PreprintCited by 25Topic ModelingAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection

Advancing TTP Analysis: Harnessing the Power of Large Language Models with Retrieval Augmented Generation

Open access
Fayyazi, Reza, Taghdimi, Rozhina, Yang, Shanchieh Jay·2024·arXiv

Preprint — published as 10.1109/acsacw65225.2024.00036

Abstract

Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) outline the methods attackers use to exploit vulnerabilities. The interpretation of TTPs in the MITRE ATT&CK framework can be challenging for cybersecurity practitioners due to presumed expertise and complex dependencies. Meanwhile, advancements with Large Language Models (LLMs) have led to recent surge in studies exploring its uses in cybersecurity operations. It is, however, unclear how LLMs can be used in an efficient and proper way to provide accurate responses for critical domains such as cybersecurity. This leads us to investigate how to better use two types of LLMs: small-scale encoder-only (e.g., RoBERTa) and larger decoder-only (e.g., GPT-3.5) LLMs to comprehend and summarize TTPs with the intended purposes (i.e., tactics) of a cyberattack procedure. This work studies and compares the uses of supervised fine-tuning (SFT) of encoder-only LLMs vs. Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) for decoder-only LLMs (without fine-tuning). Both SFT and RAG techniques presumably enhance the LLMs with relevant contexts for each cyberattack procedure. Our studies show decoder-only LLMs with RAG achieves better performance than encoder-only models with SFT, particularly when directly relevant context is extracted by RAG. The decoder-only results could suffer low `Precision' while achieving high `Recall'. Our findings further highlight a counter-intuitive observation that more generic prompts tend to yield better predictions of cyberattack tactics than those that are more specifically tailored.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2401.00280

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • RAG significantly improves the explanation of TTPs by providing relevant context, highlighting the potential of LLMs in threat intelligence.

    “It reveals that RAG significantly improves the explanation of TTPs by providing relevant context, highlighting the potential of LLMs in threat intelligence.”

    From When LLMs meet cybersecurity: a systematic literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Fayyazi et al. 2024

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Ehsan Aghaei, Xi Niu, Waseem Shadid, and Ehab Al-Shaer. SecureBERT: A domain-specific language model for cybersecurity. International Conference on Security and Privacy in Communication Systems, pp. 39-56, 2022.
  2. Yasmina Al Ghadban, Huiqi Yvonne Lu, Uday Adavi, Ankita Sharma, Sridevi Gara, Neelan- jana Das, Bhaskar Kumar, Renu John, Praveen Devarsetty, and Jane E Hirst. Transforming healthcare education: Harnessing large language models for frontline health worker capacity building using retrieval-augmented generation. medRxiv, pp. 2023-12, 2023.
  3. Paulo MMR Alves, PR Geraldo Filho, and Vinícius P Gonc ¸alves. Leveraging BERT's power to classify TTP from unstructured text. 2022 Workshop on Communication Networks and Power Systems (WCNPS), pp. 1-7, 2022.
  4. Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George Bm Van Den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, et al. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 2206-2240, 2022.
  5. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, pp. 4171-4186, 2019.
  6. Reza Fayyazi and Shanchieh Jay Yang. On the uses of large language models to interpret ambiguous cyberattack descriptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14062, 2023. · arXiv
  7. Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, Weitao Ma, Weihong Zhong, Zhangyin Feng, Haotian Wang, Qianglong Chen, Weihua Peng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, et al. A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05232, 2023. · arXiv
  8. Ghaith Husari, Ehab Al-Shaer, Mohiuddin Ahmed, Bill Chu, and Xi Niu. TTPDrill: Au- tomatic and accurate extraction of threat actions from unstructured text of CTI sources. Proceedings of the 33rd annual computer security applications conference, pp. 103-115, 2017.
  9. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pre-training approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692, 2019. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/1907.11692v1. · arXiv
  10. Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness of parametric and non-parametric memories. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 9802-9822, 2023.
  11. Bonan Min, Hayley Ross, Elior Sulem, Amir Pouran Ben Veyseh, Thien Huu Nguyen, Oscar Sainz, Eneko Agirre, Ilana Heintz, and Dan Roth. Recent advances in natural language processing via large pre-trained language models: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 56 (2):1-40, 2023.
  12. Vittorio Orbinato, Mariarosaria Barbaraci, Roberto Natella, and Domenico Cotroneo. Auto- matic mapping of unstructured cyber threat intelligence: An experimental study:(practical experience report). IEEE 33rd International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE), pp. 181-192, 2022.
  13. Ori Ram, Yoav Levine, Itay Dalmedigos, Dor Muhlgay, Amnon Shashua, Kevin Leyton- Brown, and Yoav Shoham. In-context retrieval-augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.00083, 2023. · arXiv
  14. Nanda Rani, Bikash Saha, Vikas Maurya, and Sandeep Kumar Shukla. TTPHunter: Auto- mated extraction of actionable intelligence as TTPs from narrative threat reports. Proceed- ings of the 2023 Australasian Computer Science Week, pp. 126-134, 2023.
  15. Vipula Rawte, Swagata Chakraborty, Agnibh Pathak, Anubhav Sarkar, SM Tonmoy, Aman Chadha, Amit P Sheth, and Amitava Das. The troubling emergence of hallucination in large language models-an extensive definition, quantification, and prescriptive remedia- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04988, 2023. · arXiv
  16. Clemens Sauerwein and Alexander Pfohl. Towards automated classification of attackers' TTPs by combining NLP with ML techniques. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.08478, 2022. · arXiv
  17. Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023. · arXiv
  18. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 2017.
  19. Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223, 3 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.18223v10. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fayyazi, R., Taghdimi, R., & Yang, S. J.
Affiliations
  • Rochester Institute of Technology (US)
  • Gonzaga University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Pages
255-261
OpenAlex
W4408566170
Cited by
25
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 1
FWCI
7.38
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annual Computer Security Applications Conference Workshops (ACSAC Workshops) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
Keywords
tactics, techniques, and procedures, MITRE ATT&CK, large language models, retrieval-augmented generation, decoder-only LLMs, supervised fine-tuning, hallucinations, prompt engineering, threat intelligence

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