MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Automated Event Prioritization for Security Operation Center using Deep Learning

2019· article· en· W3007705818 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePrioritizationEvent (particle physics)WorkflowData miningAutomationVolume (thermodynamics)Deep learningVariety (cybernetics)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningDatabaseEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite their popularity, Security Operation Centers (SOCs) are facing increasing challenges and pressure due to the growing volume, velocity and variety of the IT infrastructure and security data observed on a daily basis. Due to the mixed performance of current technological solutions, e.g. IDS and SIEM, there is an over-reliance on manual analysis of the events by human security analysts. This creates huge backlogs and slow down considerably the resolution of critical security events. Obvious solutions include increasing accuracy and efficiency in the automation of crucial aspects of the SOC workflow, such as the event classification and prioritization. In the current paper, we present a new approach for SOC event classification by identifying a set of new features using graphical analysis and classifying using a deep neural network model. Experimental evaluation using real SOC event log data yields very encouraging results in terms of classification accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it