Search: “player modeling”

3 stories

Searchkeyword smart Sortlatest hot importance relevance

DomainAll Cyber AIWindow24h 3d 7d 30d AllIn the wild Important only Show duplicates

CategoryAll Ransomware 124 Exploit / PoC 97 Vulnerability 92 Policy & legal 67 Malware 60 Industry 58 Data breach 43 Threat actor 29 Phishing & fraud 27 Research 22 AI industry 16 AI tools & infra 11 AI research 7 Advisory 6

SeverityAll critical 321 high 128 medium 71 low 101 info 49

"Shut Up and Let Me Enjoy My Otome": Understanding and Measuring the Toxicity in Otome Game Communities

First large-scale study finds 22.20% of Weibo otome game posts toxic versus 3.71% on Reddit, with LLM detectors reaching 0.82 F1.

Researchers present the first large-scale measurement of toxicity in otome game communities, introducing OtomeSCAN, which collected and analyzed 620,045 posts from Weibo and Reddit over 18 months. They manually annotated 4,308 posts, identified eight target groups, and evaluated seven toxicity detectors, with their best LLM-based model reaching F1-scores of 0.82 on Weibo and 0.78 on Reddit. The study found 22.20% of Weibo posts were toxic versus 3.71% on Reddit, and toxicity rose to 37.09% within 72 hours during an external attack on Weibo. The authors also flagged 191 potential-coordination clusters, 64.40% of which targeted game developers.

arXiv cs.CRSep 7, 21:44 UTC · 9d agoResearch

Why Is SHAP Not a Reliable Standalone Explanation Framework for Malware Detection?

arXiv paper shows SHAP gives unreliable standalone explanations for malware detection, with attribution dilution and sign reversal in dependent PE feature spaces.

The paper argues SHAP's formal guarantees are insufficient for reliable malware interpretation because the explained feature-coalition game is fixed only by analyst choices, not by malware behavior in the data. In static Portable Executable feature spaces, dependent feature groups cause conditional SHAP to dilute credit by a factor of 1/m across redundant features, attribute importance to features the model never uses, and even reverse attribution signs; interventional SHAP queries off-manifold coalitions no real executable exhibits. Experiments on EMBER-2018, EMBER-2024, and BODMAS with fixed LightGBM and XGBoost detectors confirm these effects. The authors position SHAP as a limited diagnostic requiring explicit data-distribution statements and domain validation, not a standalone explanation framework.

arXiv cs.CRSep 4, 02:00 UTC · 13d agoResearch1

Understanding Angler Exploit Kit

Unit 42 explains exploit kit fundamentals, describing how landing pages profile victims, deliver exploits, and install malware payloads on Windows hosts.

Unit 42 published a primer on exploit kit fundamentals, defining vulnerabilities, exploits, malware payloads, actors, and campaigns in EK-based attacks. It explains the infection chain: a landing page profiles the victim's Windows system for vulnerable applications such as Flash Player, Java, Silverlight, and Internet Explorer, then a matching exploit executes a downloader or final payload, often delivered encrypted with XOR or RC4. The post also describes the EK-as-a-Service business model, in which leading EKs are rented for a few thousand dollars per month while buyers supply campaign infrastructure.

Palo Alto Unit 42Aug 17, 09:50 UTC · Aug 17, 2026Research1