Papers › Enabling Privacy-Preserving Cyber Threat Detection with Federated Learning

Enabling Privacy-Preserving Cyber Threat Detection with Federated Learning

8 Apr 2024arXiv:2404.05130links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Yu Bi, Yekai Li, Xuan Feng, Xianghang Mi

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Despite achieving good performance and wide adoption, machine learning based security detection models (e.g., malware classifiers) are subject to concept drift and evasive evolution of attackers, which renders up-to-date threat data as a necessity. However, due to enforcement of various privacy protection regulations (e.g., GDPR), it is becoming increasingly challenging or even prohibitive for security vendors to collect individual-relevant and privacy-sensitive threat datasets, e.g., SMS spam/non-spam messages from mobile devices. To address such obstacles, this study systematically profiles the (in)feasibility of federated learning for privacy-preserving cyber threat detection in terms of effectiveness, byzantine resilience, and efficiency. This is made possible by the build-up of multiple threat datasets and threat detection models, and more importantly, the design of realistic and security-specific experiments. We evaluate FL on two representative threat detection tasks, namely SMS spam detection and Android malware detection. It shows that FL-trained detection models can achieve a performance that is comparable to centrally trained counterparts. Also, most non-IID data distributions have either minor or negligible impact on the model performance, while a label-based non-IID distribution of a high extent can incur non-negligible fluctuation and delay in FL training. Then, under a realistic threat model, FL turns out to be adversary-resistant to attacks of both data poisoning and model poisoning. Particularly, the attacking impact of a practical data poisoning attack is no more than 0.14% loss in model accuracy. Regarding FL efficiency, a bootstrapping strategy turns out to be effective to mitigate the training delay as observed in label-based non-IID scenarios.

PaperPDFCode

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections