{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01579778830963665, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.398989898989899, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Multi-Criteria Analysis of Benchmark Results With Expert Support for Security Tools

The benchmarking of security tools is endeavored to determine which tools are more suitable to detect system vulnerabilities or intrusions. The analysis process is usually oversimplified by employing just a single metric out of the large set of those available. Accordingly, the decision may be biased by not considering relevant information provided by neglected metrics. This article proposes a novel approach to take into account several metrics, different scenarios, and the advice of multiple experts. The proposal relies on experts quantifying the relative importance of each pair of metrics towards the requirements of a given scenario. Their judgments are aggregated using group decision making techniques, and pondered according to the familiarity of experts with the metrics and scenario, to compute a set of weights accounting for the relative importance of each metric. Then, weight-based multi-criteria-decision-making techniques can be used to rank the benchmarked tools. The usefulness of this approach is showed by analyzing two different sets of vulnerability and intrusion detection tools from the perspective of multiple/single metrics and different scenarios.