Paper detail

AttacKG: Constructing Technique Knowledge Graph from Cyber Threat Intelligence Reports

Cyber attacks are becoming more sophisticated and diverse, making detection increasingly challenging. To combat these attacks, security practitioners actively summarize and exchange their knowledge about attacks across organizations in the form of cyber threat intelligence (CTI) reports. However, as CTI reports written in natural language texts are not structured for automatic analysis, the report usage requires tedious manual efforts of cyber threat intelligence recovery. Additionally, individual reports typically cover only a limited aspect of attack patterns (techniques) and thus are insufficient to provide a comprehensive view of attacks with multiple variants. To take advantage of threat intelligence delivered by CTI reports, we propose AttacKG to automatically extract structured attack behavior graphs from CTI reports and identify the adopted attack techniques. We then aggregate cyber threat intelligence across reports to collect different aspects of techniques and enhance attack behavior graphs into technique knowledge graphs (TKGs). In our evaluation against 1,515 real-world CTI reports from diverse intelligence sources, AttacKG effectively identifies 28,262 attack techniques with 8,393 unique Indicators of Compromises (IoCs). To further verify the accuracy of AttacKG in extracting threat intelligence, we run AttacKG on 16 manually labeled CTI reports. Empirical results show that AttacKG accurately identifies attack-relevant entities, dependencies, and techniques with F1-scores of 0.887, 0.896, and 0.789, which outperforms the state-of-the-art approaches Extractor and TTPDrill. Moreover, the unique technique-level intelligence will directly benefit downstream security tasks that rely on technique specifications, e.g., APT detection and cyber attack reconstruction.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.