Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 66 references

MirGuard: Towards a Robust Provenance-based Intrusion Detection System Against Graph Manipulation Attacks

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read MirGuard claims graph manipulation attacks can be neutralized by training provenance detectors on causally valid graph views.

desk verdict Abstract-only PIDS defense paper: sensible idea, real circularity risk, but no way to verify from the abstract alone; worth sending to peer review with a demand for evaluation details. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.10639 v1 pith:CJKN3VIX submitted 2025-08-14 cs.CR

Anyuan Sang , Lu Zhou , Li Yang , Junbo Jia , Huipeng Yang , Pengbin Feng , Jianfeng Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords provenance-basedintrusiondetectiongraphmanipulationattackscontrastivelearninglogic-awareaugmentationanomalyadversarialrobustnesssystemsecurity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Learning-based provenance intrusion detection systems read host activity as graphs, and attackers can evade them by adding, deleting, or rewiring edges. This paper proposes MirGuard, which trains a contrastive encoder on augmented views of provenance graphs produced by Logic-Aware Noise Injection, an augmentation scheme that only makes structural changes permitted by provenance causality rules. MirGuard claims the encoder learns to treat these benign-valid variations as invariant while staying sensitive to adversarial inconsistencies, and reports that it outperforms state-of-the-art detectors against several graph manipulation attacks without sacrificing detection performance or efficiency.

What carries the argument

Logic-Aware Noise Injection (LNI) is a data augmentation procedure that perturbs provenance graph structure only along paths permitted by the underlying causal and provenance logic, generating semantically valid views. These views feed a Logic-Preserving Contrastive Learning objective, which pulls together representations of valid views of the same graph and pushes apart representations of adversarial inconsistencies.

What would settle it

Build a graph manipulation that stays inside the logic rules used by LNI—for example, editing only event timestamps or file hashes while preserving the declared provenance relations—and show that MirGuard's detection rate drops to the level of unmodified detectors. If such an attack exists, the claimed robustness does not generalize beyond the augmentation rules.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the known vulnerability of learning-based PIDSes to graph manipulation can be addressed without giving up detection quality. MirGuard's discovery is a pair: arbitrary graph perturbations are the wrong augmentation for provenance data because they destroy the causal semantics that make intrusions visible, and constraining augmentation to logic-valid views lets contrastive learning separate benign structural noise from adversarial tampering. Evaluations on multiple provenance datasets are offered as evidence that this combination beats prior detectors on robustness while retaining accuracy and speed.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Logic-Aware Noise Injection produces a complete and correct set of semantically valid graph views, so that invariance learned on those views transfers to every realistic graph manipulation an attacker can actually perform.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, provenance-based detectors can treat graph manipulation as a first-class threat rather than an unhandled weakness.
  • Operational deployments would no longer face a strict choice between anomaly-detection accuracy and resilience to adversarial structure changes.
  • The logic-aware augmentation principle could carry to other security domains where the data graph encodes causal dependencies.
  • Because MirGuard preserves efficiency, the robustness gain does not imply a heavier runtime pipeline.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The proof of concept depends on the completeness of the provenance logic rules; an attacker who finds a manipulation that satisfies those rules but still hides malicious activity could invalidate the invariance assumption. This is an extension beyond the paper's stated scope.
  • A natural stress test would generate attack graphs from a different provenance schema or with unusual causal relations and see whether the learned invariance transfers; the paper's abstract does not report such cross-domain evaluation.
  • The method may double as a detector of anomalous causal structure, since contrastive sensitivity to adversarial inconsistencies could flag logic violations even when no labeled attack is present.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript (arXiv:2508.10639) proposes MirGuard, a provenance-based intrusion detection system (PIDS) that combines Logic-Aware Noise Injection (LNI) with contrastive representation learning. The stated goal is to make learning-based PIDSes robust to graph manipulation attacks, where attackers alter provenance graph structure to evade detection. The abstract claims that LNI generates semantically valid graph views that preserve causal semantics, and that a Logic-Preserving Contrastive Learning framework makes representations invariant to benign transformations while remaining sensitive to adversarial inconsistencies. The authors report comprehensive evaluations on multiple provenance datasets, claiming significant improvement over state-of-the-art detectors in robustness without sacrificing detection performance or efficiency. This review is based solely on the abstract, as the full text was not available; consequently, the central empirical and theoretical claims cannot be independently verified from the provided material.

