Automating Evidence Using the Admiralty Scoring Model and CRAAP Test Integration

Automating all levels of the Admiralty Scoring Model in assessing cyber evidence involves developing a systematic process incorporating the model's criteria and scoring methodology. We listed possible steps to automate each level of the Admiralty Scoring Model.

1. Collect and preprocess the cyber evidence: Gather the relevant cyber evidence, such as log files, network traffic data, system artifacts, or any other digital information related to the incident or investigation. Preprocess the data to ensure consistency and compatibility for analysis, which may include data cleaning, normalization, and formatting.
2. Define the criteria for each level: Review the Admiralty Scoring Model and identify the criteria for each level. The model typically consists of several levels, such as Level 1 (Indication), Level 2 (Reasonable Belief), Level 3 (Strong Belief), and Level 4 (Fact). Define the specific criteria and indicators for assessment at each level based on the model's guidance.
3. Develop algorithms or rules for evidence assessment: Design algorithms or rules that can automatically evaluate the evidence against the defined criteria for each level. This can involve applying machine learning techniques, natural language processing, or rule-based systems to analyze the evidence and make assessments based on the criteria.

1. Extract features from the evidence: Identify the relevant features or attributes from the evidence that can contribute to the assessment process. These features may include indicators of compromise, timestamps, network patterns, file characteristics, or any other relevant information that aligns with the criteria for each level.
2. Assign scores based on the criteria: Assign scores or ratings to the evidence based on the criteria for each level of the Admiralty Scoring Model. The scoring can be binary (e.g., pass/fail), numerical (e.g., on a scale of 1 to 10), or any other appropriate scale that reflects the level of confidence or belief associated with the evidence.
3. Integrate the scoring process into a unified system: Develop a unified system or application incorporating the automated scoring process. This system should take the evidence as input, apply algorithms or rules to assess the evidence, and generate the corresponding scores or ratings for each model level.
4. Validate and refine the automated scoring system: Validate the performance of the automated scoring system by comparing its results against human assessments or established benchmarks. Analyze the system's accuracy, precision, recall, or other relevant metrics to ensure its reliability. Refine the system as needed based on the evaluation results.
5. Continuously update and improve the system: Stay updated with the latest cyber threat intelligence, attack techniques, and new evidentiary factors. Regularly update and improve the automated scoring system to adapt to emerging trends, refine the criteria, and enhance the accuracy of the assessments.

Automating the Admiralty Scoring Model in assessing cyber evidence requires expertise in cybersecurity, data analysis, and software development. Involve domain experts, cybersecurity analysts, and data scientists to ensure effective implementation and alignment with your organization's specific requirements or use case.

Integrating the CRAAP test (Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose) with the NATO Admiralty Scoring Model can provide a comprehensive assessment framework for evaluating the credibility and quality of cyber evidence.

1. Define the criteria: Combine the criteria from both models to create a unified set of evaluation criteria. Use the complete NATO Admiralty Scoring Model criteria as the main assessment levels, while the CRAAP test can serve as sub-criteria within each level. For example:
• Level 1 (Indication): Assess the evidence for Currency, Relevance, and Authority.
• Level 2 (Reasonable Belief): Evaluate the evidence for Accuracy and Purpose.
• Level 3 (Strong Belief): Analyze the evidence for all criteria of the CRAAP test.
• Level 4 (Fact): Further verify the evidence for all criteria of the CRAAP test.
2. Assign weights or scores: Determine each criterion's relative importance or weight within the unified assessment framework. You can assign higher weights to the criteria from the NATO Admiralty Scoring Model since they represent the main levels, while the CRAAP test criteria can have lower weights as sub-criteria. Alternatively, you can assign scores or ratings to each criterion based on their relevance and impact on the overall assessment.
3. Develop an automated assessment process: Design algorithms or rules based on the defined criteria and weights to automate the assessment process. This can involve natural language processing techniques, text analysis, or other methods to extract relevant information and evaluate the evidence against the criteria.
4. Extract relevant evidence features: Identify the features or attributes of the evidence that align with the CRAAP test criteria and the NATO Admiralty Scoring Model. For example, for Authority, you may consider factors such as author credentials, source reputation, or peer review status. Extract these features from the evidence used in the automated assessment process.
5. Apply the unified assessment framework: Integrate the automated assessment process with the unified framework. Input the evidence, apply the algorithms or rules to evaluate the evidence against the defined criteria, and generate scores or ratings for each criterion and overall assessment level.
6. Aggregate and interpret the results: Aggregate the scores or ratings from each criterion and level to obtain an overall assessment of the evidence. Establish thresholds or decision rules to determine the final classification of the evidence based on the combined scores or ratings. Interpret the results to communicate the credibility and quality of the evidence to stakeholders.
7. Validate and refine the integrated framework: Validate the performance of the integrated framework by comparing its results with manual assessments or established benchmarks. Assess the accuracy, precision, recall, or other relevant metrics to ensure its effectiveness. Continuously refine and improve the framework based on feedback and new insights.

