Embedding-Driven Synthetic Malware Generation with Autoencoders and Cluster-Tangent Diffusion
Source abstract
Abstract
Malware has become increasingly sophisticated over the years, with zero-day attacks emerging at an alarming pace. Effective detection and analysis demand real malware samples, which are expensive and skill-dependent to extract. As a result, generating high quality synthetic samples from scarce data sets becomes a crucial method for strengthening detection software. This paper focuses on presenting generation techniques that optimize the embedding space to produce high-quality synthetic samples, even under constrained datasets. The dataset used in this paper consists of 500 Windows malware API call samples that were processed using embedding and Generative AI (Gen AI) techniques to generate synthetic malware. Two novel contributions are highlighted in this paper. (1) The integration of autoencoders with pretrained NLP models (BERT and ELMo) to enhance the quality of embeddings. Autoencoders extract features and learn patterns from the data to generate higher-quality embeddings than those generated using other techniques alone. (2) Cluster-Tangent Diffusion (CT-Diff): a novel application of manifold diffusion. Manifold diffusion improves upon diffusion and other Gen AI techniques by focusing on generating samples along the distribution of the original data using structured noise instead of standard gaussian noise. Collectively these two contributions have consistently outperformed previous techniques. Furthermore, the results demonstrate the feasibility of generating reliable fake samples even in low data scenarios.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Malware Detection Techniques · Network Security and Intrusion Detection · Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019, USA
Department of Computer Science, San José State University, San Jose, CA 95192, USA
References (60)
Show source-provided references
1. Namanya, A.P., Cullen, A., Awan, I.U., and Disso, J.P. (2018, January 6–8). The world of malware: An overview. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 6th International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud (FiCloud), Barcelona, Spain.10.1109/FiCloud.2018.00067 ↗
2. Tchakounté, F., and Hayata, F. (2017). Supervised learning based detection of malware on android. Mobile Security and Privacy, Elsevier.10.1016/B978-0-12-804629-6.00006-7 ↗
3. Stock-Term market impact of major cyber-attacks: Evidence for the ten most exposed insurance firms to cyber risk10.1016/j.frl.2024.106361 ↗
4. Generating Synthetic Malware Samples using Generative AI against Zero-day Attacks10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3556704 ↗
5. Iot-based android malware detection using graph neural network with adversarial defense10.1109/JIOT.2022.3188583 ↗
6. Deep learning for effective Android malware detection using API call graph embeddings10.1007/s00500-019-03940-5 ↗
7. A comparison of graph neural networks for malware classification10.1007/s11416-023-00493-y ↗
8. Chen, Y.H., Chen, J.L., and Deng, R.F. (2022). Similarity-based malware classification using graph neural networks. Appl. Sci., 12.10.3390/app122110837 ↗
9. Park, Y., Reeves, D., Mulukutla, V., and Sundaravel, B. (2010, January 21–23). Fast malware classification by automated behavioral graph matching. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Workshop on Cyber Security and Information Intelligence Research, Oak Ridge, TN, USA.10.1145/1852666.1852716 ↗
10. Faruki, P., Laxmi, V., Gaur, M.S., and Vinod, P. (2012, January 20–21). Mining control flow graph as api call-grams to detect portable executable malware. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Security of Information and Networks, Hamburg, Germany.10.1145/2388576.2388594 ↗
11. Gülmez, S., and Sogukpinar, I. (2021, January 28–29). Graph-based malware detection using opcode sequences. Proceedings of the 2021 9th International Symposium on Digital Forensics and Security (ISDFS), Elazig, Turkey.10.1109/ISDFS52919.2021.9486386 ↗
12. Singh, A., Arora, R., and Pareek, H. (2017). Malware analysis using multiple API sequence mining control flow graph. arXiv.
13. Generative Adversarial Networks for Dynamic Malware Behavior: A Comprehensive Review, Categorization, and Analysis10.1109/TAI.2025.3537966 ↗
14. Detection of data scarce malware using one-shot learning with relation network10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3293117 ↗
15. A systematic review on data scarcity problem in deep learning: Solution and applications10.1145/3502287 ↗
16. Malware classification with word2vec, hmm2vec, bert, and elmo
17. Aggarwal, S., and Di Troia, F. (2024). Malware Classification Using Dynamically Extracted API Call Embeddings. Appl. Sci., 14.10.3390/app14135731 ↗
18. API-MalDetect: Automated malware detection framework for windows based on API calls and deep learning techniques10.1016/j.jnca.2023.103704 ↗
19. A dynamic Windows malware detection and prediction method based on contextual understanding of API call sequence10.1016/j.cose.2020.101760 ↗
20. Malware classification based on multilayer perception and Word2Vec for IoT security10.1145/3436751 ↗
21. Yesir, S., and Soğukpinar, İ. (2021, January 28–29). Malware detection and classification using fasttext and bert. Proceedings of the 2021 9th International Symposium on Digital Forensics and Security (ISDFS), Elazığ, Turkey.10.1109/ISDFS52919.2021.9486377 ↗
22. Tran, Q.D., and Di Troia, F. (2022, January 17–19). Word Embeddings for Fake Malware Generation. Proceedings of the Silicon Valley Cybersecurity Conference, Virtually.10.1007/978-3-031-24049-2_2 ↗
23. Mollah, M.S.H., Marhusin, M.F.B., and Omar, S.N. (2025, January 13–15). A Robust Malware Detection Framework Using Control Flow Graphs, Node2Vec, and GCN Integration. Proceedings of the 2025 International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Communication Engineering (ECCE), Chittagong, Bangladesh.
