Cited by 29Network Security and Intrusion DetectionInformation and Cyber SecuritySoftware System Performance and Reliability

DeepTaskAPT: Insider APT detection using Task-tree based Deep Learning

Open access
Mamun, Mohammad, Shi, Kevin·2021·2021 IEEE 20th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom)

Abstract

APT, known as Advanced Persistent Threat, is a difficult challenge for cyber defence. These threats make many traditional defences ineffective as the vulnerabilities exploited by these threats are insiders who have access to and are within the network. This paper proposes DeepTaskAPT, a heterogeneous task-tree based deep learning method to construct a baseline model based on sequences of tasks using a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) neural network that can be applied across different users to identify anomalous behaviour. Rather than applying the model to sequential log entries directly, as most current approaches do, DeepTaskAPT applies a process tree based task generation method to generate sequential log entries for the deep learning model. To assess the performance of DeepTaskAPT, we use a recently released synthetic dataset, DARPA Operationally Transparent Computing (OpTC) dataset and a real-world dataset, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) dataset. Both of them are composed of host-based data collected from sensors. Our results show that DeepTaskAPT outperforms similar approaches e.g. DeepLog and the DeepTaskAPT baseline model demonstrate its capability to detect malicious traces in various attack scenarios while having high accuracy and low false-positive rates. To the best of knowledge this is the very first attempt of using recently introduced OpTC dataset for cyber threat detection.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/trustcom53373.2021.00102

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 23 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mamun, M., & Shi, K.
Affiliations
National Research Council Canada (CA)
Venue
2021 IEEE 20th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2021-10
Pages
693-700
OpenAlex
W3196544260
Cited by
29
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3
FWCI
3.47
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • NPARC (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
Keywords
advanced persistent threats, insider threat detection, task trees, process trees, anomaly detection, host-based intrusion detection, LSTM

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