clone and plagiarism detectors to some certain degree. We are interested in two types of code modification in this study: pervasive modifications, i.e. transformations that may have a global effect, and local modifications, i.e. code changes that are contained in a single method or code block. We evaluate 30 code similarity detection techniques and tools using five experimental scenarios for Java source code. These are (1) pervasively modified code, created with tools for source code and bytecode obfuscation, and boiler-plate code, (2) source code normalisation through compilation and decompilation using different decompilers, (3) reuse of optimal configurations over different data sets, (4) tool evaluation using ranked-based measures, and (5) local + global code modifications. Our experimental results show that in the presence of pervasive modifications, some of the general textual similarity measures can offer similar performance to specialised code similarity tools, whilst in the presence of boiler-plate code, highly specialised source code similarity detection techniques and tools outperform textual similarity measures. Our study strongly validates the use of compilation/decompilation as a normalisation technique. Its use reduced false classifications to zero for three of the tools. Moreover, we demonstrate that optimal configurations are very sensitive to a specific data set. After directly applying optimal configurations derived from one data set to another, the tools perform poorly on the new data set. The code similarity analysers are thoroughly evaluated not only based on several well-known pair-based and query-based error measures but also on each specific type of pervasive code modification. This broad, thorough study is the largest in existence and potentially an invaluable guide for future users of similarity detection in source code