Significance. If the claimed results hold, the work would address a real and current gap: graph manipulation attacks are a known weakness of learning-based PIDSes, and a robust solution that preserves detection accuracy and runtime efficiency would have clear practical value. The conceptual combination of logic-aware augmentation with contrastive learning is a plausible route to building invariance to benign variation and sensitivity to attack-specific inconsistencies. The paper also appears to be among the first to target this specific threat model in a dedicated framework, so the novelty claim is credible at the level of the abstract. However, significance is entirely conditional: the abstract provides no experimental detail, no formal definition of semantic validity, and no evidence that the LNI rule set covers the full space of causal dependencies in provenance data. A definitive assessment of significance must await the full manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract (empirical evaluation)] The central claim that 'MirGuard significantly outperforms state-of-the-art detectors' is under-specified to the point of being unverifiable as stated. The abstract names no datasets, no baseline systems, no detection metrics (e.g., precision/recall/F1, AUC, detection rate at a given false-positive rate), no effect sizes, and no error bars. Without these, the reader cannot assess whether the improvement is statistically meaningful or whether the 'without sacrificing detection performance and efficiency' clause is supported. This is not a demonstrated flaw in the proposed method, but it is a load-bearing omission for the paper's main claim. The authors should provide concrete evaluation details in the main text and, ideally, a reproducibility statement with code and data.
  2. [Abstract (Logic-Aware Noise Injection)] The abstract defines LNI as generating 'semantically valid graph views' that 'preserve the underlying causal semantics,' but it gives no formal definition of semantic validity, no characterization of the logic rules used, and no evidence that the rule set covers all event types and dependency relations that appear in provenance data. This is load-bearing because the entire robustness argument rests on the premise that the augmentation family matches the space of benign transformations while remaining disjoint from adversarial manipulations. If the rule set is incomplete, contrastive learning may enforce invariance only to a narrow subclass of benign edits and may fail to detect attacks that involve unmodeled edges or event types. The authors should formalize semantic validity, state the logic rule coverage assumptions, and test robustness against out-of-distribution manipulations that th
  3. [Abstract (contrastive sensitivity)] The abstract claims that Logic-Preserving Contrastive Learning makes representations 'invariant to benign transformations but sensitive to adversarial inconsistencies.' This is a strong dichotomy that is not established by the abstract. Invariance to a set of augmented views does not automatically imply sensitivity to all other structural changes; the learned representation could collapse benign and adversarial perturbations into the same region, or the contrastive loss could overfit to the specific augmentation distribution. The authors need to justify this transfer property, either through a theoretical argument linking the contrastive objective to a measurable separability condition, or through experiments that vary the attack type and attack strength independently from the augmentation distribution.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The term 'graph manipulation attacks' is used without a taxonomy or examples; specifying the attack types (e.g., adding/deleting edges, injecting fake nodes, rewiring) would help readers immediately understand the threat model.
  2. [Abstract] 'Logic-Preserving Contrastive Learning' and 'Logic-Aware Noise Injection' are introduced as named contributions but not defined in the abstract; a one-sentence clarification of each would improve accessibility.
  3. [Abstract] The phrase 'without sacrificing detection performance and efficiency' is a quantitative claim but is not accompanied by any numbers or a comparative baseline; the authors should state at least the order-of-magnitude overhead and the detection performance on a representative dataset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity identifiable from abstract; full text unavailable and no reduction is demonstrated.

