File size: 20,741 Bytes
e2c4702 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 | ---
license: cc-by-nc-4.0
library_name: pytorch
tags:
- cybersecurity
- siem
- security-logs
- mitre-attack
- apt
- tabular-classification
- synthetic-data
- xgboost
- baseline
- leakage-diagnostic
pipeline_tag: tabular-classification
base_model: []
datasets:
- xpertsystems/cyb010-sample
metrics:
- accuracy
- f1
- roc_auc
model-index:
- name: cyb010-baseline-classifier
results:
- task:
type: tabular-classification
name: 5-class attack lifecycle phase classification
dataset:
type: xpertsystems/cyb010-sample
name: CYB010 Synthetic Security Event Log Dataset (Sample)
metrics:
- type: roc_auc
value: 0.9904
name: Test macro ROC-AUC OvR (XGBoost, seed 42)
- type: accuracy
value: 0.9493
name: Test accuracy (XGBoost, seed 42)
- type: f1
value: 0.7781
name: Test macro-F1 (XGBoost, seed 42)
- type: accuracy
value: 0.936
name: Multi-seed accuracy mean ± 0.007 (XGBoost, 10 seeds)
- type: roc_auc
value: 0.988
name: Multi-seed ROC-AUC mean ± 0.001 (XGBoost, 10 seeds)
---
# CYB010 Baseline Classifier
**Attack lifecycle phase classifier (5-class) trained on the CYB010
synthetic security event log sample. Predicts which of 5 attack phases
(`benign_background` / `initial_access` / `lateral_movement` /
`persistence_establishment` / `exfiltration_or_impact`) a security
event belongs to, from per-event features. ALSO ships a comprehensive
`leakage_diagnostic.json` documenting 11 oracle paths discovered
across the dataset's targets and 2 README-suggested targets that are
unlearnable on the sample after honest leak removal.**
> **Read this first.** This repo ships two related artifacts:
> (1) a working baseline classifier for `attack_lifecycle_phase` (the
> dataset's headline target), and (2) `leakage_diagnostic.json`
> documenting 11 separate oracle paths plus 2 unlearnable targets.
> Both files matter; the diagnostic is required reading for anyone
> evaluating CYB010 for SIEM ML work.
## Model overview
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| Primary task | 5-class `attack_lifecycle_phase` classification |
| Secondary artifact | `leakage_diagnostic.json` — 11 oracle paths + 2 unlearnable targets |
| Training data | `xpertsystems/cyb010-sample` (21,896 events / 500 incidents) |
| Models | XGBoost + PyTorch MLP |
| Input features | 87 (after one-hot encoding) |
| Split | **Group-aware** (GroupShuffleSplit on `incident_id`) |
| Validation | Single seed (artifact) + multi-seed aggregate across 10 seeds |
| License | CC-BY-NC-4.0 (matches dataset) |
| Status | Reference baseline + comprehensive leakage diagnostic |
## Why this task — and what was dropped
The CYB010 README's central concept is the "5-phase attack lifecycle
state machine", and `attack_lifecycle_phase` is the data's headline
target. We piloted six candidate targets and found:
- **`attack_lifecycle_phase` 5-class**: strongest honest result.
Acc 0.936 ± 0.007, ROC-AUC 0.988 ± 0.001 (multi-seed). All 5 classes
represented, per-class F1 range 0.48–1.00.
- **`threat_actor_profile` 5-class**: works at acc 0.84 but per-class
F1 reveals it's almost entirely driven by `benign_user` separation
(F1 1.00 vs F1 0.17-0.69 for the 4 malicious classes). The 4-class
malicious-only formulation is below majority (acc 0.55 vs 0.61).
- **`label_true_positive` binary on alerts**: documented as a secondary
finding. Has 7 oracle features; honest acc 0.80, AUC 0.89 after
dropping all of them.
- **`mitre_tactic` 14-class**: hits acc 0.90 but macro-F1 0.37 -
imbalance gaming (benign class dominates at 57%).
- **`event_class` 12-class**: unlearnable (acc 0.35 vs majority 0.42).
