A Machine Learning Approach for RDP-based Lateral Movement Detection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detecting cyber threats has been an on-going research endeavor. In this era, advanced persistent threats (APTs) can incur significant cost for organizations and businesses. The ultimate goal of cyber security is to thwart attackers from achieving their malicious intent, whether it is credential stealing, infrastructure takeover, or program sabotage. Every cyber attack goes through several stages before its termination. Lateral movement (LM) is one of those stages which is of particular importance. Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) is a method used in LM to successfully authenticate to an unauthorized host that leaves footprints on both host and network logs. In this paper, we propose to detect evidence of LM with an anomaly detection approach that leverages Windows RDP event logs. We evaluate various supervised machine learning (ML) techniques for classifying RDP sessions with high precision and recall. We also compare the performance of our proposed approach to a state-of-the-art approach and demonstrate that our ML model outperforms in classifying RDP sessions in Windows event logs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it