full rationale

The abstract alone does not provide enough detail to exhibit any circular step. The described pipeline—Logic-Aware Noise Injection (LNI) generating semantically valid graph views, followed by Logic-Preserving Contrastive Learning, then evaluation against graph manipulation attacks—does not, on its face, define the evaluation metric in terms of the training objective, nor does it show that the attacks are generated from the same perturbation family as the LNI views. To establish circularity, one would need to quote equations or passages showing, e.g., that the 'graph manipulation attacks' used in evaluation are literally LNI-generated views, or that 'semantic validity' is defined as detection robustness. No such passages are available. The conditional risk that LNI's logic rules may be incomplete is a correctness/robustness concern, not circularity. Therefore, under the hard rule requiring specific quoted reduction, no circularity is found, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 1 invented entities

These ledger entries reflect what can be inferred from the abstract alone. The concrete hyperparameters, rule definitions, and evaluation specifics of MirGuard are not visible, so all numbers are listed as undisclosed. LNI is the paper's central invented mechanism and has no independent falsifiable handle beyond the paper's own evaluation.

free parameters (2)
  • Contrastive loss hyperparameters (temperature / margin, augmentation strength) = not disclosed in abstract
    The robustness of contrastive representations depends on these tuning parameters, typically selected on validation data; their values affect the claimed invariance and are not reported.
  • LNI perturbation constraints/logic rule thresholds = not disclosed in abstract
    Logic-aware noise injection requires thresholds or rule sets defining 'semantically valid' views; these determine the augmentation distribution and are central to the method, but unspecified.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Provenance graph causality can be fully encoded in the logic rules used by LNI.
    LNI's guarantee that augmentations preserve causal semantics rests on this encoding; incomplete rules would break semantic validity.
  • ad hoc to paper Contrastive training on benign augmented views creates representations where adversarial inconsistencies are detectable.
    The central learning hypothesis of the paper; no theoretical guarantee is evident from the abstract.
invented entities (1)
  • Logic-Aware Noise Injection (LNI)
    purpose: Generates semantically valid augmented graph views that preserve causal semantics for contrastive learning.
    No external falsifiable prediction outside the paper's own evaluation; its validity is only demonstrated through the reported performance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MirGuard: Towards a Robust Provenance-based Intrusion Detection System Against Graph Manipulation Attacks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CJKN3VIX

@misc{pith2026250810639,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MirGuard: Towards a Robust Provenance-based Intrusion Detection System Against Graph Manipulation Attacks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CJKN3VIX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.10639}
}
read the original abstract

Learning-based Provenance-based Intrusion Detection Systems (PIDSes) have become essential tools for anomaly detection in host systems due to their ability to capture rich contextual and structural information, as well as their potential to detect unknown attacks. However, recent studies have shown that these systems are vulnerable to graph manipulation attacks, where attackers manipulate the graph structure to evade detection. While some previous approaches have discussed this type of attack, none have fully addressed it with a robust detection solution, limiting the practical applicability of PIDSes. To address this challenge, we propose MirGuard, a robust anomaly detection framework that combines logic-aware multi-view augmentation with contrastive representation learning. Rather than applying arbitrary structural perturbations, MirGuard introduces Logic-Aware Noise Injection (LNI) to generate semantically valid graph views, ensuring that all augmentations preserve the underlying causal semantics of the provenance data. These views are then used in a Logic-Preserving Contrastive Learning framework, which encourages the model to learn representations that are invariant to benign transformations but sensitive to adversarial inconsistencies. Comprehensive evaluations on multiple provenance datasets demonstrate that MirGuard significantly outperforms state-of-the-art detectors in robustness against various graph manipulation attacks without sacrificing detection performance and efficiency. Our work represents the first targeted study to enhance PIDS against such adversarial threats, providing a robust and effective solution to modern cybersecurity challenges.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    11em plus .33em minus .07em 4000 4000 100 4000 4000 500 `\.=1000 = #1 \@IEEEnotcompsoconly \@IEEEcompsoconly #1 * [1] 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * [1] 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * \| ** #1 \@IEEEauthorblockNstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEauthorblockAstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEcompsocconfonly \@IEEEauthordefaulttextstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEauthor...

