MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411446663 · doi:10.1109/tnsm.2025.3581463

THREATIFY: APT Threat Variant Generation Using Graph-Based Machine Learning

2025· article· en· W4411446663 on OpenAlexaff
Boubakr Nour, Makan Pourzandi, Mourad Debbabi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityEricsson (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGraphArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ensuring cybersecurity in an ever-evolving threat landscape requires proactive identification and understanding of potential threats. Conventional detection and prediction solutions often fall short as they predominantly focus on known attack vectors. Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs) are becoming increasingly sophisticated and stealthy, resulting in new threat variants that are undetectable by these detection solutions. This paper introduces THREATIFY, a novel approach to predicting the most probable threat variants from existing APTs and previously seen attack campaigns. Our approach automates the generation of threat variants using graph-based machine learning based on the attack definition, past attack campaigns, and the security context between different techniques. THREATIFY leverages a security knowledge base of realistic attack scenarios and cybersecurity expertise to model, generate, and predict new forms of potential future threats by combining inter-(i.e. within the same APT attack) and intra-(i.e. between different APTs) techniques used by threat actors. It is crucial to emphasize that THREATIFY does not merely mix techniques from different APTs; rather, it constructs a logical and pragmatic kill chain based on their security context. THREATIFY is able to predict new attack steps, find relevant techniques to be substituted by, and merge APTs techniques in the current security context, and thus create previously unexplored threat variants. Our extensive experimental results demonstrate the efficacy of our approach in generating relevant and novel threat variants with a similarity score of 92%, uniqueness of 82%, validity of 95%, and reduction rate of 96%, including those that have never occurred before.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.262 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Network and Service ManagementSame topicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceFrench-language works237,207