Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.36946

Too many clients spoil the logs: distributed parsing, aggregation techniques and metrics

André García Gómez·Viktor Beck·Max Landauer·Markus Wurzenberger·Florian Skopik·Andreas Rauber·Edgar Weipp
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Log messages are employed to identify anomalies in IoT systems and have been widely used across many applications. To enable collaboration among infrastructures belonging to different organizations, federated log anomaly detection has been thoroughly investigated for this purpose, often assuming the availability of ground truth log templates. However, this is typically not the case, as it is still necessary to depend on log parsers to extract log templates at inference time, while the design and deployment of such parsers in distributed environments remains largely an open problem. To this end, we report on an empirical investigation of distributed parsing and its key challenges, providing insights and lessons learned towards closing the gap between research and application. To further refine and contextualize the resulting benchmarks, we examine and introduce new metrics that provide a more comprehensive view for evaluating distributed parsers and how they behave in distributed environments. We propose a set of lessons learned and recommendations to support the design, deployment, and evaluation of distributed parsers. In particular, we evaluate the performance of five distinct parsing algorithms in combination with aggregation techniques that allow a unified agreement of event-template mappings across all participating clients, a prerequisite for federated log anomaly detection. In total, 6,720 distinct distributed configurations were tested for this purpose.

Explore related subjects

cs.CR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

André García Gómez, Viktor Beck, Max Landauer, Markus Wurzenberger, Florian Skopik, Andreas Rauber, Edgar Weipp. 2026-10-27. Too many clients spoil the logs: distributed parsing, aggregation techniques and metrics. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36946

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

SemDiff: Binary Similarity Detection by Diffing Key-Semantics Graphs

Binary similarity detection is a critical technique that has been applied in many real-world scenarios where source code is not available, e.g., bug search, malware analysis, and code plagiarism detection. Existing works are ineffective in detecting similar binaries in cases where different compiling optimizations, compilers, source code versions, or obfuscation are deployed. We observe that all the cases do not change a binary's key code behaviors although they significantly modify its syntax and structure. With this key observation, we extract a set of key instructions from a binary to capture its key code behaviors. By detecting the similarity between two binaries' key instructions, we can address well the ineffectiveness limitation of existing works. Specifically, we translate each extracted key instruction into a self-defined key expression, generating a key-semantics graph based on the binary's control flow. Each node in the key-semantics graph denotes a key instruction, and the node attribute is the key expression. To quantify the similarity between two given key-semantics graphs, we first serialize each graph into a sequence of key expressions by topological sort. Then, we tokenize and concatenate key expressions to generate token lists. We calculate the locality-sensitive hash value for all token lists and quantify their similarity. %We implement a prototype, called SemDiff, consisting of two modules: graph generation and graph diffing. The first module generates a pair of key-semantics graphs and the second module diffs the graphs. Our evaluation results show that overall, SemDiff outperforms state-of-the-art tools when detecting the similarity of binaries generated from different optimization levels, compilers, and obfuscations. SemDiff is also effective for library version search and finding similar vulnerabilities in firmware.

cs.CR↗
arXiv2026

DYNASHIELD: A Black-Box Moving Target Defense for LLMs via Dynamic Decoding Customization

Large language models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to jailbreak attacks in which adversarial prompts induce harmful outputs. Existing defenses often require access to the model internals or additional training, limiting their applicability for service providers deployed through black-box APIs. In this paper, we propose DYNASHIELD, a moving target defense framework that improves robustness by customizing decoding hyperparameters and system prompts at inference time. DYNASHIELD includes two key steps: (1) it identifies decoding configurations that reduce attack success probability, and (2) it probabilistically samples from a weighted configuration pool to introduce controlled variability in model behavior. We evaluate DYNASHIELD across 7 open-source LLMs under 4 state-of-the-art jailbreak attacks, using adversarial prompts from AdvBench. Results show substantial reductions in attack success rate compared with 7 baseline defenses, while maintaining response quality and incurring minimal inference overhead. Because DYNASHIELD operates solely through exposed runtime controls, it requires no retraining or model-internal access. These results suggest that safety-aware dynamic decoding is a promising and practically lightweight defense mechanism for black-box LLM deployments.

cs.CR↗
arXiv2026

On the Reliability and Stability of Selective Methods in Malware Classification Tasks

The performance figures of modern drift-adaptive malware classifiers appear promising, but does this translate to genuine operational reliability? The standard evaluation paradigm primarily focuses on baseline performance metrics, neglecting confidence-error alignment and operational stability. While prior works established the importance of temporal evaluation and introduced selective classification in malware classification tasks, we take a complementary direction by investigating whether malware classifiers maintain reliable and stable confidence estimates under distribution shifts and exploring the tensions between scientific advancement and practical impacts when they do not. We propose Aurora, a framework to evaluate malware classifiers based on their confidence quality and operational resilience. Aurora subjects the confidence profile of a given model to verification to assess the reliability of its estimates. Unreliable confidence estimates erode operational trust, waste valuable annotation budgets on non-informative samples for active learning, and leave error-prone instances undetected in selective classification. Aurora is further complemented by a set of metrics designed to go beyond point-in-time performance, striving towards a more holistic assessment of operational stability throughout temporal evaluation periods. The fragility we observe in SOTA frameworks across datasets of varying drift severity suggests it may be time to revisit the underlying assumptions.

cs.CR↗