MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135946340 · doi:10.1155/2021/6615899

Use of Security Logs for Data Leak Detection: A Systematic Literature Review

2021· article· en· W3135946340 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

VenueSecurity and Communication Networks · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer securityLeakInformation sensitivityPoint (geometry)Data scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Security logs are widely used to monitor data, networks, and computer activities. By analyzing them, security experts can pick out anomalies that reveal the presence of cyber attacks or information leaks and stop them quickly before serious damage occurs. This paper presents a systematic literature review on the use of security logs for data leak detection. Our findings are fourfold: (i) we propose a new classification of information leaks, which uses the GDPR principles; (ii) we identify the twenty most widely used publicly available datasets in threat detection; (iii) we describe twenty types of attacks present in public datasets; and (iv) we describe thirty algorithms used for data leak detection. The selected papers point to many opportunities that can be investigated by researchers interested in contributing to this area of research.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.233 · 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