Insider threat prediction based on unsupervised anomaly detection scheme for proactive forensic investigation
Open accessAbstract
The complexity, concealment and infrequency of malicious internal actions make it difficult to detect insider threats. In the process of traditional reactive forensic investigation, analysis and interpretation of the digital evidence are performed after a crime has been committed. Even if insiders can be detected, they have already caused huge damage. In this paper, we propose a novel general unsupervised anomaly detection scheme based on cascaded autoencoders (CAEs) and joint optimization network. Our core idea is to utilize CAEs to do data purification among unlabeled digital evidence, then jointly optimize the dimension reduction and density estimation network to avoid sub-optimal problems. Based on this scheme, we design an end-to-end insider threat prediction framework for proactive forensic investigation, through which we can make real time response to prevent the harmful influences of insider threats in advance. We extract the tractable and scalable feature representation automatically through the data driven Bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory (BiLSTM) feature extractor, waiving the time-consuming and customarily expert dependable feature engineering work. Additionally, a hypergraph correction module is applied to solve the commonly existed relatively high false positive rate problem in insider threat detection. We evaluate our scheme and framework on public benchmark datasets. The empirical experiments demonstrate that our models outperform state-of-the-art unsupervised methods.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The effectiveness of heuristic-based insider threat detection relies heavily on the careful design and fine-tuning of the heuristics themselves.
“However, the effectiveness of heuristic-based insider threat detection relies heavily on the careful design and fine-tuning of the heuristics themselves as demonstrated in [42], [10], [61].”
From A Review of Recent Advances, Challenges, and Opportunities in Malicious Insider Threat Detection Using Machine Learning Methods (2024) · cites this paper as [10]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 49 · Cited by 32
- Authors
- Wei, Y., Chow, K.-P., & Yiu, S.-M.
- Affiliations
- University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Corresponding author
- Yiu, Siu-Ming
- ORCID
- Yiu, Siu-Ming
- Venue
- Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-10
- Volume
- 38
- Pages
- 301126
- ISSN
- 2666-2817 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3124852128
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 4.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Forensic Science International Digital Investigation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital and Cyber Forensics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
- Keywords
- insider threat detection, unsupervised anomaly detection, dimensionality reduction, density estimation, false positive reduction, digital evidence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review