Sleep & Wellness Guide
Multi-Source Cybersecurity Logs: An ATT&CK-Labeled Dataset and SLM Evaluation
Key Takeaway
A robotics research paper on Multi-Source Cybersecurity Logs: An ATT&CK-Labeled Dataset and SLM Evaluation.
Practical Tips
Practical tips and how-to guidance will be added by our editorial team.
中文解读
中文解读待补充:本站将优先为睡眠改善、失眠治疗、助眠方法等高价值文章补充中文说明。
Article Summary
Multi-stage cyberattacks span system, network, and browser logs. Detecting them requires correlating events across all three sources. Machine learning methods can learn these cross-source patterns, but they need labeled multi-source data. Existing public datasets fall short. Network-only datasets such as CICIDS and UNSW-NB15 miss host and browser activity. Host-focused datasets such as LMDG and CICAPT-IIoT lack browser telemetry. ATLAS includes all three sources but labels events only as malicious or benign, without MITRE Adversarial Tactics, Techniques, and Common Knowledge (ATT&CK) technique granularity. No public dataset combines all three sources with per-entry ATT&CK technique labels. We close the gap by building a multi-source log dataset of 870 sessions (70 attack, 800 benign) and approximately 2.3 million events. We captured system, network, and browser activity simultaneously on Windows endpoints. We labeled malicious events with ATT&CK technique IDs, covering 12 tactics and 53 techniques. We generated all attack data using real tools, including Remote Access Trojan (RAT), Command and Control (C2) tunnels, and cloud exfiltration. To demonstrate learnability, we fine-tuned three Small Language Models (SLMs) (Qwen2.5-1.5B, Llama-3.2-3B, Phi-4-Mini) using Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA). We compared each against its base variant across ten metrics on two tasks: chunk classification and ATT&CK technique identification. Fine-tuning improved every model on every metric. Chunk classification accuracy rose from approximately 8% in the base variants to between 90% and 97% after fine-tuning. Technique identification remained challenging, with the best exact-match accuracy at 42%, although high partial-match scores show the models captured most of the underlying reasoning.
Sources & References
Need to track a shipment?
Use our free logistics tracking tool to check real-time delivery status for USPS, FedEx, UPS, DHL, Amazon and 1000+ carriers worldwide.
Track a Package Now
Comments