arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv周末暂无论文更新,休息一下吧,周末愉快~~
arXiv 2306.08060cs.CRcs.LGquant-ph
收藏

源代码中的软件供应链漏洞检测:传统机器学习算法与量子机器学习算法的性能比较

Software Supply Chain Vulnerabilities Detection in Source Code: Performance Comparison between Traditional and Quantum Machine Learning Algorithms

Kennesaw State University(肯尼索州立大学);San Jose State University(圣何塞州立大学);Auburn University(奥本大学);Tuskegee University(塔斯基吉大学);University of Calabria(卡拉布里亚大学)

Mst Shapna Akter, Md Jobair Hossain Faruk, Nafisa Anjum, Mohammad Masum, Hossain Shahriar, Akond Rahman, Fan Wu, Alfredo Cuzzocrea

AI总结:

本研究针对软件供应链攻击检测问题,基于ClaMP数据集对比量子神经网络与传统神经网络的漏洞检测性能,发现高数据占比下量子模型执行更慢,后续将开展大规模实验深入研究。

摘要:

软件供应链(SSC)攻击已成为随着软件开发领域发展而迅速增多的关键问题之一。通常而言,在软件开发过程中实施的SSC攻击会导致软件产品产生漏洞,下游客户甚至相关利益相关方都会成为攻击目标。机器学习方法已被证明可用于检测和防范软件安全漏洞。此外,新兴的量子机器学习在应对SSC攻击方面颇具前景。考虑到传统机器学习与量子机器学习的差异,其性能可能会根据实验数据集的占比有所不同。\n本文采用名为ClaMP的软件供应链攻击数据集,对量子神经网络(QNN)与传统神经网络(NN)开展对比分析。我们的目标是区分QNN与NN的性能,为此分别构建了两类模型:量子模型借助Pennylane开发,传统模型则基于TensorFlow和Keras构建。我们使用不同占比的ClaMP数据集评估两类模型的性能,指标包括F1分数、召回率、精确率和准确率,同时还测量了执行时间以检验两类模型的效率。实验结果表明,在数据集占比较高的情况下,QNN的执行时间慢于NN。鉴于QNN领域的最新进展,未来研究将开展大规模实验,以更准确地认识两类模型。

英文摘要:

The software supply chain (SSC) attack has become one of the crucial issues that are being increased rapidly with the advancement of the software development domain. In general, SSC attacks execute during the software development processes lead to vulnerabilities in software products targeting downstream customers and even involved stakeholders. Machine Learning approaches are proven in detecting and preventing software security vulnerabilities. Besides, emerging quantum machine learning can be promising in addressing SSC attacks. Considering the distinction between traditional and quantum machine learning, performance could be varies based on the proportions of the experimenting dataset. In this paper, we conduct a comparative analysis between quantum neural networks (QNN) and conventional neural networks (NN) with a software supply chain attack dataset known as ClaMP. Our goal is to distinguish the performance between QNN and NN and to conduct the experiment, we develop two different models for QNN and NN by utilizing Pennylane for quantum and TensorFlow and Keras for traditional respectively. We evaluated the performance of both models with different proportions of the ClaMP dataset to identify the f1 score, recall, precision, and accuracy. We also measure the execution time to check the efficiency of both models. The demonstration result indicates that execution time for QNN is slower than NN with a higher percentage of datasets. Due to recent advancements in QNN, a large level of experiments shall be carried out to understand both models accurately in our future research.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