Автоматическое разрешение заявок о ложных срабатываниях в антивирусе Avast, Александр Сибиряков, Scrapinghub

Выступление на конференции PyCon Russia 2016

Transcript

1. Automatic resolution of False Positive submits in Avast! antivirus Alexander Sibiryakov, 3-4 July, 2016, PyCon Russia sibiryakov@scrapinghub.com
2. • Software Engineer @ Scrapinghub • Born in Yekaterinburg, RU • 5 years at Yandex, search quality department: social and QA search, snippets. • 2 years at Avast! antivirus, research team: automatic false positive solving, large scale prediction of malicious download attempts. About myself 2
3. Мы?
4. Scrapinghub • Main sponsor of the talk • New data science dept. • Crawlera (proxy service), • Scrapy Cloud. • Data sets off-the-shelf Professionals join us if you are too … or at least want to be!
5. False positive submit ~1700 / day 40-50K / mo
6. Possible FP hits
7. Trust user?! we would like to, but…
8. Task • False positive report → Virus Lab, • Classify the report and take actions: • True FP → mark as clean, disable detection, • False FP → do nothing. • Log everything. • 5 errors in 100 cases MAX.
9. Backends • File ownership DB (FileRep) • Nearest neighbors in PE header space (MDE), • File Virus Lab metadata (Scavenger) • File content similarity with trigrams (Athena).
10. Владельцы файла, FileRep J. Horky, horky@avast.com
11. Data in FileRep SHA1 → metadata, (guid, timestamp, flags), (…), (…), … Prevalence Date_first_seen
12. PE header similarity (MDE) • In-house built DB for similarity search • Hand-made similarity function • 3 spaces: • Clean (VLAB, Softonic, CNET, MS products,…), • Malware (detected by Avast!), • Unknown
13. PE header
14. PE header similarity results
15. Virus Lab metadata
16. Infrastructure
17. ML
18. Supervised learning (курс молодого бойца :) Data set Model Bayes, SVM, DT, NN, Neural networks
19. Model learning process 1. votes from analytics console, 2. dump FP snapshots → data set, 3. train/test → learn → quality metrics, 4. analyze errors → classes, 5. think, 6. new signals (signals strength analysis), 7. repeat from 3. until desired quality.
20. Errors and their types True False Pos TP: malicious sample, classified as malicious FP: malicious sample, classified as clean Neg TN: clean sample and classified as clean FN: clean file, but classified as malicious User by sending FP submit thinks that sample is clean.
21. Errors analysis FN - the most destructive FP - destructive too, but less consequences TN ← profit lives here
22. What metrics to calculate? 1: fp=22 (0.0921), fn=4(0.0167), tp=117, tn=96, total=239, pr=96.0%, re=81.4% 2: fp=14 (0.0586), fn=3(0.0126), tp=124, tn=98, total=239, pr=97.0%, re=87.5% 3: fp=17 (0.0711), fn=5(0.0209), tp=136, tn=81, total=239, pr=94.2%, re=82.7% 4: fp=18 (0.0753), fn=5(0.0209), tp=129, tn=87, total=239, pr=94.6%, re=82.9% 5: fp=26 (0.1088), fn=11(0.0460), tp=111, tn=91, total=239, pr=89.2%, re=77.8% What do you want to know? How model performs by class? How many errors and of what type it makes? How resistant it is to sampling?
23. Technologies SVM (with LibSVM) → GBT OpenCV Google protocol buffers Python 2.7+: features (NumPy), plots, 2 test.
24. Unstable learning process • Data from backends → data set, • changes: new files, votes, scans, • different values always :( • Snapshots • 1y period
25. Fighting for quality: training set size • Everything, but not less. • Start with small, but reasonable size. • New data source? New signals ideas? If not - increase the training set. • We finished at 10K samples and 155 signals.
26. Long learning times with SVM • hours (!) needed to learn SVM • + estimating optimal C, , • adding new features/ tuning model params. • Gradient Boosting Decision Trees
27. Good on test, but so-so on input • First we took 2 weeks period, • good results on test • evaluation with next 2 weeks • each N-th within a 6 mo period
28. Fighting for quality: measuring features strength • «feature selection»: variance of signals value, mutual information, frequency … We used: • 2 test, • usage in generated model (ensemble of trees)
29. Fighting for quality: edge cases • Run on samples from input, as a final test • «middle» values:
 (neg) 0.2 < X < 0.85 (pos) for ~2% • backends gone MAD! • judging of such samples was • add to training set (active learning)
30. It’s learned. What’s next? • Take data from input • 100 random samples, review by engineer → 
 good impression. • If all is fine → production, • but this isn’t the end!
31. Adoption process • Nobody believed it works • Making analysts console: • UI with analyst and classifier grades, • Errors graphs by days. • Gradual process: • Analytics assistant: all decisions were being checked. • Post-check: next month. • Fully standalone operation, with monthly sample checks.
32. Recovery process 1. Errors graphs, choosing period. 2. Getting FP snapshots for selected period. 3. Looking at the errors, grouping, 4. New signals, if needed. 5. Judging problematic cases. 6. Learning & adoption.
33. Major points • Understand errors. • Data snapshots not data sets. • Continuous process, not a single-time model. • Infrastructure and periodical performance monitoring. • Using input stream for evaluation instead of test set. • Recovery process.
34. Questions? Thank you! Alexander Sibiryakov, sibiryakov@scrapinghub.com