Justin M. Beaver

Robert A. Bridges, Sean Oesch, Miki E. Verma et al.

In this paper, we present a scientific evaluation of four prominent malware detection tools to assist an organization with two primary questions: To what extent do ML-based tools accurately classify previously- and never-before-seen files? Is it worth purchasing a network-level malware detector? To identify weaknesses, we tested each tool against 3,536 total files (2,554 or 72\% malicious, 982 or 28\% benign) of a variety of file types, including hundreds of malicious zero-days, polyglots, and APT-style files, delivered on multiple protocols. We present statistical results on detection time and accuracy, consider complementary analysis (using multiple tools together), and provide two novel applications of the recent cost-benefit evaluation procedure of Iannacone \& Bridges. While the ML-based tools are more effective at detecting zero-day files and executables, the signature-based tool may still be an overall better option. Both network-based tools provide substantial (simulated) savings when paired with either host tool, yet both show poor detection rates on protocols other than HTTP or SMTP. Our results show that all four tools have near-perfect precision but alarmingly low recall, especially on file types other than executables and office files -- 37% of malware tested, including all polyglot files, were undetected. Priorities for researchers and takeaways for end users are given.

Sean Oesch, Robert Bridges, Jared Smith et al.

Gartner, a large research and advisory company, anticipates that by 2024 80% of security operation centers (SOCs) will use machine learning (ML) based solutions to enhance their operations. In light of such widespread adoption, it is vital for the research community to identify and address usability concerns. This work presents the results of the first in situ usability assessment of ML-based tools. With the support of the US Navy, we leveraged the national cyber range, a large, air-gapped cyber testbed equipped with state-of-the-art network and user emulation capabilities, to study six US Naval SOC analysts' usage of two tools. Our analysis identified several serious usability issues, including multiple violations of established usability heuristics form user interface design. We also discovered that analysts lacked a clear mental model of how these tools generate scores, resulting in mistrust and/or misuse of the tools themselves. Surprisingly, we found no correlation between analysts' level of education or years of experience and their performance with either tool, suggesting that other factors such as prior background knowledge or personality play a significant role in ML-based tool usage. Our findings demonstrate that ML-based security tool vendors must put a renewed focus on working with analysts, both experienced and inexperienced, to ensure that their systems are usable and useful in real-world security operations settings.

Robert A. Bridges, Michael D. Iannacone, John R. Goodall et al.

Modern security operations centers (SOCs) employ a variety of tools for intrusion detection, prevention, and widespread log aggregation and analysis. While research efforts are quickly proposing novel algorithms and technologies for cyber security, access to actual security personnel, their data, and their problems are necessarily limited by security concerns and time constraints. To help bridge the gap between researchers and security centers, this paper reports results of semi-structured interviews of 13 professionals from five different SOCs including at least one large academic, research, and government organization. The interviews focused on the current practices and future desires of SOC operators about host-based data collection capabilities, what is learned from the data, what tools are used, and how tools are evaluated. Questions and the responses are organized and reported by topic. Then broader themes are discussed. Forest-level takeaways from the interviews center on problems stemming from size of data, correlation of heterogeneous but related data sources, signal-to-noise ratio of data, and analysts' time.