By integrating the CRAAP test with the NATO Admiralty Scoring Model, you can enhance the assessment process, considering the technical aspects of the evidence and its currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose. This integration provides a more comprehensive and well-rounded evaluation of the evidence's credibility and quality.

 in assessing cyber evidence involves developing a systematic process incorporating the model's criteria and scoring methodology. We listed possible steps to automate each level of the Admiralty Scoring Model.

1. Collect and preprocess the cyber evidence: Gather the relevant cyber evidence, such as log files, network traffic data, system artifacts, or any other digital information related to the incident or investigation. Preprocess the data to ensure consistency and compatibility for analysis, which may include data cleaning, normalization, and formatting.
2. Define the criteria for each level: Review the Admiralty Scoring Model and identify the criteria for each level. The model typically consists of several levels, such as Level 1 (Indication), Level 2 (Reasonable Belief), Level 3 (Strong Belief), and Level 4 (Fact). Define the specific criteria and indicators for assessment at each level based on the model's guidance.
3. Develop algorithms or rules for evidence assessment: Design algorithms or rules that can automatically evaluate the evidence against the defined criteria for each level. This can involve applying machine learning techniques, natural language processing, or rule-based systems to analyze the evidence and make assessments based on the criteria.
4. Extract features from the evidence: Identify the relevant features or attributes from the evidence that can contribute to the assessment process. These features may include indicators of compromise, timestamps, network patterns, file characteristics, or any other relevant information that aligns with the criteria for each level.
5. Assign scores based on the criteria: Assign scores or ratings to the evidence based on the criteria for each level of the Admiralty Scoring Model. The scoring can be binary (e.g., pass/fail), numerical (e.g., on a scale of 1 to 10), or any other appropriate scale that reflects the level of confidence or belief associated with the evidence.
6. Integrate the scoring process into a unified system: Develop a unified system or application incorporating the automated scoring process. This system should take the evidence as input, apply algorithms or rules to assess the evidence, and generate the corresponding scores or ratings for each model level.
7. Validate and refine the automated scoring system: Validate the performance of the automated scoring system by comparing its results against human assessments or established benchmarks. Analyze the system's accuracy, precision, recall, or other relevant metrics to ensure its reliability. Refine the system as needed based on the evaluation results.
8. Continuously update and improve the system: Stay updated with the latest cyber threat intelligence, attack techniques, and new evidentiary factors. Regularly update and improve the automated scoring system to adapt to emerging trends, refine the criteria, and enhance the accuracy of the assessments.

Automating the Admiralty Scoring Model in assessing cyber evidence requires expertise in cybersecurity, data analysis, and software development. Involve domain experts, cybersecurity analysts, and data scientists to ensure effective implementation and alignment with your organization's specific requirements or use case.

Integrating the CRAAP test (Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose) with the NATO Admiralty Scoring Model can provide a comprehensive assessment framework for evaluating the credibility and quality of cyber evidence.

1. Define the criteria: Combine the criteria from both models to create a unified set of evaluation criteria. Use the complete NATO Admiralty Scoring Model criteria as the main assessment levels, while the CRAAP test can serve as sub-criteria within each level. For example:
• Level 1 (Indication): Assess the evidence for Currency, Relevance, and Authority.
• Level 2 (Reasonable Belief): Evaluate the evidence for Accuracy and Purpose.
• Level 3 (Strong Belief): Analyze the evidence for all criteria of the CRAAP test.
• Level 4 (Fact): Further verify the evidence for all criteria of the CRAAP test.
2. Assign weights or scores: Determine each criterion's relative importance or weight within the unified assessment framework. You can assign higher weights to the criteria from the NATO Admiralty Scoring Model since they represent the main levels, while the CRAAP test criteria can have lower weights as sub-criteria. Alternatively, you can assign scores or ratings to each criterion based on their relevance and impact on the overall assessment.
3. Develop an automated assessment process: Design algorithms or rules based on the defined criteria and weights to automate the assessment process. This can involve natural language processing techniques, text analysis, or other methods to extract relevant information and evaluate the evidence against the criteria.
4. Extract relevant evidence features: Identify the features or attributes of the evidence that align with the CRAAP test criteria and the NATO Admiralty Scoring Model. For example, for Authority, you may consider factors such as author credentials, source reputation, or peer review status. Extract these features from the evidence used in the automated assessment process.
5. Apply the unified assessment framework: Integrate the automated assessment process with the unified framework. Input the evidence, apply the algorithms or rules to evaluate the evidence against the defined criteria, and generate scores or ratings for each criterion and overall assessment level.
6. Aggregate and interpret the results: Aggregate the scores or ratings from each criterion and level to obtain an overall assessment of the evidence. Establish thresholds or decision rules to determine the final classification of the evidence based on the combined scores or ratings. Interpret the results to communicate the credibility and quality of the evidence to stakeholders.
7. Validate and refine the integrated framework: Validate the performance of the integrated framework by comparing its results with manual assessments or established benchmarks. Assess the accuracy, precision, recall, or other relevant metrics to ensure its effectiveness. Continuously refine and improve the framework based on feedback and new insights.

By integrating the CRAAP test with the NATO Admiralty Scoring Model, you can enhance the assessment process, considering the technical aspects of the evidence and its currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose. This integration provides a more comprehensive and well-rounded evaluation of the evidence's credibility and quality.

Copyright 2023 Treadstone 71