LLM Alert Triage Does Not Distinguish Intrusions from Matched Benign Activity
Ada Domanska
In July an AI agent escaped an evaluation sandbox and ran inside Hugging Face's production systems for four and a half days. Detections fired the whole time and nobody was paged. Language models are now sold to do that triage step, so I tested whether one would have raised the alarm.
I built 90 bundles of security alerts: 30 reconstructions of that intrusion, 30 innocent bundles matched to them alert for alert, and 30 of routine noise. Three models triaged all 90 under six conditions. A fourth refused.
None of the three separated an intrusion from innocent activity of the same shape by any meaningful margin, on a task a ten-line statistical model solves perfectly. Adding one line describing the environment as the organisation's own evaluation pool cut escalation by half or more and stopped paging entirely, and the models said in their own reasoning that this was why. The published reads of this incident, including Elastic's, has concluded that detection worked and escalation failed. That assumes the escalation decision carried information about whether an intrusion was happening. These results say it did not.
An escalation rate is not evidence that a triage system is detecting anything. The corpus and four checks are released so anyone can test theirs in an afternoon.
No reviews are available yet
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) LLM Alert Triage Does Not Distinguish Intrusions from Matched Benign Activity
},
author={
Ada Domanska
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


