A Benchmark Comparison of Python Malware Detection Approaches
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 27 Sep 2022.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 1; 2026: 4.
7 papers.
- 2024We Have a Package for You! A Comprehensive Analysis of Package Hallucinations by Code Generating LLMscited by 61
- 2024Leveraging Large Language Models to Detect npm Malicious Packagescited by 6
- 2025One Detector Fits All: Robust and Adaptive Detection of Malicious Packages from PyPI to Enterprisescited by 0
- 2026CHASE: LLM Agents for Dissecting Malicious PyPI Packagescited by 0
- 2026eDySec: A Deep Learning-based Explainable Dynamic Analysis Framework for Detecting Malicious Packages in PyPI Ecosystemcited by 0
- 2026LLM-Enhanced Hierarchical Heterogeneous Graph Representation Learning for Malicious Python Package Detectioncited by 0
- 2026After the Party: Growth, Governance, and Security Scanning in the OpenClaw Agent Skill Ecosystemcited by 0
- 2026After the Party: Growth, Governance, and Security Scanning in the OpenClaw Agent Skill Ecosystem15 Sep 2026
- 2026LLM-Enhanced Hierarchical Heterogeneous Graph Representation Learning for Malicious Python Package Detection3 Jul 2026
- 2026eDySec: A Deep Learning-based Explainable Dynamic Analysis Framework for Detecting Malicious Packages in PyPI Ecosystem29 Apr 2026
- 2026CHASE: LLM Agents for Dissecting Malicious PyPI Packages11 Jan 2026
- 2025One Detector Fits All: Robust and Adaptive Detection of Malicious Packages from PyPI to Enterprises3 Dec 2025
- 2024We Have a Package for You! A Comprehensive Analysis of Package Hallucinations by Code Generating LLMs12 Jun 2024
- 2024Leveraging Large Language Models to Detect npm Malicious Packages18 Mar 2024