cedricbonhomme commited on
Commit
c2b5da0
·
verified ·
1 Parent(s): a19122b

[DATASET] Add dataset card

Browse files
Files changed (1) hide show
  1. README.md +120 -0
README.md CHANGED
@@ -1,4 +1,17 @@
1
  ---
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2
  dataset_info:
3
  features:
4
  - name: id
@@ -38,3 +51,110 @@ configs:
38
  - split: test
39
  path: data/test-*
40
  ---
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
  ---
2
+ task_categories:
3
+ - text-classification
4
+ language:
5
+ - en
6
+ license: cc-by-4.0
7
+ library_name: datasets
8
+ tags:
9
+ - vulnerability
10
+ - cybersecurity
11
+ - security
12
+ - cve
13
+ - mitre-attack
14
+ - attack-techniques
15
  dataset_info:
16
  features:
17
  - name: id
 
51
  - split: test
52
  path: data/test-*
53
  ---
54
+
55
+ # vulnerability-attack-techniques
56
+
57
+ This dataset maps **1,207 CVEs** to **MITRE ATT&CK (Enterprise) techniques**, joining
58
+ hand-curated mappings from the [MITRE Center for Threat-Informed Defense (CTID)](https://ctid.mitre.org/)
59
+ with vulnerability descriptions from
60
+ [CIRCL/vulnerability-scores](https://huggingface.co/datasets/CIRCL/vulnerability-scores).
61
+ It is intended for training and evaluating models that suggest candidate ATT&CK
62
+ techniques from a vulnerability description: CVSS tells you *how bad* a
63
+ vulnerability is, CWE *what kind of flaw* it is — ATT&CK tells defenders *what
64
+ adversary behavior to expect and detect*.
65
+
66
+ Every label in the `techniques` column was written by an analyst following the CTID
67
+ ["Mapping ATT&CK to CVE for Impact" methodology](https://github.com/center-for-threat-informed-defense/attack_to_cve/blob/master/methodology.md),
68
+ which assigns each CVE up to three kinds of techniques: an **exploitation
69
+ technique** (how it is exploited), a **primary impact** (what exploitation
70
+ directly yields), and a **secondary impact** (what the attacker can do next).
71
+
72
+ ## Label sources
73
+
74
+ | `label_sources` | CVEs | Origin |
75
+ |-----------------|------|--------|
76
+ | `ctid_cve` | 788 | [attack_to_cve](https://github.com/center-for-threat-informed-defense/attack_to_cve) (2021), ATT&CK v9 era |
77
+ | `ctid_kev` | 392 | [Mappings Explorer](https://center-for-threat-informed-defense.github.io/mappings-explorer/) KEV mappings, ATT&CK 16.1 |
78
+ | both | 27 | |
79
+
80
+ All technique IDs are normalized to **enterprise ATT&CK v19.1**: techniques revoked
81
+ since the original mappings are remapped to their successor via the STIX
82
+ `revoked-by` relationships (e.g. T1562 *Impair Defenses* → T1685 *Disable or
83
+ Modify Tools*), and Mobile/ICS techniques are dropped (enterprise domain only).
84
+
85
+ ## ⚠️ `techniques` vs `techniques_derived`
86
+
87
+ The `techniques_derived` column contains labels from the automatically derived
88
+ CVE → CWE → CAPEC → ATT&CK chain maintained by
89
+ [CVE2CAPEC](https://github.com/Galeax/CVE2CAPEC). **Do not train on this
90
+ column.** Analysis of the chain shows a median fan-out of 4–20 techniques per
91
+ CVE and top-frequency techniques (e.g. T1574.007 on 53% of 2024 CVEs) that are
92
+ artifacts of the cross-framework table expansion, not descriptions of real
93
+ adversary behavior. The column is included as:
94
+
95
+ 1. a candidate prior at inference time (restrict suggestions to techniques compatible with the CWE chain);
96
+ 2. a baseline that a trained model must beat;
97
+ 3. a comparison column for studying where the deterministic chain diverges from analyst judgment.
