REVIEW 2 cited by
Benchmarking Large Language Models for Log Analysis, Security, and Interpretation
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLM) continue to demonstrate their utility in a variety of emergent capabilities in different fields. An area that could benefit from effective language understanding in cybersecurity is the analysis of log files. This work explores LLMs with different architectures (BERT, RoBERTa, DistilRoBERTa, GPT-2, and GPT-Neo) that are benchmarked for their capacity to better analyze application and system log files for security. Specifically, 60 fine-tuned language models for log analysis are deployed and benchmarked. The resulting models demonstrate that they can be used to perform log analysis effectively with fine-tuning being particularly important for appropriate domain adaptation to specific log types. The best-performing fine-tuned sequence classification model (DistilRoBERTa) outperforms the current state-of-the-art; with an average F1-Score of 0.998 across six datasets from both web application and system log sources. To achieve this, we propose and implement a new experimentation pipeline (LLM4Sec) which leverages LLMs for log analysis experimentation, evaluation, and analysis.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Evaluating Large Language Models in Vulnerability Detection Under Variable Context Windows
A benchmark study finds mixed sensitivity of LLM vulnerability detection to tokenized input length, with GPT-4 most robust, though chi-square results lack p-values and artifact release.
-
Large Language Models in Cybersecurity: Applications, Vulnerabilities, and Defense Techniques
A survey that maps LLM applications, vulnerabilities, and defenses across eight cybersecurity domains, but with significant citation and rigor problems.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.