MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316654285 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13025

Enhancing cybersecurity situation awareness through visualization: A USB data exfiltration case study

2023· article· en· W4316654285 on OpenAlexafffund
Mu-Huan Chung, Yuhong Yang, Lu Wang, Greg Cento, Khilan Jerath, Parwinder Taank, Abhay Raman, Jonathan H. Chan, Mark Chignell

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersMitacs
KeywordsComputer scienceDashboardUsabilityVisualizationSituation awarenessComputer securityProcess (computing)Data visualizationData scienceWorld Wide WebHuman–computer interactionEngineeringData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Employees who have legitimate access to an organization's data may occasionally put sensitive corporate data at risk, either carelessly or maliciously. Ideally, potential breaches should be detected as soon as they occur, but in practice there may be delays, because human analysts are not able to recognize data exfiltration behaviors quickly enough with the tools available to them. Visualization may improve cybersecurity situation awareness. In this paper, we present a dashboard application for investigating file activity, as a way to improve situation awareness. We developed this dashboard for a wide range of stakeholders within a large financial services company. Cybersecurity experts/analysts, data owners, team leaders/managers, high level administrators, and other investigators all provided input to its design. The use of a co-design approach helped to create trust between users and the new visualization tools, which were built to be compatible with existing work processes. We discuss the user-centered design process that informed the development of the dashboard, and the functionality of its three inter-operable monitoring dashboards. In this case three dashboards were developed covering high-level overview, file volume/type comparison, and individual activity, but the appropriate number and type of dashboards to use will likely vary according to the nature of the detection task). We also present two use cases with usability results and preliminary usage data. The results presented examined the amount of use that the dashboards received as well as measures obtained using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). We also report user comments about the dashboards and how to improve them.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207