Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Kim Westfall

dblp:365/3911 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Security and privacy · 2 · 2 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Network and information security
2 papers
Network security · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Representation and self-supervised learning · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Network security › intrusion detection and prevention
intrusion detection
0.912025
What We Talk About When We Talk About Logs: Understanding the Effects of Dataset Quality on Endpoint Threat Detection Research · SP 2025
Network security › intrusion detection and prevention › intrusion detection
endpoint detection and response
0.812024
DrSec: Flexible Distributed Representations for Efficient Endpoint Security · SP 2024
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › unsupervised representation learning
self-supervised representation learning
0.212024
DrSec: Flexible Distributed Representations for Efficient Endpoint Security · SP 2024

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

self-supervised learning · 1.5distributed representations · 1.5provenance graph analysis · 0.9graph neural network · 0.9autocorrelation analysis · 0.9language model pretraining · 0.8language model pre-training · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 What We Talk About When We Talk About Logs: Understanding the Effects of Dataset Quality on Endpoint Threat Detection Research
abstract
Endpoint threat detection research hinges on the availability of worthwhile evaluation benchmarks, but experimenters' understanding of the contents of benchmark datasets is often limited. Typically, attention is only paid to the realism of attack behaviors, which comprises only a small percentage of the audit logs in the dataset, while other characteristics of the data are inscrutable and unknown. We propose a new set of questions for what to talk about when we talk about logs (i.e., datasets): What activities are in the dataset? We introduce a novel visualization that succinctly represents the totality of 100+ GB datasets by plotting the occurrence of provenance graph neighborhoods in a time series. How synthetic is the background activity? We perform autocorrelation analysis of provenance neighborhoods in the training split to identify process behaviors that occur at predictable intervals in the test split. Finally, How conspicuous is the malicious activity? We quantify the proportion of attack behaviors that are observed as benign neighborhoods in the training split as compared to previously-unseen attack neighborhoods. We then validate these questions by profiling the classification performance of state-of-the-art intrusion detection systems (R-CAID, FLASH, KAIROS, GNN) against a battery of public benchmark datasets (DARPA Transparent Computing and OpTC, ATLAS, ATLASv2). We demonstrate that synthetic background activities dramatically inflate True Negative Rates, while conspicuous malicious activities artificially boost True Positive Rates. Further, by explicitly controlling for these factors, we provide a more holistic picture of classifier performance. This work will elevate the dialogue surrounding threat detection datasets and will increase the rigor of threat detection experiments.
Jason Liu 0002, Muhammad Adil Inam, Akul Goyal, Andy Riddle, Kim Westfall, Adam Bates 0001
SP5
2024 DrSec: Flexible Distributed Representations for Efficient Endpoint Security
abstract
The increasing complexity of attacks has given rise to varied security applications tackling profound tasks, ranging from alert triage to attack reconstruction. Yet, security products, such as Endpoint Detection and Response, bring together applications that are developed in isolation, trigger many false positives, miss actual attacks, and produce limited labels useful in supervised learning schemes. To address these challenges, we propose DrSec—a system employing self-supervised learning to pre-train foundation language models (LMs) that ingest event-sequence data and emit distributed representations for processes. Once pre-trained, the LMs can be adapted to solve different downstream tasks with limited to no supervision, helping unify the currently fractured application ecosystem. We trained DrSec with two LM types on a real-world dataset containing ∼91M processes and ∼2.55B events, and tested it in three application domains. We found that DrSec enables accurate, unsupervised process identification; outperforms leading methods on alert triage to reduce alert fatigue (e.g., 75.11% vs. ≤64.31% precision-recall area under curve); and accurately learns expert-developed rules, allowing tuning incident detectors to control false positives and negatives.
Mahmood Sharif, Pubali Datta, Andy Riddle, Kim Westfall, Adam Bates 0001, Vijay Ganti, Matthew Lentz, David Ott
SP4