We present AnonShield, a high-throughput, on-premise pseudonymization system that combines GPU-accelerated NER, streaming processing, caching, and schema-aware configuration. Evaluated on datasets up to 550 MB (70,951 records), AnonShield reduces processing time from over 92 hours to under 10 minutes (up to 738x speedup) while achieving up to 94.2% F1-score and 96.7% recall. Our results show that scalable pseudonymization of vulnerability data is feasible without sacrificing analytical utility, enabling compliant data sharing in operational CSIRT environments.
Figures & tables
System
Main Technique
Target Domain
Type
File Formats
Gap in CSIRT context
Microsoft Presidio [ 15 ]
NLP + RegEx + extensible recognizers
Generic text
US
–
No CVE/CPE/hash recognizers; domain-irrelevant patterns produce FPs in vulnerability data
Google Cloud DLP [ 11 ]
NLP + FPE + PII classification
General data
US+S
.txt, .csv, .json, .pdf, .docx
Cloud endpoint conflicts with CSIRT data sovereignty policies; no cybersecurity-specific entities
Amazon Comprehend [ 4 ]
Cloud NLP for PII detection and redaction
Generic text
US
.txt
Cloud endpoint conflicts with CSIRT data sovereignty policies; no vulnerability scanner format support
IRI DarkShield [ 12 ]
Multi-source masking + REST API
Corporate data
US+S
.txt, .pdf, .xml, .json, .sql, images
Commercial licence limits adoption in academic and public-sector CSIRTs; no cybersecurity-specific entities
LogLicker [ 1 ]
RegEx + masking + remapping manifest
CloudTrail & Generic logs
US+S
.json, .txt
RegEx only; lacks contextual NER; high manual maintenance for custom logs
Anonip [ 9 ]
Bit masking of trailing IP bits via pipe
Web server logs
US
.log, .txt
Covers IP addresses only
Table I: Overview of anonymisation and pseudonymisation tools and their primary gap relative to the CSIRT vulnerability processing context. Data type: US = Unstructured; S = Structured. – in Formats: tool operates on in-memory strings with no native file I/O.
Figure 1: AnonShield pipeline. The same entity produces a consistent pseudonym across documents given the same secret key.
ID
Source
Format
Size
Access
D1
OpenVAS (VulnLab)
CSV/TXT/PDF/XML
9.29/11.61/33.32/34.11 MB
Public
D1C
Converted from D1
XLSX/DOCX/JSON/PDF(img)
3.34/7.58/60.72/1,479.56 MB
Public
D2
Tenable (CAIS/RNP)
CSV/JSON
419.72/550.54 MB
Private
D3
Synthetic (Mock)
CSV/JSON
247.45/444.56 MB
Public
Table II: Dataset summary.
Category
Examples
Network & Infrastructure
DNS (Bind), FTP (ProFTPD), OpenLDAP
Web Applications & APIs
Juice Shop, DVWA, GraphQL
Web Servers & Platforms
Apache, Nginx, Tomcat, WordPress
Databases
MySQL, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Redis
Monitoring & Logging
Elasticsearch, Prometheus, Grafana
DevOps & CI/CD
Jenkins, GitLab, Nexus
Table III: VulnLab service categories.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Format
Version/Strategy
Mean (s)
Median (s)
Max (s)
CV
Speedup
Cohen’s d
XML
AnonLFI v2.0 (Baseline)
191.89
176.44
1717.71
0.96
1.00×
–
AnonShield_presidio
15.62
13.69
85.58
0.60
12.28×
1.29 (Large)
AnonShield_standalone
11.62
10.02
72.34
0.63
16.51×
1.32 (Large)
CSV
AnonLFI v2.0 (Baseline)
74.18
37.01
1442.08
1.75
1.00×
–
AnonLFI v1.0
37.92
20.41
577.96
1.55
1.96×
0.35 (Small)
AnonShield_presidio
10.65
9.08
60.62
0.53
6.97×
0.67 (Medium)
Appendix
Table IV: Processing latency on D1 reports.
Figure 2: Scalability analysis on D1 PDF subset: (A) Linear scale, (B) Log-Log complexity ( α≈1 for AnonShield), and (C) Throughput stability.
Format
Version/Strategy
Mean (s)
Max (s)
CV
Speedup
Cohen’s d
JSON
AnonLFI v2.0 (Baseline)
246.55
1861.01
1.16
1.00×
–
AnonShield_presidio
20.15
110.78
0.72
12.23×
1.08 (Large)
AnonShield_standalone
10.61
49.02
0.60
23.24×
1.12 (Large)
XLSX
AnonLFI v1.0 (Baseline)
35.51
320.73
1.37
1.00×
–
AnonLFI v2.0
60.30
596.95
1.52
0.59×
−0.34 (Small)
AnonShield_presidio
9.86
38.64
0.47
3.60×
0.73 (Medium)
Appendix
Table V: Processing latency on D1-converted formats.
CSV (419.72 MB)
JSON (550.54 MB)
Mode
Version / Strategy
Time (s)
KB/s
Time (s)
KB/s
No config
AnonLFI v2.0 (est.)
≥437,335
0.98
∼334,472
1.69
AnonShield_presidio
2,520.7±68.0
171
985.7±73.7
575
AnonShield_standalone
588.5±30.7
732
453.1±35.9
1,250
With config
AnonShield_presidio
13.42±0.13
32,034
18.88±0.16
29,855
AnonShield_standalone
12.55±0.74
34,341
18.03±0.23
31,272
Appendix
Table VI: D2 (Operational) processing times (70,951 records).