### Six oracle columns dropped from the phase task
CYB010 encodes the benign vs malicious distinction explicitly in
multiple columns. Each is a perfect or near-perfect oracle for the
`benign_background` phase:
| Column | Oracle relationship |
|---|---|
| `mitre_tactic` | `=="benign"` ↔ `benign_background` phase (12,448/12,448, perfect) |
| `mitre_technique_id` | Perfect ATT&CK-by-design oracle for `mitre_tactic` (54/54 techniques → single tactic) |
| `label_malicious` | `==False` ↔ `benign_background` (perfect) |
| `threat_actor_id` | `=="NONE"` ↔ `benign_background` (perfect) |
| `threat_actor_profile` | `=="benign_user"` ↔ `benign_background` (perfect) |
| `event_type` | Many values phase-specific (`c2_beacon_outbound` → 100% `exfiltration_or_impact`) |
With these six columns present, a plain XGBoost trivially separates
benign vs malicious. The published baseline trains with all six
excluded.
Two model artifacts are published. They are designed to be used
together:
- `model_xgb.json` — gradient-boosted trees (slightly higher F1)
- `model_mlp.safetensors` — PyTorch MLP
## Quick start
```bash
pip install xgboost torch safetensors pandas huggingface_hub
```
```python
from huggingface_hub import hf_hub_download, snapshot_download
import json, numpy as np, torch, xgboost as xgb
from safetensors.torch import load_file
REPO = "xpertsystems/cyb010-baseline-classifier"
paths = {n: hf_hub_download(REPO, n) for n in [
"model_xgb.json", "model_mlp.safetensors",
"feature_engineering.py", "feature_meta.json", "feature_scaler.json",
]}
import sys, os
sys.path.insert(0, os.path.dirname(paths["feature_engineering.py"]))
from feature_engineering import (
transform_single, load_meta, build_host_lookup, INT_TO_LABEL,
)
meta = load_meta(paths["feature_meta.json"])
# Host features are joined from host_inventory.csv at inference time
ds = snapshot_download("xpertsystems/cyb010-sample", repo_type="dataset")
host_lookup = build_host_lookup(f"{ds}/host_inventory.csv")
xgb_model = xgb.XGBClassifier(); xgb_model.load_model(paths["model_xgb.json"])
# Predict (see inference_example.ipynb for the full pattern)
# Note: do NOT include mitre_tactic, mitre_technique_id, label_malicious,
# threat_actor_id, threat_actor_profile, or event_type - those were the
# oracle columns.
X = transform_single(my_event, meta, host_lookup=host_lookup)
proba = xgb_model.predict_proba(X)[0]
print(INT_TO_LABEL[int(np.argmax(proba))])
```
See [`inference_example.ipynb`](./inference_example.ipynb) for the full
copy-paste demo.
## Training data
Trained on the public sample of CYB010, 21,896 per-event records:
| Phase | Events | Class share |
|---|---:|---:|
| `benign_background` | 12,448 | 56.9% |
| `exfiltration_or_impact` | 6,205 | 28.3% |
| `initial_access` | 1,674 | 7.6% |
| `lateral_movement` | 968 | 4.4% |
| `persistence_establishment` | 601 | 2.7% |
### Group-aware split by incident_id
500 incidents × ~44 events each. Events from the same incident share
host, threat actor, and phase trajectory — so train/test contamination
is a real risk with random splitting. The baseline uses
**GroupShuffleSplit** on `incident_id` (nested 70/15/15):
| Fold | Events | Incidents |
|---|---:|---:|
| Train | 14,697 | ~350 |
| Validation | 3,473 | ~75 |
| Test | 3,726 | ~75 |
All 10 multi-seed evaluations yielded all 5 classes in the test fold.
Class imbalance is addressed with `class_weight='balanced'` (XGBoost
`sample_weight`) and weighted cross-entropy (MLP).
## Feature pipeline
The bundled `feature_engineering.py` is the canonical recipe. 87
features survive after encoding, drawn from:
- **Per-event numeric** (5): `source_port`, `dest_port`,
`cvss_score_analogue`, `label_log_tampered`, `label_false_positive`
- **Per-event categorical** (3, one-hot): `event_class` (12 values),
`log_source_type` (8 values), `severity_level` (5 values)
- **Host features** (joined from `host_inventory.csv`): 3 numeric +
7 categorical (os_type, host_role, network_segment, defender_posture,
criticality_rating, cloud_provider, siem_platform)
- **Engineered** (9): `hour_of_day`, `is_off_hours`, `is_weekend`,
`log_cvss`, `is_high_cvss`, `is_well_known_port`, `is_dynamic_port`,
`is_outbound_web`, `risk_composite`
### Partial-oracle features kept as legitimate observables
`event_class` (max purity 0.87, mean 0.72 across phases) is the
strongest non-oracle feature. C2 beacon traffic (`event_class =
network_flow`) is 65% exfiltration phase but also 29% benign and 6%
other phases — real overlap, not deterministic encoding. Kept.