    work page

  2. [2]

    ``Apt notes.'' https://github.com/kbandla/APTnotes, Last accessed on 2024-6-25

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    M. A. Inam, Y. Chen, A. Goyal, J. Liu, J. Mink, N. Michael, S. Gaur, A. Bates, and W. U. Hassan, ``Sok: History is a vast early warning system: Auditing the provenance of system intrusions,'' in 2023 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) , pp. 307--325, IEEE Computer Society, 2022

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    F. Dong, S. Li, P. Jiang, D. Li, H. Wang, L. Huang, X. Xiao, J. Chen, X. Luo, Y. Guo, et al. , ``Are we there yet? an industrial viewpoint on provenance-based endpoint detection and response tools,'' in Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , pp. 2396--2410, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    M. N. Hossain, S. M. Milajerdi, J. Wang, B. Eshete, R. Gjomemo, R. Sekar, S. D. Stoller, and V. Venkatakrishnan, ``Sleuth: Real-time attack scenario reconstruction from cots audit data.,'' in USENIX Security Symposium , pp. 487--504, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    S. M. Milajerdi, R. Gjomemo, B. Eshete, R. Sekar, and V. Venkatakrishnan, ``Holmes: real-time apt detection through correlation of suspicious information flows,'' in 2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) , pp. 1137--1152, IEEE, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    W. U. Hassan, A. Bates, and D. Marino, ``Tactical provenance analysis for endpoint detection and response systems,'' in 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) , pp. 1172--1189, IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    T. Zhu, J. Yu, C. Xiong, W. Cheng, Q. Yuan, J. Ying, T. Chen, J. Zhang, M. Lv, Y. Chen, et al. , ``Aptshield: A stable, efficient and real-time apt detection system for linux hosts,'' IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing , 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    F. Yang, J. Xu, C. Xiong, Z. Li, and K. Zhang, ``Prographer: An anomaly detection system based on provenance graph embedding,'' in 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23) , pp. 4355--4372, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Q. Wang, W. U. Hassan, D. Li, K. Jee, X. Yu, K. Zou, J. Rhee, Z. Chen, W. Cheng, C. A. Gunter, et al. , ``You are what you do: Hunting stealthy malware via data provenance analysis.,'' in NDSS , 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    S. Wang, Z. Wang, T. Zhou, H. Sun, X. Yin, D. Han, H. Zhang, X. Shi, and J. Yang, ``Threatrace: Detecting and tracing host-based threats in node level through provenance graph learning,'' IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security , vol. 17, pp. 3972--3987, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    J. Zeng, X. Wang, J. Liu, Y. Chen, Z. Liang, T.-S. Chua, and Z. L. Chua, ``Shadewatcher: Recommendation-guided cyber threat analysis using system audit records,'' in 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) , pp. 489--506, IEEE, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Z. Jia, Y. Xiong, Y. Nan, Y. Zhang, J. Zhao, and M. Wen, ``Magic: Detecting advanced persistent threats via masked graph representation learning,'' in 33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24) , pp. 5197--5214, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Cheng, Q

    Z. Cheng, Q. Lv, J. Liang, Y. Wang, D. Sun, T. Pasquier, and X. Han, ``Kairos: Practical intrusion detection and investigation using whole-system provenance,'' in 2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) , pp. 3533--3551, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    M. U. Rehman, H. Ahmadi, and W. U. Hassan, ``Flash: A comprehensive approach to intrusion detection via provenance graph representation learning,'' in 2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) , pp. 139--139, IEEE Computer Society, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Shen and G

