The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
NoDoze: Combatting Threat Alert Fatigue with Automated Provenance Triage
Open accessAbstract
Large enterprises are increasingly relying on threat detection softwares (e.g., Intrusion Detection Systems) to allow them to spot suspicious activities.These softwares generate alerts which must be investigated by cyber analysts to figure out if they are true attacks.Unfortunately, in practice, there are more alerts than cyber analysts can properly investigate.This leads to a "threat alert fatigue" or information overload problem where cyber analysts miss true attack alerts in the noise of false alarms.In this paper, we present NODOZE to combat this challenge using contextual and historical information of generated threat alert.NODOZE first generates a causal dependency graph of an alert event.Then, it assigns an anomaly score to each edge in the dependency graph based on the frequency with which related events have happened before in the enterprise.NODOZE then propagates those scores along the neighboring edges of the graph using a novel network diffusion algorithm and generates an aggregate anomaly score which is used for triaging.We deployed and evaluated NODOZE at NEC Labs America.Evaluation on our dataset of 364 threat alerts shows that NODOZE consistently ranked the true alerts higher than the false alerts based on aggregate anomaly scores.Further, through the introduction of a cutoff threshold for anomaly scores, we estimate that our system decreases the volume of false alarms by 84%, saving analysts' more than 90 hours of investigation time per week.NODOZE generates alert dependency graphs that are two orders of magnitude smaller than those generated by traditional tools without sacrificing the vital information needed for the investigation.Our system has a low average runtime overhead and can be deployed with any threat detection software.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Chandola, V., Banerjee, A., & Kumar, V. (2009) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/1541880.1541882 · Cited by 11,687
Pregel: a system for large-scale graph processing
Malewicz, G., Austern, M. H., Bik, A. J. C., Dehnert, J. C., Horn, I., Leiser, N., & Czajkowski, G. (2010) · Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of data · doi:10.1145/1807167.1807184 · Cited by 3,515
Outside the Closed World: On Using Machine Learning for Network Intrusion Detection
Sommer, R., & Paxson, V. (2010) · 2010 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy · doi:10.1109/sp.2010.25 · Cited by 2,085
Intrusion detection using sequences of system calls
Hofmeyr, S. A., Forrest, S., & Somayaji, A. (1998) · Journal of Computer Security · doi:10.3233/jcs-980109 · Cited by 1,313
Data Mining Approaches for Intrusion Detection
Lee, W., & Stolfo, S. J. (2000) · doi:10.21236/ada401496 · Cited by 1,179
Musa, T. H. A., & Bouras, A. (2022) · Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-2102-4_36 · Cited by 958
Graphviz— Open Source Graph Drawing Tools
Ellson, J., Gansner, E., Koutsofios, L., North, S. C., & Woodhull, G. (2002) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-45848-4_57 · Cited by 761
Mimicry attacks on host-based intrusion detection systems
Wagner, D., & Soto, P. (2002) · Proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on Computer and communications security · doi:10.1145/586110.586145 · Cited by 714
The base-rate fallacy and the difficulty of intrusion detection
Axelsson, S. (2000) · ACM Transactions on Information and System Security · doi:10.1145/357830.357849 · Cited by 638
A fast automaton-based method for detecting anomalous program behaviors
Sekar, R., Bendre, M., Dhurjati, D., & Bollineni, P. (2002) · Proceedings 2001 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. S&P 2001 · doi:10.1109/secpri.2001.924295 · Cited by 554
Cited by
UNICORN: Runtime Provenance-Based Detector for Advanced Persistent Threats
Han, X., Pasquier, T., Bates, A., Mickens, J., & Seltzer, M. (2020) · Proceedings 2020 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium · doi:10.14722/ndss.2020.24046 · Cited by 349
Self-citationNODLINK: An Online System for Fine-Grained APT Attack Detection and Investigation
Li, S., Dong, F., Xiao, X., Wang, H., Shao, F., Chen, J., Guo, Y., Chen, X., & Li, D. (2024) · Proceedings 2024 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium · doi:10.14722/ndss.2024.23204 · Cited by 45
Self-citationHumans and Automation: Augmenting Security Operation Centers
Tilbury, J., & Flowerday, S. (2024) · Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy · doi:10.3390/jcp4030020 · Cited by 30
Incorporating Gradients to Rules: Toward Online, Adaptive Provenance-Based Intrusion Detection
Li, Z., Wang, L., Wang, Z., Shen, X., Xu, H., Chen, Y., & Ji, S. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing · doi:10.1109/tdsc.2025.3611461 · Cited by 2
Self-citationOpen Challenges in Multi-Agent Security: Towards Secure Systems of Interacting AI Agents
de Witt, C. S., Krawiecka, K., Krawczuk, I., Hagag, B., Anderson, W. L., Belcak, P., Bucknall, B., Cai, X., Chopra, A., Cohen, D., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.02077 · Cited by 108
Metadata
- Authors
- Hassan, W. U., Guo, S., Li, D., Chen, Z., Jee, K., Li, Z., & Bates, A.
- Venue
- Proceedings 2019 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium
- Publisher
- Internet Society
- Published
- 2019
- OpenAlex
- W2947745012
- Cited by
- 341
- References
- 40
- FWCI
- 21.14
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: NoDoze: Combatting Threat Alert Fatigue with Automated Provenance Triage. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.14722/ndss.2019.23349
- The paper
- Hassan, W. U., Guo, S., Li, D., Chen, Z., Jee, K., Li, Z., & Bates, A. (2019). NoDoze: Combatting Threat Alert Fatigue with Automated Provenance Triage. Proceedings 2019 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium. https://doi.org/10.14722/ndss.2019.23349
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