`severity_level` and `cvss_score_analogue` correlate strongly with
phase (high-severity events skew toward exfil and initial_access) but
with substantial overlap. Kept.
`label_log_tampered` is a real observable — APTs tamper more than
script_kiddies — but is not phase-deterministic. Kept.
## Evaluation
### Test-set metrics, seed 42 (n = 3,726 events from ~75 test incidents)
**XGBoost** (the published `model_xgb.json` artifact)
| Metric | Value |
|---|---:|
| Macro ROC-AUC (OvR) | **0.9904** |
| Accuracy | **0.9493** |
| Macro-F1 | 0.7781 |
| Weighted-F1 | 0.9478 |
**MLP** (the published `model_mlp.safetensors` artifact)
| Metric | Value |
|---|---:|
| Macro ROC-AUC (OvR) | **0.9861** |
| Accuracy | **0.9412** |
| Macro-F1 | 0.7534 |
| Weighted-F1 | 0.9396 |
XGBoost slightly outperforms MLP on this task (acc 0.949 vs 0.941,
macro-F1 0.778 vs 0.753). The gap is consistent across seeds.
### Multi-seed robustness (XGBoost, 10 seeds)
| Metric | Mean | Std | Min | Max |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Accuracy | 0.936 | 0.007 | 0.923 | 0.949 |
| Macro-F1 | 0.759 | 0.015 | 0.741 | 0.781 |
| Macro ROC-AUC OvR | 0.988 | 0.001 | 0.986 | 0.990 |
**Tightest ROC-AUC std in the catalog** (0.001). All 10 seeds yielded
all 5 classes in the test fold. Full per-seed results in
[`multi_seed_results.json`](./multi_seed_results.json).
### Per-class F1 (seed 42)
| Phase | Class share | XGBoost F1 | MLP F1 |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| `benign_background` | 56.9% | **0.998** | 0.994 |
| `exfiltration_or_impact` | 28.3% | **0.987** | 0.981 |
| `initial_access` | 7.6% | 0.720 | 0.651 |
| `persistence_establishment` | 2.7% | 0.703 | 0.690 |
| `lateral_movement` | 4.4% | **0.483** | 0.451 |
The two largest classes (`benign_background` and `exfiltration_or_impact`)
are nearly perfectly separable — `benign_background` because the
non-oracle features (severity, CVSS, log_source) still cleanly separate
non-malicious traffic, and `exfiltration_or_impact` because it's
dominated by network_flow events (C2 beacons). The three middle
classes overlap substantially in feature space; `lateral_movement` is
the hardest (F1 0.48) because lateral movement events look similar to
initial_access events at the per-event level. A sequence model that
considers event ordering within an incident would likely do better
than the per-event baseline.
### Ablation: which feature groups matter
| Configuration | Accuracy | Macro-F1 | ROC-AUC | Δ accuracy | Δ macro-F1 |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Full feature set (published) | 0.9493 | 0.7781 | 0.9904 | — | — |
| No `event_class` | 0.9206 | 0.5969 | 0.9723 | **−0.0287** | **−0.181** |
| No CVSS features | 0.9383 | 0.7475 | 0.9812 | −0.0110 | −0.031 |
| No `log_source_type` | 0.9469 | 0.7655 | 0.9902 | −0.0024 | −0.013 |
| No engineered features | 0.9471 | 0.7655 | 0.9903 | −0.0022 | −0.013 |
| No ports | 0.9463 | 0.7621 | 0.9903 | −0.0030 | −0.016 |
| No `severity_level` | 0.9479 | 0.7688 | 0.9902 | −0.0014 | −0.009 |
| No tamper flags | 0.9469 | 0.7657 | 0.9905 | −0.0024 | −0.012 |
| No timing | 0.9501 | 0.7730 | 0.9907 | +0.0008 | −0.005 |
| No host features | 0.9522 | 0.7828 | 0.9917 | +0.0029 | +0.005 |
Three findings:
1. **`event_class` is the dominant signal** (drops 18pp macro-F1 when
removed). Phase prediction without it loses most discrimination
between the middle classes.