    Y. Shen and G. Stringhini, ``Attack2vec: Leveraging temporal word embeddings to understand the evolution of cyberattacks,'' 28 st USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 2019) , 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Goyal, X

    A. Goyal, X. Han, G. Wang, and A. Bates, ``Sometimes, you aren’t what you do: Mimicry attacks against provenance graph host intrusion detection systems,'' in 30th Network and Distributed System Security Symposium , 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Mukherjee, J

    K. Mukherjee, J. Wiedemeier, T. Wang, J. Wei, F. Chen, M. Kim, M. Kantarcioglu, and K. Jee, ``Evading provenance-based ml detectors with adversarial system actions,'' in 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23) , (Anaheim, CA), pp. 1199--1216, USENIX Association, Aug. 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    A. Sang, Y. Wang, L. Yang, J. Jia, and L. Zhou, ``Obfuscating provenance-based forensic investigations with mapping system meta-behavior,'' in Proceedings of the 27th International Symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusions and Defenses , RAID '24, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Croce and M

    F. Croce and M. Hein, ``Reliable evaluation of adversarial robustness with an ensemble of diverse parameter-free attacks,'' in Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , pp. 2206--2216, PMLR, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Athalye, N

    A. Athalye, N. Carlini, and D. Wagner, ``Obfuscated gradients give a false sense of security: Circumventing defenses to adversarial examples,'' in Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning , pp. 274--283, PMLR, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    X. Han, X. Yu, T. Pasquier, D. Li, J. Rhee, J. Mickens, M. Seltzer, and H. Chen, ``Sigl: Securing software installations through deep graph learning,'' in 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21) , pp. 2345--2362, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Q. Wang, W. Guo, K. Zhang, A. G. Ororbia, X. Xing, C. L. Giles, and X. Liu, ``Adversary resistant deep neural networks with an application to malware detection,'' in Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pp. 1145--...

    2017

  16. [24]

    Al-Dujaili, A

    A. Al-Dujaili, A. Huang, E. Hemberg, and U.-M. O'Reilly, ``Adversarial deep learning for robust detection of binary encoded malware,'' in 2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW) , pp. 76--82, IEEE, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Y. You, T. Chen, Y. Sui, T. Chen, Z. Wang, and Y. Shen, ``Graph contrastive learning with augmentations,'' Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 5812--5823, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Hassani and A

    K. Hassani and A. H. Khasahmadi, ``Contrastive multi-view representation learning on graphs,'' in International conference on machine learning , pp. 4116--4126, PMLR, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    ``Transparent computing engagement 3 datarelease..'' https://github.com/darpa-i2o/Transparent Computing/blob/master/README-E3.md, Last accessed on 2024-5-21

    2024

  20. [28]

    ``Streamspot dataset.'' https://github.com/sbustreamspot/sbustreamspot-data, Last accessed on 2024-5-29

    2024

  21. [29]

    X. Han, T. Pasquier, A. Bates, J. Mickens, and M. Seltzer, ``Unicorn: Runtime provenance-based detector for advanced persistent threats,'' NDSS , 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    W. U. Hassan, S. Guo, D. Li, Z. Chen, K. Jee, Z. Li, and A. Bates, ``Nodoze: Combatting threat alert fatigue with automated provenance triage,'' in network and distributed systems security symposium , 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    P. Fang, P. Gao, C. Liu, E. Ayday, K. Jee, T. Wang, Y. F. Ye, Z. Liu, and X. Xiao, `` \ Back-Propagating \ system dependency impact for attack investigation,'' in 31st USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 22) , pp. 2461--2478, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Y. Liu, M. Zhang, D. Li, K. Jee, Z. Li, Z. Wu, J. Rhee, and P. Mittal, ``Towards a timely causality analysis for enterprise security.,'' in NDSS , 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Alsaheel, Y

    A. Alsaheel, Y. Nan, S. Ma, L. Yu, G. Walkup, Z. B. Celik, X. Zhang, and D. Xu, ``Atlas: A sequence-based learning approach for attack investigation.,'' in USENIX Security Symposium , pp. 3005--3022, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Bates, D