CSV (247.45 MB)
JSON (444.56 MB)
Mode
Version / Strategy
Time (s)
KB/s
Time (s)
KB/s
No config (GPU)
AnonLFI v2.0 (est.)
≥257,835
0.98
∼270,086
1.69
AnonShield_presidio
318.0±5.1
797
339.6±14.4
1,343
AnonShield_standalone
73.0±1.6
3,473
172.1±6.2
2,647
No config (CPU)
AnonShield_standalone
481.5±8.9
526
881.9±57.7
518
With config
AnonShield_presidio
8.89±0.06
28,517
21.11±0.22
21,571
Appendix
Table VII: D3 (Synthetic) processing times.
Version/Strategy
TP
FP
FN
Prec.
Rec.
F1
AnonLFI v1.0
106
224
459
32.1%
18.8%
23.7%
AnonLFI v2.0
279
68
407
80.4%
40.7%
54.0%
AnonShield_presidio
724
287
25
71.6%
96.7%
82.3%
AnonShield_filtered
724
64
25
91.9%
96.7%
94.2%
AnonShield_hybrid
724
64
25
91.9%
96.7%
94.2%
AnonShield_standalone
739
102
43
87.9%
94.5%
91.1%
Appendix
Table VIII: Accuracy on 67-record validation set (D1 OpenVAS CSV).
Cyber threat intelligence turns evidence about adversaries, campaigns, and vulnerabilities into knowledge that helps defenders anticipate and respond to attacks.
Organisations increasingly outsource privacy-sensitive data transformations to cloud providers, yet no practical mechanism lets the data owner verify that the contracted algorithm was faithfully executed. VeriX-Anon is a multi-layered verification framework for outsourced Target-Driven k-anonymization combining three orthogonal mechanisms: deterministic verification via Merkle-style hashing of an Authenticated Decision Tree, probabilistic verification via Boundary Sentinels and exact-duplicate Twins with cryptographic identifiers, and utility-based verification via Explainable AI fingerprinting that compares SHAP value distributions before and after anonymization using the Wasserstein distance. Across seven cross-domain datasets and four cloud profiles (28 scenarios), against Lazy (drops records), Dumb (fake hash), and Approximate (valid hash) adversaries, VeriX-Anon detects 25 of 28 deviations under a fixed threshold and 27 of 28 once the threshold is calibrated per dataset, with no false alarms. No single layer achieved this alone. The XAI layer was the only mechanism that caught the Approximate adversary, succeeding on six of seven datasets and missing only a high-dimensional case where honest generalization shifts SHAP as much as the attack. Target-Driven anonymization preserved significantly more utility than blind splitting, with mean F1 gaps of +0.058 to +0.362 and Wilcoxon p <= 0.001 on six of seven datasets. Client-side verification completes under one second at one million rows. The threat model covers three empirically evaluated profiles and one theoretical Informed Attacker unable to defeat the cryptographic salt. Sentinel evasion probability ranges from near-zero to 0.82 for the most imbalanced data, which the twin layer offsets in every scenario.
Miit Daga, Swarna Priya Ramu
School of Computer Science Engineering and Information Systems, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, 632014, Tamil Nadu, India
Current text anonymization evaluation relies on span-based metrics that fail to capture what an adversary could actually infer, and assumes a single data subject, ignoring multi-subject scenarios. To address these limitations, we present SPIA (Subject-level PII Inference Assessment), the first benchmark that shifts the unit of evaluation from text spans to individuals, comprising 675 documents across legal and online domains with novel subject-level protection metrics. Extensive experiments show that even when over 90% of PII spans are masked, subject-level inference protection drops as low as 33%, leaving the majority of personal information recoverable through contextual inference. Furthermore, target-subject-focused anonymization leaves non-target subjects substantially more exposed than the target subject. We show that subject-level inference-based evaluation is essential for ensuring safe text anonymization in real-world settings.
Myeong Seok Oh, Dong-Yun Kim, Hanseok Oh +6
Tscientific, South Korea · Soongsil University, South Korea · Yonsei University, South Korea +1
CSIRTs increasingly fine tune language models on vulnerability scan records, but these records expose internal network topology and create privacy risks under regulations such as GDPR and LGPD. We present the first empirical study of how DP SGD and HMAC pseudonymization interact when fine tuning small language models with 1B to 3B parameters on structured CSIRT data. We evaluate 96 LoRA adapters across four SLMs and four training regimes, including raw fine tuning, QLoRA with large batch training, and DP SGD with epsilon equal to 2 and 8. We also audit memorization using 20 planted canaries, four extraction attacks, and a dual attack targeting HMAC pseudonymized identifiers. Our results show three main findings. First, matched update controls reproduce the observed reduction in memorization by reducing the number of optimizer updates alone, accounting for 66 percent to 132 percent of the measured effect, with a mean of 100 percent across three seeds and four models. In this setting, DP SGD provides the formal privacy guarantee but does not produce additional measurable reductions in memorization. Second, HMAC pseudonymization removes the original identifiers from the exposure surface, reducing exposure by 40 percent to 61 percent, while pseudonymized identifiers remain close to the expected random baseline and do not become a secondary memorization target. Third, F1 scores remain between 0.19 and 0.28 across all 96 adapters using four shot prompting, indicating that, under the evaluated training budget, 1B to 3B SLMs do not achieve operationally useful performance.
Cristhian Kapelinski, Diego Kreutz
Federal University of Pampa (UNIPAMPA), Alegrete, Brazil