2. **CVSS features are second-strongest** (drops 3pp F1). Captures
severity information that complements event_class.
3. **Host features and timing add modest noise.** The model performs
marginally *better* without host features (+0.3pp accuracy), and
timing features contribute essentially nothing. Kept in the
pipeline as documented baseline reference.
### Architecture
**XGBoost:** multi-class gradient boosting (`multi:softprob`, 5 classes),
`hist` tree method, class-balanced sample weights, early stopping on
validation mlogloss.
**MLP:** `87 → 128 → 64 → 5`, each hidden layer followed by `BatchNorm1d`
→ `ReLU` → `Dropout(0.3)`, weighted cross-entropy loss, AdamW optimizer,
early stopping on validation macro-F1.
Training hyperparameters are held internally by XpertSystems.
## Limitations
**This is a baseline reference, not a production phase classifier.**
1. **The leakage diagnostic is required reading.** Six oracle columns
for the phase task and seven for the alert TP task are documented
in `leakage_diagnostic.json`. If you use CYB010 sample data for
your own training, you MUST drop these or your model will learn
the oracles instead of the task.
2. **`lateral_movement` F1 0.48 is the weakest class.** The 968-event
sample with substantial overlap to `initial_access` makes this
class hard. A sequence model that considers event ordering within
incidents would likely do better than per-event classification.
3. **`threat_actor_profile` 4-class (malicious-only) is unlearnable
on this sample** (acc 0.55 vs majority 0.61). The 5-class
formulation with benign included works only because benign_user
separation is structurally trivial.
4. **`event_class` 12-class is unlearnable on this sample** (acc 0.35
vs majority 0.42). event_class is a structural property of the
event itself, not something to predict from other features.
5. **Synthetic-vs-real transfer.** The dataset is synthetic, calibrated
to 6 benchmarks from SANS / IBM / Mandiant / Verizon / CISA / MITRE
ATT&CK Evaluations / Splunk. Real SIEM telemetry has different noise
characteristics — and in particular, the explicit `mitre_tactic ==
"benign"` marker and `threat_actor_id == "NONE"` benign sentinel
would not be present in real data. Real telemetry has implicit
benign-vs-malicious distinctions that emerge from event content.
Do not assume metrics transfer end-to-end.
6. **21,896 events / 500 incidents is a modest training set.** The
3,726-event / ~75-incident test fold yields stable multi-seed
metrics (std 0.007 on accuracy) but per-class confidence intervals
widen for the smallest classes (lateral_movement, persistence).
## Notes on dataset schema
The CYB010 sample dataset README describes some fields differently
from the actual schema. The model was trained on the actual schema;
this note helps buyers reconcile what they read with what they receive.
| What the README says | What the data actually contains |
|---|---|
| `security_events` has 16 columns | Data has **23 columns** |
| Field renames | `timestamp_utc` → `timestamp`, `user` → `user_id`, `log_format` → `log_source_type` |
| README missing from `security_events` | `event_class`, `severity_level`, `label_malicious`, `label_log_tampered`, `threat_actor_id`, `cvss_score_analogue` are in data but not documented |
| README claims `command_line` / `process_name` / `is_off_hours` columns | Not present in `security_events` (off-hours derived from timestamp in pipeline) |
| `alert_records` has 9 columns | Data has **21 columns** |
| Field renames | `alert_severity` → `severity_level`, `detection_rule` → `alert_rule_name` |
| README's `triage_outcome` (categorical) | Replaced by `label_true_positive` / `label_false_positive` (mirror booleans) |
| README's `ioc_matched` | Not present in `alert_records` |
| README missing from `alert_records` | `correlated_chain_length`, `time_to_detect_seconds`, `suppression_reason`, `analyst_triage_priority` are in data but not documented |
| `incident_summary` has 8 columns | Data has **24 columns** |
| `host_inventory` has 6 columns | Data has **15 columns** |
| `threat_actor_profile` has 4 values | Data has **5 values** (adds `benign_user` at 57% of events) |
| `attack_lifecycle_phase` 5-phase malicious lifecycle | Data adds `benign_background` as a phase value (57% of events) — so the lifecycle is 5-class with benign included |
| README says MITRE ATT&CK v14 with 50 techniques | Data has 54 unique technique IDs across 14 tactics + benign |
None of these affects model correctness — the feature pipeline uses
the actual column names. If you build your own pipeline against the
dataset, use the actual columns.