    A. Bates, D. J. Tian, K. R. Butler, and T. Moyer, ``Trustworthy \ Whole-System \ provenance for the linux kernel,'' in 24th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 15) , pp. 319--334, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Pasquier, X

    T. Pasquier, X. Han, M. Goldstein, T. Moyer, D. Eyers, M. Seltzer, and J. Bacon, ``Practical whole-system provenance capture,'' in Proceedings of the 2017 Symposium on Cloud Computing , pp. 405--418, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Paccagnella, P

    R. Paccagnella, P. Datta, W. U. Hassan, A. Bates, C. Fletcher, A. Miller, and D. Tian, ``Custos: Practical tamper-evident auditing of operating systems using trusted execution,'' in Network and distributed system security symposium , 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    J. Zeng, C. Zhang, and Z. Liang, ``Palant \' r: Optimizing attack provenance with hardware-enhanced system observability,'' in Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , pp. 3135--3149, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. Zeng, Y. Zhang, A. Ahmad, F. Zhang, H. Jin, and Z. Liang, ``The hitchhiker's guide to high-assurance system observability protection with efficient permission switches,'' in Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security ,...

    2024

  31. [39]

    S. T. King and P. M. Chen, ``Backtracking intrusions,'' in Proceedings of the nineteenth ACM symposium on Operating systems principles , pp. 223--236, 2003

    2003

  32. [40]

    S. T. King, Z. M. Mao, D. G. Lucchetti, and P. M. Chen, ``Enriching intrusion alerts through multi-host causality.,'' in Ndss , Citeseer, 2005

    2005

  33. [41]

    Z. Xu, Z. Wu, Z. Li, K. Jee, J. Rhee, X. Xiao, F. Xu, H. Wang, and G. Jiang, ``High fidelity data reduction for big data security dependency analyses,'' in Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security , pp. 504--516, 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    M. M. Breunig, H.-P. Kriegel, R. T. Ng, and J. Sander, ``Lof: identifying density-based local outliers,'' in Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data , pp. 93--104, 2000

    2000

  35. [43]

    Sch \"o lkopf, R

    B. Sch \"o lkopf, R. C. Williamson, A. Smola, J. Shawe-Taylor, and J. Platt, ``Support vector method for novelty detection,'' Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 12, 1999

    1999

  36. [44]

    G. Guo, H. Wang, D. Bell, Y. Bi, and K. Greer, ``Knn model-based approach in classification,'' in On The Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2003: CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE: OTM Confederated International Conferences, CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE 2003, Catania, Sicily, Italy, Novembe...

    2003

  37. [45]

    F. T. Liu, K. M. Ting, and Z.-H. Zhou, ``Isolation forest,'' in 2008 eighth ieee international conference on data mining , pp. 413--422, IEEE, 2008

    2008

  38. [46]

    Manzoor, S

    E. Manzoor, S. M. Milajerdi, and L. Akoglu, ``Fast memory-efficient anomaly detection in streaming heterogeneous graphs,'' in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , pp. 1035--1044, 2016

    2016

  39. [47]

    Paszke, S

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, et al. , ``Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,'' Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    M. Wang, D. Zheng, Z. Ye, Q. Gan, M. Li, X. Song, J. Zhou, C. Ma, L. Yu, Y. Gai, et al. , ``Deep graph library: A graph-centric, highly-performant package for graph neural networks,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01315 , 2019

    1909 arXiv

  41. [49]

    L. Wang, X. Shen, W. Li, Z. Li, R. Sekar, H. Liu, and Y. Chen, ``Incorporating gradients to rules: Towards lightweight, adaptive provenance-based intrusion detection,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14720 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Jiang, T

