Operationalizing Cyber Threat Intelligence with GraphRAG
arXiv SecurityArchived Aug 14, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2608.13050v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When a security researcher publishes a report on a cyberattack, detection engineers are supposed to turn it into working detection rules. In practice, most automated attempts at this only extract the simplest clues from the report --- bad IP addresses, domain names, and file hashes --- and turn them into block lists. This is a weak strategy, because attackers can change these simple clues within hours or days, so the resulting detections stop worki
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Cryptography and Security
[Submitted on 13 Aug 2026]
Operationalizing Cyber Threat Intelligence with GraphRAG
Atul Kabra, Prakhar Paliwal, Manjesh K. Hanawal
When a security researcher publishes a report on a cyberattack, detection engineers are supposed to turn it into working detection rules. In practice, most automated attempts at this only extract the simplest clues from the report --- bad IP addresses, domain names, and file hashes --- and turn them into block lists. This is a weak strategy, because attackers can change these simple clues within hours or days, so the resulting detections stop working almost as soon as they are deployed. Security teams describe this idea with the Pyramid of Pain. This project asks whether feeding a report into a knowledge-graph retrieval system, Microsoft GraphRAG, rather than a standard vector-similarity retrieval system (Naive RAG), produces detection plans that rely more on these durable, top-of-pyramid clues. Both systems are given the same report, the same generation instructions, and the same language model to write the final plan; only the retrieval step differs. In a detailed case study of one APT28 report, the GraphRAG plan kept firing at 100\% of its detections after every IP address, domain, and file hash in the report was rotated, while the Naive RAG plan kept firing at only 29\%. Repeating the comparison across nine real CTI reports from four vendors confirms the same pattern: GraphRAG plans consistently reach higher, harder-to-evade levels of the pyramid, even when the two systems end up close on total score. The results support treating knowledge-graph-aware retrieval as the architecturally correct foundation for automatically generating SOC-deployable hunting plans, while showing that the wording of the generation prompt matters almost as much as the retrieval back-end itself.
Comments: 12 pages
Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2608.13050 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2608.13050v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.13050
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Manjesh Kumar Hanawal [view email]
[v1] Thu, 13 Aug 2026 10:15:05 UTC (500 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.CR
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-08
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.AI
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)