From Threat Intelligence to Detection: Knowledge-driven Enrichment and Template-based Rule Grounding for Automated Sigma Rule Generation
Organizations: Concordia University, Montréal, Canada · Ericsson Research, Ericsson, Montréal, Canada
Abstract
Mechanisms for dynamically converting cyber threat intelligence (CTI) into actionable detection capabilities are necessary due to the rapid evolution of Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs). Sigma rules are an essential part of contemporary threat detection workflows because they offer a platform-independent framework for expressing detection logic that can be converted into particular queries across SIEM systems. Conventional techniques for manually crafting Sigma rules are prone to mistakes, and necessitate extensive knowledge, which restricts their scalability. Although there are open-source and industry-maintained Sigma rule repositories, they often fail to keep pace with emerging threats and require frequent customization to fit diverse operational environments. This emphasizes the necessity of dynamic rule generation that is adapted to evolving attack techniques as well as particular use cases. In this work, we design AUTOSIGMA, an automated solution for transforming unstructured CTI reports into relevant Sigma rules. Rather than relying solely on language models, AUTOSIGMA leverages a structured knowledge base to enrich partial inputs, matches the enriched content against a repository of existing Sigma rules, and then employs an LLM-as-a-Judge mechanism to iteratively validate the rules. By combining knowledge-driven enrichment, template-based rule grounding, and a multi-stage solution, AUTOSIGMA enables accurate, context-aware, and relevant rule generation. Evaluations across multiple real-world APT reports and multiple security blogs demonstrate that AUTOSIGMA outperforms alternative solutions and LLM models in rule validity, rule relevancy, MITRE ATT&CK technique coverage, and robustness to input quality. AUTOSIGMA's Demo: https://youtu.be/iSr6IurQ6BM
Figures & tables
| Reference | Year | Technique | Dataset | Target Env. | Output Type | Output | Augmentation | Extraction | |||||
| Act. | Rob. | WF | KBs | Temp. | Rel. | IoCs | TTPs | ||||||
| NLP-based Solutions | |||||||||||||
| TTPDrill [ 4 ] | 2017 | Unsupervised NLP | Symantec | On-premise | STIX | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| ThreatRaptor [ 5 ] | 2021 | Unsupervised NLP | DARPA TC | On-premise | Behavior Graph + SQL | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| BERT-based and BiLSTM Solutions | |||||||||||||
| CASIE [ 15 ] | 2020 | BiLSTM | CyberWire | On-premise | Knowledge Graph | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ |
| AutoSigma (Cloud-based OpenAI) | AutoSigma (Local-based Lily) | LLMCloudHunter | |
| No. Rules | 21 | 25 | 8 |
| Rule Validity | 100 | 77.94 | 94 |
| Condition Accuracy | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Rule Relevancy | 80.4 | 77.7 | 76.4 |
| Partially Covered | 97.40 | 84.41 | 80.9 |
| Fully Covered | 83 | 74.93 | 74 |
| Report | Cloud-Based LLMs | Local-Based LLMs | Baseline | |
| AutoSigma Llama | AutoSigma OpenAI | AutoSigma Lily | ChatGPT off-the-shelf | |
| Mandiant#1 | 18 | 21 | 25 | 6 |
| Mandiant#2 | 14 | 19 | 22 | 6 |
| Mandiant#3 | 30 | 32 | 36 | 5 |
| Mandiant#4 | 25 | 28 | 30 | 7 |
| TrendMicro | 24 | 24 | 28 | 7 |
| Report | Ground Truth | Cloud-Based LLMs | Local-Based LLMs | Baseline | |
| AutoSigma Llama | AutoSigma OpenAI | AutoSigma Lily | ChatGPT off-the-shelf | ||
| Mandiant#1 | 25 | 23 (92%) | 23 (92%) | 12 (48%) | 3 (12%) |
| Mandiant#2 | 21 | 19 (90%) | 20 (95%) | 9 (43%) | 4 (19%) |
| Mandiant#3 | 14 | 14 (100%) | 14 (100%) | 7 (50%) | 3 (21%) |
| Mandiant#4 | 10 | 10 (100%) | 10 (100%) | 8 (80%) | 2 (20%) |
