这个新数据集把系统、网络和浏览器日志合在一起,还按ATT&CK标准标了攻击手法。拿三个小模型试了一下,分块分类准确率从8%升到90%以上,挺实用的。
研究者构建了一个包含870个会话(70个攻击,800个正常)和约230万事件的多源日志数据集,覆盖系统、网络和浏览器日志。攻击事件用ATT&CK技术ID标注,涉及12种战术和53种技术。使用LoRA微调Qwen2.5-1.5B、Llama-3.2-3B、Phi-4-Mini三个小型语言模型,在分块分类任务上准确率从约8%提升至90%-97%。技术识别任务最佳精确匹配准确率为42%,但部分匹配得分较高,表明模型掌握了大部分推理逻辑。
Multi-Source Cybersecurity Logs: An ATT&CK-Labeled Dataset and SLM Evaluation
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.