MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285357590 · doi:10.4018/ijcini.20211001.oa9

Cyber Threat Hunting

2022· article· en· W4285357590 on OpenAlexafffund
Muhammad Salman Khan, René Richard, Heather Molyneaux, Danick Cote-Martel, Henry Jackson Kamalanathan Elango, Steve Livingstone, Manon Gaudet, Dave Trask

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryGovernment of CanadaCanadian Nuclear LaboratoriesDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencyMitacsUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer securitySituation awarenessVisualizationIntelligence analysisEvent (particle physics)Artificial intelligenceCyber-attackHuman–computer interactionMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Security and Information Event Management (SIEM) systems require significant manual input; SIEM tools with machine learning minimizes this effort but are reactive and only effective if known attack patterns are captured by the configured rules and queries. Cyber threat hunting, a proactive method of detecting cyber threats without necessarily knowing the rules or pre-defined knowledge of threats, still requires significant manual effort and is largely missing the required machine intelligence to deploy autonomous analysis. This paper proposes a novel and interactive cognitive and predictive threat-hunting prototype tool to minimize manual configuration tasks by using machine intelligence and autonomous analytical capabilities. This tool adds proactive threat-hunting capabilities by extracting unique network communication behaviors from multiple endpoints autonomously while also providing an interactive UI with minimal configuration requirements and various cognitive visualization techniques to help cyber experts quickly spot events of cyber significance from high-dimensional data.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural IntelligenceSame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207