| TrendMicro | 32 | 30 (94%) | 29 (91%) | 19 (59%) | 5 (16%) |
| Report | Ground Truth | Cloud-Based LLMs | Local-Based LLMs | Baseline | |||||||||
| AutoSigma Llama | AutoSigma OpenAI | AutoSigma Lily | ChatGPT off-the-shelf | ||||||||||
| Total | Covered | New | Total | Covered | New | Total | Covered | New | Total | Covered | New | ||
| Mandiant#1 | 8 | 16 | 8 (100%) | 8 | 15 | 8 (100%) | 7 | 10 | 6 (75%) | 4 | 4 | 2 (25%) | 2 |
| Mandiant#2 | 12 | 14 | 10 (83%) | 4 | 17 | 11 (92%) | 6 | 9 | 7 (58%) | 2 | 5 | 2 (17%) | 3 |
| Mandiant#3 | 21 | 29 | 19 (90%) | 10 | 30 | 18 (86%) | 12 | 20 | 14 (67%) | 6 | 5 | 3 (14%) | 2 |
| Mandiant#4 | 13 | 24 | 13 (100%) | 11 | 20 | 12 (92%) | 8 | 16 | 10 (77%) | 6 | 6 | 4 (31%) | 2 |
| Report | Cloud-Based LLMs | Local-Based LLMs | Baseline | |
| AutoSigma Llama | AutoSigma OpenAI | AutoSigma Lily | ChatGPT off-the-shelf | |
| Mandiant#1 | 0.766 | 0.762 | 0.722 | 0.709 |
| Mandiant#2 | 0.779 | 0.778 | 0.748 | 0.718 |
| Mandiant#3 | 0.749 | 0.752 | 0.723 | 0.701 |
| Mandiant#4 | 0.771 | 0.775 | 0.745 | 0.729 |
| TrendMicro | 0.759 | 0.755 | 0.753 | 0.732 |
| Report | Cloud-Based LLMs | Local-Based LLMs | Baseline | |
| AutoSigma Llama | AutoSigma OpenAI | AutoSigma Lily | ChatGPT off-the-shelf | |
| Mandiant#1 | 18/18 (100%) | 21/21 (100%) | 18/25 (72%) | 6/6 (100%) |
| Mandiant#2 | 14/14 (100%) | 19/19 (100%) | 16/22 (73%) | 6/6 (100%) |
| Mandiant#3 | 30/30 (100%) | 32/32 (100%) | 28/36 (78%) | 5/5 (100%) |
| Mandiant#4 | 25/25 (100%) | 28/28 (100%) | 25/30 (83%) | 6/7 (86%) |
| TrendMicro | 24/24 (100%) | 24/24 (100%) | 21/28 (75%) | 7/7 (100%) |
| Report | Cloud-Based LLMs | Local-Based LLMs | ||||
| AutoSigma Llama (w/ Judge) | AutoSigma Llama (w/o Judge) | AutoSigma OpenAI (w/ Judge) | AutoSigma OpenAI (w/o Judge) | AutoSigma Lily (w/ Judge) | AutoSigma Lily (w/o Judge) | |
| Mandiant#1 | 18/18 (100%) | 16/18 (89%) | 21/21 (100%) | 18/21 (86%) | 18/25 (72%) | 13/25 (52%) |
| Mandiant#2 | 14/14 (100%) | 12/14 (86%) | 19/19 (100%) | 17/19 (89%) | 16/22 (73%) | 10/22 (45%) |
| Mandiant#3 | 30/30 (100%) | 24/30 (80%) | 32/32 (100%) | 26/32 (81%) | 28/36 (78%) | 20/36 (56%) |
| Mandiant#4 | 25/25 (100%) | 21/25 (84%) | 28/28 (100%) | 26/28 (93%) | 25/30 (83%) | 16/30 (53%) |
| TrendMicro | 24/24 (100%) | 21/24 (88%) | 24/24 (100%) | 21/24 (88%) | 21/28 (75%) | 12/28 (43%) |
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Report | Target Industries | Main TTPs | Detected | Published | Pages |
| APT41 | |||||
| Mandiant#1 [ 1 ] | Banking , Finance, Government, High-tech | PowerShell usage, Cobalt deployment, FTP for payload delivery | Jan-Mar 2020 | 2020-03-25 | 13 |
| Mandiant#2 [ 42 ] | Gaming, Healthcare, High-tech | Exploiting vulnerabilities, Web shells, Backdoors | Apr 2019 | 2019-08-19 | 9 |
| Mandiant#3 [ 43 ] | Telecoms, News/Media, Software firms | Backdoors, Reconnaissance, Credential theft | Since 2012 | 2019-08-07 | 68 |
| Mandiant#4 [ 44 ] | U.S. State Gov, Insurance, Telecom | SQL injection, Zero-day exploits, DNS manipulation | May 2021-Feb 2022 | 2022-03-08 | 9 |
| TrendMicro [ 45 ] | Enterprises, Government, Airline, Publishing | StealthVector, Backdoors, DNS manipulation | Jul 2020 | 2021-08-24 | 55 |
| APT | Model | IoC Coverage | MITRE Coverage | Relevancy | Validity |
| APT41 | AutoSigma Llama (Cloud-based) | 95.2 | 90.8 | 76.5 | 100 |
| AutoSigma OpenAI (Cloud-based) | 95.6 | 91.2 | 76.4 | 100 | |
| AutoSigma Lily (Local-based) | 56.0 | 70.8 | 73.8 | 76 | |
| ChatGPT-off-the-shelf | 17.6 | 20.2 | 71.8 | 97 | |
| APT29 | AutoSigma Llama (Cloud-based) | 86.0 | 91.6 | 81.6 | 100 |
| AutoSigma OpenAI (Cloud-based) | 87.0 | 91.6 | 81.4 | 100 |
Cyber Threat Intelligence
Cyber threat intelligence turns evidence about adversaries, campaigns, and vulnerabilities into knowledge that helps defenders anticipate and respond to attacks.
See all 41 papers