Usefulness of data flow diagrams and large language models for security threat validation: a registered report
Abstract
The arrival of recent cybersecurity standards has raised the bar for security assessments in organizations, but existing techniques don't always scale well. Threat analysis and risk assessment are used to identify security threats for new or refactored systems. Still, there is a lack of definition-of-done, so identified threats have to be validated which slows down the analysis. Existing literature has focused on the overall performance of threat analysis, but no previous work has investigated how deep must the analysts dig into the material before they can effectively validate the identified security threats. We propose a controlled experiment with practitioners to investigate whether some analysis material (like LLM-generated advice) is better than none and whether more material (the system's data flow diagram and LLM-generated advice) is better than some material. In addition, we present key findings from running a pilot with 41 MSc students, which are used to improve the study design. Finally, we also provide an initial replication package, including experimental material and data analysis scripts and a plan to extend it to include new materials based on the final data collection campaign with practitioners (e.g., pre-screening questions).
Study specs
- Authors
- Winnie Bahati Mbaka,Katja Tuma
- Institution
- Vrje Universiteit Amsterdam
- Discipline
- Artificial Intelligence
- Year
- 2024
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source Google Scholar
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.