24. McLaren, R.A., Babaagba, K.O., and Tan, Z. (2022, January 18–22). A generative adversarial network based approach to malware generation based on behavioural graphs. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, Optimization, and Data Science, Casdel Novo Verbadanca, Italy.10.1007/978-3-031-25891-6_4 ↗
25. Wesego, D. (2025). Graph Representation Learning with Diffusion Generative Models. arXiv.
26. Lee, K., and Choi, J. (2025). Local Manifold Approximation and Projection for Manifold-Aware Diffusion Planning. arXiv.
27. Improving diffusion models for inverse problems using manifold constraints
28. He, Y., Murata, N., Lai, C.H., Takida, Y., Uesaka, T., Kim, D., Liao, W.H., Mitsufuji, Y., Kolter, J.Z., and Salakhutdinov, R. (2023). Manifold preserving guided diffusion. arXiv.
29. Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., and Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv.
30. Enriching word vectors with subword information10.1162/tacl_a_00051 ↗
31. Devlin, J., Chang, M.W., Lee, K., and Toutanova, K. (2019, January 2–7). Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
32. Peters, M.E. (2018). Deep contextualized word representations. arXiv.10.18653/v1/N18-1202 ↗
33. Feng, L., Cui, Y., and Hu, J. (2020, January 20–22). Detection and classification of malware based on FastText. Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Information Systems (ICAIIS), Dalian, China.10.1109/ICAIIS49377.2020.9194806 ↗
34. Sarker, I.H. (2024). Generative AI and large language modeling in cybersecurity. AI-Driven Cybersecurity and Threat Intelligence: Cyber Automation, Intelligent Decision-Making and Explainability, Springer.10.1007/978-3-031-54497-2 ↗
35. Survey on latest advances in natural language processing applications of generative adversarial networks10.1002/widm.70004 ↗
36. Metta, S., Chang, I., Parker, J., Roman, M.P., and Ehuan, A.F. (2024). Generative AI in cybersecurity. arXiv.
37. Narayanan, A., Chandramohan, M., Venkatesan, R., Chen, L., Liu, Y., and Jaiswal, S. (2017). graph2vec: Learning distributed representations of graphs. arXiv.
38. Grover, A., and Leskovec, J. (2016, January 13–17). node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2939672.2939754 ↗
39. Control flowgraphs and code coverage10.2478/v10006-010-0056-9 ↗
40. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models
41. Graph convolutional networks: A comprehensive review10.1186/s40649-019-0069-y ↗
42. Strudel, R., Tallec, C., Altché, F., Du, Y., Ganin, Y., Mensch, A., Grathwohl, W., Savinov, N., Dieleman, S., and Sifre, L. (2022). Self-conditioned embedding diffusion for text generation. arXiv.
43. Adaloglou, N., Kaiser, T., Michels, F., and Kollmann, M. (March, January 26). Rethinking cluster-conditioned diffusion models for label-free image synthesis. Proceedings of the 2025 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), Tucson, AZ, USA.10.1109/WACV61041.2025.00355 ↗
44. Mohamed, N. (2024, January 24–28). A Comprehensive Review of Natural Language Processing Techniques for Malware Detection. Proceedings of the 2024 15th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), Kamand, India.10.1109/ICCCNT61001.2024.10724079 ↗
45. Transfer learning: A friendly introduction10.1186/s40537-022-00652-w ↗
46. Zero-day malware detection using transferred generative adversarial networks based on deep autoencoders10.1016/j.ins.2018.04.092 ↗
47. Visualizing data using t-SNE
48. Grohe, M. (2020, January 14–19). word2vec, node2vec, graph2vec, x2vec: Towards a theory of vector embeddings of structured data. Proceedings of the 39th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Portland, OR, USA.10.1145/3375395.3387641 ↗
49. Lau, J.H., and Baldwin, T. (2016). An empirical evaluation of doc2vec with practical insights into document embedding generation. arXiv.10.18653/v1/W16-1609 ↗
50. Testing the manifold hypothesis10.1090/jams/852 ↗
51. Improved training of Wasserstein GANs
52. Nichol, A.Q., and Dhariwal, P. (2021, January 18–24). Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, Virtual.
53. Kotelnikov, A., Baranchuk, D., Rubachev, I., and Babenko, A. (2023, January 23–29). Tabddpm: Modelling tabular data with diffusion models. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, Honolulu, HI, USA.
54. Random forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
55. Classification and regression by randomForest
56. Yu, Y., and Zhang, Y. (2021). Multi-layer perceptron trainability explained via variability. arXiv.
57. Steck, H., Ekanadham, C., and Kallus, N. (2024, January 13–17). Is cosine-similarity of embeddings really about similarity?. Proceedings of the Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024, Singapore.10.1145/3589335.3651526 ↗
58. Maharani, D.A., Machbub, C., Rusmin, P.H., and Yulianti, L. (2020, January 14–15). Improving the capability of real-time face masked recognition using cosine distance. Proceedings of the 2020 6th International Conference on Interactive Digital Media (ICIDM), Bandung, Indonesia.10.1109/ICIDM51048.2020.9339677 ↗
59. Sitikhu, P., Pahi, K., Thapa, P., and Shakya, S. (2019, January 5). A Comparison of Semantic Similarity Methods for Maximum Human Interpretability. Proceedings of the 2019 Artificial Intelligence for Transforming Business and Society (AITB), Kathmandu, Nepal.10.1109/AITB48515.2019.8947433 ↗
60. Examining the Ethical Risks of Generative AI in Cybersecurity: An Experimental Study on Ethical, Gray Area and Unethical Usage Scenarios