Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

A Benchmark Comparison of Python Malware Detection Approaches

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

arxiv 2209.13288 v1 pith:WTGAC6OQ submitted 2022-09-27 cs.CR cs.SE

classification cs.CRcs.SE
keywords malwaredetectionrepositoryadministratorsfalsepositiveratesecurity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

While attackers often distribute malware to victims via open-source, community-driven package repositories, these repositories do not currently run automated malware detection systems. In this work, we explore the security goals of the repository administrators and the requirements for deployments of such malware scanners via a case study of the Python ecosystem and PyPI repository, which includes interviews with administrators and maintainers. Further, we evaluate existing malware detection techniques for deployment in this setting by creating a benchmark dataset and comparing several existing tools, including the malware checks implemented in PyPI, Bandit4Mal, and OSSGadget's OSS Detect Backdoor. We find that repository administrators have exacting technical demands for such malware detection tools. Specifically, they consider a false positive rate of even 0.01% to be unacceptably high, given the large number of package releases that might trigger false alerts. Measured tools have false positive rates between 15% and 97%; increasing thresholds for detection rules to reduce this rate renders the true positive rate useless. In some cases, these checks emitted alerts more often for benign packages than malicious ones. However, we also find a successful socio-technical malware detection system: external security researchers also perform repository malware scans and report the results to repository administrators. These parties face different incentives and constraints on their time and tooling. We conclude with recommendations for improving detection capabilities and strengthening the collaboration between security researchers and software repository administrators.

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. An Evaluation of Large Language Models for Detection of Malicious Python Packages

    cs.CR 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    LLMs detect malicious PyPI packages reasonably at package level but identify specific malicious code indicators poorly, a 'granularity gap' that limits them to triage.

  2. A Machine Learning-Based Approach For Detecting Malicious PyPI Packages

    cs.SE 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A stacking ensemble classifier using static features, including a new vocabulary-based text feature, detects malicious PyPI packages with a claimed F1 of 94 percent, though the per-class malicious F1 is 88 percent.

Pith tools