Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

ThreatModeling-LLM: Automating Threat Modeling using Large Language Models for Banking System

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

arxiv 2411.17058 v2 pith:Y27YLUYQ submitted 2024-11-26 cs.CR cs.AI

classification cs.CRcs.AI
keywords threatmodelingbankingllmsdatasetmodelspromptthreatmodeling-llm
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Threat modeling is a crucial component of cybersecurity, particularly for industries such as banking, where the security of financial data is paramount. Traditional threat modeling approaches require expert intervention and manual effort, often leading to inefficiencies and human error. The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) offers a promising avenue for automating these processes, enhancing both efficiency and efficacy. However, this transition is not straightforward due to three main challenges: (1) the lack of publicly available, domain-specific datasets, (2) the need for tailored models to handle complex banking system architectures, and (3) the requirement for real-time, adaptive mitigation strategies that align with compliance standards like NIST 800-53. In this paper, we introduce ThreatModeling-LLM, a novel and adaptable framework that automates threat modeling for banking systems using LLMs. ThreatModeling-LLM operates in three stages: 1) dataset creation, 2) prompt engineering and 3) model fine-tuning. We first generate a benchmark dataset using Microsoft Threat Modeling Tool (TMT). Then, we apply Chain of Thought (CoT) and Optimization by PROmpting (OPRO) on the pre-trained LLMs to optimize the initial prompt. Lastly, we fine-tune the LLM using Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) based on the benchmark dataset and the optimized prompt to improve the threat identification and mitigation generation capabilities of pre-trained LLMs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Rectified Schr\"odinger Bridge Matching for Few-Step Visual Navigation

    cs.RO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    RSBM exploits velocity field invariance across regularization levels to achieve over 94% cosine similarity and 92% success in visual navigation using only 3 integration steps.

  2. Agentic and Generative AI for Open-Source Intelligence and Cyber Investigations: Taxonomy, Evaluation, Challenges, and Future Directions

    cs.CR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across 74 OSINT/CTI AI studies, hallucination is widely named but end-to-end measured in only one non-reproducible system, so a human–AI co-pilot is the most defensible near-term architecture.

  3. On Automating Security Policies with Contemporary LLMs

    cs.CR 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Using a vector database to retrieve relevant API documentation before code generation improves LLM translation of attack mitigation policies into Windows API calls by an average of 22 F1 points.

  4. From Promise to Peril: Rethinking Cybersecurity Red and Blue Teaming in the Age of LLMs

    cs.CR 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    LLMs can assist both attackers and defenders in cybersecurity, but context limits, hallucinations, and weak reasoning make them unsafe to deploy without human oversight and real-world evaluation.

Pith tools