## Intended use
- **Evaluating fit** of the CYB010 dataset for your SIEM ML research
- **Baseline reference** for new model architectures on the
attack-phase classification task
- **Reference example of structural-leakage diagnostics** for
synthetic SIEM datasets — the methodology is reusable
- **Feature engineering reference** for per-event SIEM telemetry
## Out-of-scope use
- Production SIEM phase detection on real telemetry
- Threat actor attribution (4-class malicious-only is unlearnable
on the sample)
- Event-class prediction (this is a structural property, not a
learnable target)
- Any operational decision affecting actual security operations
without further validation on your own data
## Reproducibility
Outputs above were produced with `seed = 42` (published artifact),
nested `GroupShuffleSplit` on `incident_id` (70/15/15), on the published
sample (`xpertsystems/cyb010-sample`, version 1.0.0, generated
2026-05-16). The feature pipeline in `feature_engineering.py` is
deterministic and the trained weights in this repo correspond exactly
to the metrics above.
Multi-seed results (seeds 42, 7, 13, 17, 23, 31, 45, 99, 123, 200)
in `multi_seed_results.json` confirm robust performance across splits
(std 0.007 on accuracy, 0.001 on ROC-AUC — the tightest ROC-AUC std
in the XpertSystems catalog).
The training script itself is private to XpertSystems.
## Files in this repo
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
| `model_xgb.json` | XGBoost weights (seed 42) |
| `model_mlp.safetensors` | PyTorch MLP weights (seed 42) |
| `feature_engineering.py` | Feature pipeline |
| `feature_meta.json` | Feature column order + categorical levels |
| `feature_scaler.json` | MLP input mean/std (XGBoost ignores) |
| `validation_results.json` | Per-class metrics, confusion matrix, architecture |
| `ablation_results.json` | Per-feature-group ablation |
| `multi_seed_results.json` | XGBoost metrics across 10 seeds |
| **`leakage_diagnostic.json`** | **11-oracle-path audit + 2 unlearnable targets** |
| `inference_example.ipynb` | End-to-end inference demo notebook |
| `README.md` | This file |
## Contact and full product
The full **CYB010** dataset contains **~550,000 rows** across four files,
with calibrated benchmark validation against 6 metrics drawn from
authoritative SOC operations and threat intelligence sources (SANS SOC
Survey, IBM Cost of Data Breach, Mandiant M-Trends, Verizon DBIR, CISA
Joint Advisories, MITRE ATT&CK Evaluations, Splunk State of Security).
The full XpertSystems.ai synthetic data catalogue spans 41 SKUs across
Cybersecurity, Healthcare, Insurance & Risk, Oil & Gas, and Materials
& Energy.
- 📧 **pradeep@xpertsystems.ai**
- 🌐 **https://xpertsystems.ai**
- 🗂 Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/xpertsystems/cyb010-sample
- 🤖 Companion models:
- https://huggingface.co/xpertsystems/cyb001-baseline-classifier (network traffic)
- https://huggingface.co/xpertsystems/cyb002-baseline-classifier (ATT&CK kill-chain)
- https://huggingface.co/xpertsystems/cyb003-baseline-classifier (malware execution phase)
- https://huggingface.co/xpertsystems/cyb004-baseline-classifier (phishing campaign phase)
- https://huggingface.co/xpertsystems/cyb005-baseline-classifier (ransomware actor-tier attribution)
- https://huggingface.co/xpertsystems/cyb006-baseline-classifier (user risk tier + leakage diagnostic)
- https://huggingface.co/xpertsystems/cyb007-baseline-classifier (insider threat type)
- https://huggingface.co/xpertsystems/cyb008-baseline-classifier (SOC alert triage + leakage diagnostic)
- https://huggingface.co/xpertsystems/cyb009-baseline-classifier (vulnerability classification + leakage diagnostic)
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{xpertsystems_cyb010_baseline_2026,
title = {CYB010 Baseline Classifier: XGBoost and MLP for Attack Lifecycle Phase Classification, with 11-Oracle-Path Leakage Diagnostic},
author = {XpertSystems.ai},
year = {2026},
url = {https://huggingface.co/xpertsystems/cyb010-baseline-classifier},
note = {Baseline reference model + comprehensive leakage audit trained on xpertsystems/cyb010-sample}
}
```
|