Is the Digital Forensics and Incident Response Pipeline Ready for Text-Based Threats in LLM Era?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In the era of generative AI, the widespread adoption of Neural Text Generators (NTGs) presents new cybersecurity challenges, particularly within the realms of Digital Forensics and Incident Response (DFIR). These challenges primarily involve the detection and attribution of sources behind advanced attacks like spearphishing and disinformation campaigns. As NTGs evolve, the task of distinguishing between human and NTG-authored texts becomes critically complex. This paper rigorously evaluates the DFIR pipeline tailored for text-based security systems, specifically focusing on the challenges of detecting and attributing authorship of NTG-authored texts. By introducing a novel human-NTG co-authorship text attack, termed CS-ACT, our study uncovers significant vulnerabilities in traditional DFIR methodologies, highlighting discrepancies between ideal scenarios and real-world conditions. Utilizing 14 diverse datasets and 43 unique NTGs, up to the latest GPT-4, our research identifies substantial vulnerabilities in the forensic profiling phase, particularly in attributing authorship to NTGs. Our comprehensive evaluation points to factors such as model sophistication and the lack of distinctive style within NTGs as significant contributors for these vulnerabilities. Our findings underscore the necessity for more sophisticated and adaptable strategies, such as incorporating adversarial learning, stylizing NTGs, and implementing hierarchical attribution through the mapping of NTG lineages to enhance source attribution. This sets the stage for future research and the development of more resilient text-based security systems.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 33 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jul 2024.
Builds on
33 of 57 references.
References · 33
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
- 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 667
- 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 505
- 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
- 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 472
- 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 401
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Model (LLM) Security and Privacy: The Good, the Bad, and the Uglycited by 380
- 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 372
- 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 260
- 2023DetectLLM: Leveraging Log Rank Information for Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 207
- 2020BadNL: Backdoor Attacks against NLP Models with Semantic-preserving Improvementscited by 191
- 2020Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Surveycited by 160
21 more
- 2023From ChatGPT to ThreatGPT: Impact of Generative AI in Cybersecurity and Privacycited by 137
- 2023MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wildcited by 130
- 2021TURINGBENCH: A Benchmark Environment for Turing Test in the Age of Neural Text Generationcited by 118
- 2020TweepFake: about Detecting Deepfake Tweetscited by 117
- 2023MGTBench: Benchmarking Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 90
- 2022Machine Generated Text: A Comprehensive Survey of Threat Models and Detection Methodscited by 75
- 2023Contrasting Linguistic Patterns in Human and LLM-Generated News Textcited by 62
- 2023Multiscale Positive-Unlabeled Detection of AI-Generated Textscited by 59
- 2023Red Teaming Language Model Detectors with Language Modelscited by 55
- 2022Attribution and Obfuscation of Neural Text Authorship: A Data Mining Perspectivecited by 40
- 2020GRUEN for Evaluating Linguistic Quality of Generated Textcited by 37
- 2022Deepfake Text Detection: Limitations and Opportunitiescited by 37
- 2023Overview of AuTexTification at IberLEF 2023: Detection and Attribution of Machine-Generated Text in Multiple Domainscited by 31
- 2024Humanizing Machine-Generated Content: Evading AI-Text Detection through Adversarial Attackcited by 27
- 2023Token Prediction as Implicit Classification to Identify LLM-Generated Textcited by 26
- 2023From Text to Source: Results in Detecting Large Language Model-Generated Contentcited by 25
- 2022Whodunit? Learning to Contrast for Authorship Attributioncited by 17
- 2022SynSciPass: detecting appropriate uses of scientific text generationcited by 10
- 2021Fingerprinting Fine-tuned Language Models in the Wildcited by 9
- 2023A Comprehensive Analysis of the Role of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Modern Digital Forensics and Incident Responsecited by 8
- 2024Dive into the Chasm: Probing the Gap between In- and Cross-Topic Generalizationcited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026TxRay: Agentic Postmortem of Live Blockchain Attackscited by 2
- 2026TxRay: Agentic Postmortem of Live Blockchain Attacks1 Feb 2026