MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

From static to dynamic risk indicators in predicting and detecting insider attacks

2025· article· W7127123361 on OpenAlexafffund
N’Famoussa Kounon Nanamou, Rim Ben Salem, Anis Bkakria, Nora Cuppens-Boulahia, Frédéric Cuppens

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersMitacs
KeywordsInsider threatInsiderRandom forestAutoregressive modelScalabilityBaseline (sea)Time seriesPrecision and recall

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cyber insider threats represent one of the most complex and insidious challenges to modern cybersecurity, as they originate from legitimate users whose behaviors may turn malicious over time. Traditional approaches often fail due to their reliance on static risk indicators, necessitating dynamic modeling of human behavior to capture evolving risks. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for detecting insider threats by continuously and dynamically inferring personality-based risk indicators from employees’ writing data using a publicly accessible large language model (Meta AI’s Llama-3.2). These indicators are modeled as time series and processed through AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) models to forecast behavioral deviations. Predicted anomalies are subsequently classified using a hybrid ensemble combining Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) and Random Forest (RF) to distinguish benign variations from genuine insider threats. Our framework identifies behavioral anomalies, provides interpretable detection windows, and achieves the following results on CMU-CERT datasets (r4.2/r5.2): recall (90.0%/86.0%), precision (92.6%/87.7%), ROC-AUC (94.7%/92.6%), MSE (0.231/0.304), MTTD (21.3 days/31.72 days) and a median latency under 230 ms for real-time operation. These results demonstrate significant improvements over baseline static approaches in both detection accuracy and temporal prediction capability. This work advances human-centric and proactive insider threat detection by integrating personality-based risk indicators with predictive modeling, providing a scalable and interpretable solution for real-time dynamic risk assessment in enterprise environments.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInformation and Cyber SecurityFrench-language works237,207