Cited by 133Information and Cyber SecurityNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data

Behavioral Analysis of Insider Threat: A Survey and Bootstrapped Prediction in Imbalanced Data

Azaria, Amos, Richardson, Ariella, Kraus, Sarit, Subrahmanian, V. S.·2014·IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems

Abstract

The problem of insider threat is receiving increasing attention both within the computer science community as well as government and industry. This paper starts by presenting a broad, multidisciplinary survey of insider threat capturing contributions from computer scientists, psychologists, criminologists, and security practitioners. Subsequently, we present the behavioral analysis of insider threat (BAIT) framework, in which we conduct a detailed experiment involving 795 subjects on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) in order to gauge the behaviors that real human subjects follow when attempting to exfiltrate data from within an organization. In the real world, the number of actual insiders found is very small, so supervised machine-learning methods encounter a challenge. Unlike past works, we develop bootstrapping algorithms that learn from highly imbalanced data, mostly unlabeled, and almost no history of user behavior from an insider threat perspective. We develop and evaluate seven algorithms using BAIT and show that they can produce a realistic (and acceptable) balance of precision and recall.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tcss.2014.2377811

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 93 · Cited by 133

Authors
Azaria, A., Richardson, A., Kraus, S., & Subrahmanian, V. S.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Jerusalem College of Technology (IL)
  • Bar-Ilan University (IL)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems
Published
2014-06
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
135-155
ISSN
2329-924X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2025519999
Cited by
133
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 3
FWCI
18.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • ARO (W911NF0910206, W911NF1160215, W911NF1110344, W911NF1410358)
  • ARO Penn State MURI award, in part by the ONR (N000140910685)
  • Maryland Procurement Office (H98230-14-C-0137)
  • Maafat
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Keywords
insider threats, data exfiltration, bootstrapping, class imbalance, unlabeled data, insider threat detection, precision-recall trade-off, human subjects research, Amazon Mechanical Turk

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