Multi-Source Cybersecurity Logs: An ATT&CK-Labeled Dataset and SLM Evaluation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Multi-stage cyberattacks span system, network, and browser logs. Detecting them requires correlating events across all three sources. Machine learning methods can learn these cross-source patterns, but they need labeled multi-source data. Existing public datasets fall short. Network-only datasets such as CICIDS and UNSW-NB15 miss host and browser activity. Host-focused datasets such as LMDG and CICAPT-IIoT lack browser telemetry. ATLAS includes all three sources but labels events only as malicious or benign, without MITRE Adversarial Tactics, Techniques, and Common Knowledge (ATT&CK) technique granularity. No public dataset combines all three sources with per-entry ATT&CK technique labels. We close the gap by building a multi-source log dataset of 870 sessions (70 attack, 800 benign) and approximately 2.3 million events. We captured system, network, and browser activity simultaneously on Windows endpoints. We labeled malicious events with ATT&CK technique IDs, covering 12 tactics and 53 techniques. We generated all attack data using real tools, including Remote Access Trojan (RAT), Command and Control (C2) tunnels, and cloud exfiltration. To demonstrate learnability, we fine-tuned three Small Language Models (SLMs) (Qwen2.5-1.5B, Llama-3.2-3B, Phi-4-Mini) using Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA). We compared each against its base variant across ten metrics on two tasks: chunk classification and ATT&CK technique identification. Fine-tuning improved every model on every metric. Chunk classification accuracy rose from approximately 8% in the base variants to between 90% and 97% after fine-tuning. Technique identification remained challenging, with the best exact-match accuracy at 42%, although high partial-match scores show the models captured most of the underlying reasoning.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Jun 2026.
Builds on
15 of 29 references.
References · 15
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,380
- 2023QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMscited by 3,418
- 2024A Comprehensive Survey of Small Language Models in the Era of Large Language Models: Techniques, Enhancements, Applications, Collaboration with LLMs, and Trustworthinesscited by 127
- 2023LLMs Cannot Reliably Identify and Reason About Security Vulnerabilities (Yet?): A Comprehensive Evaluation, Framework, and Benchmarkscited by 97
- 2021AttacKG: Constructing Technique Knowledge Graph from Cyber Threat Intelligence Reportscited by 31
- 2022Looking Beyond IoCs: Automatically Extracting Attack Patterns from External CTIcited by 27
- 2023LogGPT: Log Anomaly Detection via GPTcited by 26
- 2025SecVulEval: Benchmarking LLMs for Real-World C/C++ Vulnerability Detectioncited by 19
- 2020Automated Retrieval of ATT&CK Tactics and Techniques for Cyber Threat Reportscited by 17
- 2017Unified Host and Network Data Setcited by 11
- 2021Analyzing the Usefulness of the DARPA OpTC Dataset in Cyber Threat Detection Researchcited by 7
- 2024TTPXHunter: Actionable Threat Intelligence Extraction as TTPs from Finished Cyber Threat Reportscited by 7
Built on by
Not cited yet.