Fuzzy to clear: Elucidating the threat hunter cognitive process and cognitive support needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With security threats increasing in frequency and severity, it is critical that we consider the important role of threat hunters. These highly-trained security professionals learn to see, identify, and intercept security threats. Many recent works and existing tools in cybersecurity are focused on automating the threat hunting process, often overlooking the critical human element. Our study shifts this paradigm by emphasizing a human-centered approach to understanding the lived experiences of threat hunters. By observing threat hunters during hunting sessions and analyzing the rich insights they provide, we seek to advance the understanding of their cognitive processes and the tool support they need. Through an in-depth observational study of threat hunters, we introduce a model of how they build and refine their mental models during threat hunting sessions. We also present 23 themes that provide a foundation to better understand threat hunter needs and suggest five actionable design propositions to enhance the tools that support them. Through these contributions, our work enriches the theoretical understanding of threat hunting and provides practical insights for designing more effective, human-centered cybersecurity tools.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".