MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321790328 · doi:10.1145/3584666

Generative Adversarial Networks for Cyber Threat Hunting in Ethereum Blockchain

2023· article· en· W4321790328 on OpenAlexaff
Elnaz Rabieinejad, Abbas Yazdinejad, Reza M. Parizi, Ali Dehghantanha

Bibliographic record

VenueDistributed Ledger Technologies Research and Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdversarial systemBlockchainExploitComputer scienceComputer securityGenerative grammarInternet of ThingsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ethereum blockchain has shown great potential in providing the next generation of the decentralized platform beyond crypto payments. Recently, it has attracted researchers and industry players to experiment with developing various Web3 applications for the Internet of Things (IoT), Defi, Metaverse, and many more. Although Ethereum provides a secure platform for developing decentralized applications, it is not immune to security risks and has been a victim of numerous cyber attacks. Adversarial attacks are a new cyber threat to systems that have been rising. Adversarial attacks can disrupt and exploit decentralized applications running on the Ethereum platform by creating fake accounts and transactions. Detecting adversarial attacks is challenging because the fake materials (e.g., accounts and transactions) as malicious payloads are similar to benign data. This article proposes a model using Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) and Deep Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) for cyber threat hunting in the Ethereum blockchain. Firstly, we employ GAN to generate fake transactions using genuine Ethereum transactions as the first phase of the proposed model. Then in the second phase, we utilize bi-directional Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) to identify adversarial transactions in a hunting exercise. The results of the first phase evaluation show that the GAN can generate transactions identical to the actual Ethereum transactions with an accuracy of 82.51%. Also, the results of the second phase show 99.98% accuracy in identifying adversarial transactions.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations37
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDistributed Ledger Technologies Research and PracticeSame topicAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningFrench-language works237,207