Prevention of Crypto-Ransomware Using a Pre-Encryption Detection Algorithm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Remove “(PEDA)” from the title.

Refer to image encryption and attacks from http://0-dx-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2883690 in the first paragraph.

Remove “1.1 Background”

Organize the introduction part following the general pattern of most scientific papers.

Embed every equation among a text sentence.Present every equation in a form can be found in any textbook on Calculus.

Combine Sec. 5 and 6 together.

Re-organize the paper by referring to http://abacus.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/writing/HTWtoc.html

Re-write the conclusion part by referring to https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/conclusions/

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We really extend our thanks to the reviewers for the constructive comments which we found to be very helpful in improving the quality of our research work.

 

Kindly find below our Response to the reviewers’ comments :

Reviewer 1 :

Comment 1 :

Remove “(PEDA)” from the title.

Response :

“(PEDA)” has been removed from the title.

 

Comment 2 :

Refer to image encryption and attacks from http://0-dx-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.288369 0 in the first paragraph.

Response :

Added (Figure 1) to better explain the issue of crypto-ransomware

 

Comment 3:

Remove “1.1 Background”

Response :

Section 1.1 has been changed to “2. Literature Review”.

 

Comment 4:

Organize the introduction part following the general pattern of most scientific papers.

Response :

Added another paragraph in Introduction to explain further the issue and solution.

 

Comment 5:

Embed every equation among a text sentence. Present every equation in a form can be found in any textbook on Calculus.

 

Response:

Equation has been embedded among text sentences.

 

Comment 6 :

Combine Sec. 5 and 6 together.

Response :

Section “Conclusion” and: Future Work” have been combined.

 

Comment 7:

Re-organize the paper by referring to http://abacus.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/ writing/HTWtoc.html

Response:

Thank you for the comment, we just following the journal format.

 

Comment 8:

Re-write the conclusion part by referring to https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/ conclusions/

Response:

Conclusion has been re-written

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The authors have written the introduction well but the background (Sec 1.1) is too lengthy and vague. It may be improved.
2. The authors have done a good job in mitigating the ransomeware attack, but the authors need not mention the system configuration and the tool for machine learning algorithms either python/ weka/ R so as to replicate the work by anyone for their research/ implementation activities. 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We really extend our thanks to the reviewers for the constructive comments which we found to be very helpful in improving the quality of our research work.

 

Kindly find below our Response to the reviewers’ comments :

Reviewer 2:

Comment 1 :

The authors have written the introduction well but the background (Sec 1.1) is too lengthy and vague. It may be improved

Response :

Section 1.1 has been changed to “2. Literature Review”.

Comment 2:

The authors have done a good job in mitigating the ransomware attack, but the authors need not mention the system configuration and the tool for machine learning algorithms either python/ weka/ R so as to replicate the work by anyone for their research/ implementation activities.

Response:

System configuration and tools have been included in Methodology section.

Reviewer 3 Report

This study proposed a pre-encryption detection algorithm (PEDA) and compares others detection algorithm. This paper is meaningful in that it suggests a new method to detect crypto-ransomware using machine learning. However, there are issues in the completeness or flow of the manuscript, so the overall revision is requested.

 

Authors need to ensure that the table of contents is in order and content. The contents of the introduction section are not organized. The order of Chapters 2, 3, and 4 also requires confirmation.

 

I wonder why there is no suggestion for an ensemble or integrated method that includes the presented model (PEDA). If possible, the detection rate of the PEDA will be improved. Finally, there is a lack of theoretical contribution as an academic study, and it is necessary to reinforce the contents that emphasize the strength of this research.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We really extend our thanks to the reviewers for the constructive comments which we found to be very helpful in improving the quality of our research work.

 

Kindly find below our Response to the reviewers’ comments :

Reviewer 3 :

Comment 1 :

This study proposed a pre-encryption detection algorithm (PEDA) and compares others detection algorithm. This paper is meaningful in that it suggests a new method to detect crypto-ransomware using machine learning. However, there are issues in the completeness or flow of the manuscript, so the overall revision is required.

Response :

Modified Introduction and Conclusion to have better overall flow.

 

Comment 2:

Authors need to ensure that the table of contents is in order and content. The contents of the introduction section are not organized. The order of Chapters 2, 3, and 4 also requires confirmation.

Response :

We are thankful for your comments; the order of the paper follows as per the required template of the journal. Thanks again.

 

Comment 3 :

I wonder why there is no suggestion for an ensemble or integrated method that includes the presented model (PEDA). If possible, the detection rate of the PEDA will be improved. Finally, there is a lack of theoretical contribution as an academic study, and it is necessary to reinforce the contents that emphasize the strength of this research.

Response:

Modified Conclusion to enhance the importance of this study.

In addition, we take care of the English Language and grammar, had proofread again to make sure the desire quality of the paper.

 

Thank you for your kind attention.

 

Best Regards,

Research  team.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Presentation of every equation is wong. Typesetting is chaotic.

Author Response

We are again thankful to the anonymous reviewers for their efforts and comments, which really increased the quality level of our paper.

We addressed all the mentioned comments carefully and keep them highlighted in the text for quick view. In addition, we went through the English language professional services for the proofreading as suggested by the reviewers. We believe that the paper in the current form will be as per the expectations of the reviewers.

Thanks again for their efforts.  

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have successfully modified the manuscript following reviewer's comment.

Author Response

We are again thankful to the anonymous reviewers for their efforts and comments, which really increased the quality level of our paper.

We addressed all the mentioned comments carefully and keep them highlighted in the text for quick view. In addition, we went through the English language professional services for the proofreading as suggested by the reviewers. We believe that the paper in the current form will be as per the expectations of the reviewers.

Thanks again for their efforts.