    B. Jiang, T. Bilot, N. El Madhoun, K. Al Agha, A. Zouaoui, S. Iqbal, X. Han, and T. Pasquier, `` ORTHRUS: Achieving High Quality of Attribution in Provenance-based Intrusion Detection Systems ,'' in Security Symposium (USENIX Sec'25) , USENIX, 2025

    2025

  43. [51]

    Goyal, G

    A. Goyal, G. Wang, and A. Bates, ``R-caid: Embedding root cause analysis within provenance-based intrusion detection,'' in Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) , pp. 257--257, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Hamilton, Z

    W. Hamilton, Z. Ying, and J. Leskovec, ``Inductive representation learning on large graphs,'' Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  45. [53]

    Velickovic, W

    P. Velickovic, W. Fedus, W. L. Hamilton, P. Li \`o , Y. Bengio, and R. D. Hjelm, ``Deep graph infomax.,'' ICLR (Poster) , vol. 2, no. 3, p. 4, 2019

    2019

  46. [54]

    Q. Tan, N. Liu, X. Huang, R. Chen, S.-H. Choi, and X. Hu, ``Mgae: Masked autoencoders for self-supervised learning on graphs,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.02534 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Y. Liu, X. Shu, Y. Sun, J. Jang, and P. Mittal, ``Rapid: Real-time alert investigation with context-aware prioritization for efficient threat discovery,'' in Proceedings of the 38th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference , pp. 827--840, 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    S. M. Milajerdi, B. Eshete, R. Gjomemo, and V. Venkatakrishnan, ``Poirot: Aligning attack behavior with kernel audit records for cyber threat hunting,'' in Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security , pp. 1795--1812, 2019

    2019

  49. [57]

    M. N. Hossain, S. Sheikhi, and R. Sekar, ``Combating dependence explosion in forensic analysis using alternative tag propagation semantics,'' in 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) , pp. 1139--1155, IEEE, 2020

    2020

  50. [58]

    F. Liu, Y. Wen, D. Zhang, X. Jiang, X. Xing, and D. Meng, ``Log2vec: A heterogeneous graph embedding based approach for detecting cyber threats within enterprise,'' in Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security , pp. 1777--1794, 2019

    2019

  51. [59]

    Wagner and P

    D. Wagner and P. Soto, ``Mimicry attacks on host-based intrusion detection systems,'' in Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security , pp. 255--264, 2002

    2002

  52. [60]

    Z. Li, R. Yang, Q. A. Chen, and Y. Chen, ``Mimic the whole attack chain: A first look at evasion against provenance graph based detection,'' 2020

    2020

  53. [61]

    H. Dai, H. Li, T. Tian, X. Huang, L. Wang, J. Zhu, and L. Song, ``Adversarial attack on graph structured data,'' in International conference on machine learning , pp. 1115--1124, PMLR, 2018

    2018

  54. [62]

    L. Sun, Y. Dou, C. Yang, K. Zhang, J. Wang, S. Y. Philip, L. He, and B. Li, ``Adversarial attack and defense on graph data: A survey,'' IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 7693--7711, 2022

    2022

  55. [63]

    K. Xu, X. Ma, L. Liu, D. Deb, J. Liu, J. Tang, J. Fan, J. Bailey, and D. Song, ``Topology attack and defense for graph neural networks: An optimization perspective,'' in Proceedings of the 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) , pp. 3961--3967, 2019

    2019

  56. [64]

    X. Wu, X. Shi, H. Cheng, J. Zhou, and Y. Li, ``Adversarial examples on graph data: Deep insights into attack and defense,'' in Proceedings of the 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) , pp. 3776--3782, 2019

    2019

  57. [65]

    W. Jin, Y. Ma, X. Liu, X. Tang, S. Wang, and J. Tang, ``Graph structure learning for robust graph neural networks,'' in Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining , pp. 66--74, 2020

    2020

  58. [66]

    J. Guo, K. Huang, X. Yi, Z. Su, and R. Zhang, ``Rethinking spectral graph neural networks with spatially adaptive filtering,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09071 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.