98
+
99
+ The full source analysis is documented in the
100
+ [VulnTrain documentation](https://github.com/vulnerability-lookup/VulnTrain/blob/main/docs/attack-techniques-dataset.md).
101
+
102
+ ## Fields
103
+
104
+ | Field | Type | Description |
105
+ |-------|------|-------------|
106
+ | `id` | string | CVE identifier |
107
+ | `title` | string | Vulnerability title |
108
+ | `description` | string | Vulnerability description in English (model input) |
109
+ | `exploitation_techniques` | list[string] | CTID exploitation technique(s) |
110
+ | `primary_impact` | list[string] | CTID primary impact technique(s) |
111
+ | `secondary_impact` | list[string] | CTID secondary impact technique(s) |
112
+ | `techniques` | list[string] | Union of all curated techniques — the training target |
113
+ | `techniques_derived` | list[string] | CVE2CAPEC weak labels — **not** for training |
114
+ | `label_sources` | list[string] | `ctid_cve` and/or `ctid_kev` |
115
+ | `attack_version` | string | Enterprise ATT&CK version the IDs are normalized to |
116
+
117
+ ## Label statistics
118
+
119
+ 192 distinct techniques; 66 with at least 5 examples. Most CVEs carry 1–3
120
+ techniques. Top techniques: T1190 *Exploit Public-Facing Application* (348),
121
+ T1059 *Command and Scripting Interpreter* (262), T1203 *Exploitation for Client
122
+ Execution* (213), T1068 *Exploitation for Privilege Escalation* (189).
123
+
124
+ ## Known limitations
125
+
126
+ - **Size**: ~1,200 CVEs supports a proof-of-concept, not a production model.
127
+ - **Selection bias**: both label sources over-represent exploited-in-the-wild
128
+ vulnerabilities (the KEV set by construction).
129
+ - **Inherent task ceiling**: a CVE description describes a flaw, while ATT&CK
130
+ describes attacker behavior around it — even human annotators disagree on
131
+ such mappings. Models trained on this data should *suggest candidate
132
+ techniques for analyst review*, not produce authoritative mappings.
133
+
134
+ ## Usage
135
+
136
+ ```python
137
+ from datasets import load_dataset
138
+
139
+ dataset = load_dataset("CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-techniques")
140
+
141
+ for entry in dataset["train"].select(range(3)):
142
+ print(entry["id"], entry["techniques"], "-", entry["description"][:80])
143
+ ```
144
+
145
+ ## Licensing of upstream sources
146
+
147
+ The CTID mappings are Apache-2.0. Descriptions come from
148
+ [CIRCL/vulnerability-scores](https://huggingface.co/datasets/CIRCL/vulnerability-scores)
149
+ (CC BY 4.0). The `techniques_derived` column is derived from the GPLv3
150
+ [CVE2CAPEC](https://github.com/Galeax/CVE2CAPEC) project. MITRE ATT&CK® is a
151
+ registered trademark of The MITRE Corporation; ATT&CK content is used in
152
+ accordance with the [MITRE ATT&CK terms of use](https://attack.mitre.org/resources/legal-and-branding/terms-of-use/).
153
+
154
+ ## References
155
+
156
+ - [Vulnerability-Lookup](https://vulnerability.circl.lu) — the vulnerability data source
157
+ - [VulnTrain](https://github.com/vulnerability-lookup/VulnTrain) — generation pipeline (`vulntrain-dataset-attack-generation`)
158
+ - [Methodology documentation](https://github.com/vulnerability-lookup/VulnTrain/blob/main/docs/attack-techniques-dataset.md)
159
+ - [MITRE CTID attack_to_cve](https://github.com/center-for-threat-informed-defense/attack_to_cve) and [Mappings Explorer](https://center-for-threat-informed-defense.github.io/mappings-explorer/)
160
+ - [CVE2CAPEC](https://github.com/Galeax/CVE2CAPEC) by Galeax