Malware Detection Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions: A Survey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors move a very important aspect related to malware and safety. As marked, this is review, not a research article. This is how I will assess this work.

At the beginning, the authors bring the problem closer to the right length. They present the organization of the article in quite detail and although it is interesting, I am not sure if everything is necessary. In particular, he gave birth 2.

Then the presented State of Art and it is also based on the given sources.

Presented by the authors of Taxonomy of Malware Analysis, it is quite a good idea because it collects this area of ​​knowledge in one diagram. However, I lack a more depth description of what is on the diagram.

Next, you can find more points that they promised in the abstract and the title to move. Although this review is again it seems to me that chapters from 4.1.1 when it comes to length are insufficient. This is due to the too synthetic description of their content.

Going further, technical attention. In Table 1, always use two decimal places at Accucacy.

In Rozały 5.x, in turn, it also seems that they are too deeply presented. Although they rely on the right sources, reading them is the impression of superficiality.

Because the authors did not post a discussion in their article, I think that they should be more pressed on discussions with each point of their review.

After these amendments, an article worth publishing as Review.

Author Response

I prepared the my response on comments from reviewer1 in attached filles

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The work reported in this review has been well written and can be an important contribution to the existing knowledge. I would suggest accepting the work following minor modifications:

1. Authors have discussed several good works, I suggest providing an overview, then quoting the full set of reviews.

2. It would have been nice to discuss ways to improve malware detection, authors can think in this direction.

3. I would suggest making a graph of the papers and the year of work that is being considered in this work.

4. Discuss some more issues of each reported work.

5. If possible consider some more parameters for comparing the literature.

Author Response

I prepared my responses on the comments of reviewer2 on the attached files

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors fulfilled my demands. I believe that after reviewing any typos, you can publish.