Graph Deep Learning-Driven Cyber Threat Detection and Risk Analysis Framework for Secure

Authors

  • Abdullah Al-Harbi College of Computer and Information Sciences, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia
  • Reem Al-Qahtani Department of Artificial Intelligence, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Saudi Arabia

Keywords:

Graph Deep Learning,, Cyber Threat Detection, Cloud Security, Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

The increasing complexity of cloud infrastructures has created security environments in which cyber threats emerge from interconnected relationships among users, applications, virtual machines, services, network flows, and access privileges. Conventional security analytics frequently represent these entities as independent observations, limiting their ability to identify relational attack patterns and propagate contextual risk. This paper proposes a Graph Deep Learning-Driven Cyber Threat Detection and Risk Analysis Framework for Secure Cloud Environments that models cloud infrastructures as dynamic heterogeneous graphs and applies graph-based representation learning to identify anomalous entities, suspicious relationships, and coordinated attack behaviors. The framework integrates graph construction, feature representation, graph deep learning, threat classification, temporal reasoning, and risk prioritization into a unified security pipeline. Its theoretical foundation is strengthened by research on symbolic representations, state-space abstraction, generalized planning, temporal logic, and structured reasoning. In particular, concepts of relational representation and structural abstraction provide a basis for transforming complex cloud security states into machine-processable graph structures. The proposed framework extends graph-based cyber threat identification toward risk-aware decision support by associating detected threats with affected assets, attack relationships, and potential propagation paths. The analysis indicates that graph deep learning can provide greater contextual awareness than isolated event classification, while temporal and symbolic reasoning can improve interpretability and decision consistency. The framework is particularly relevant to cloud environments characterized by dynamic workloads, distributed services, privilege dependencies, and rapidly changing attack surfaces.

References

1. Asai, M. (2019). Unsupervised grounding of plannable first-order logic representation from images. In Lipovetzky, N., Onaindia, E., & Smith, D. E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2019), pp. 583–591. AAAI Press.

2. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D. L., Nardi, D., & Patel-Schneider, P. F. (Eds.). (2003). The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press.

3. Bacchus, F. (2001). The AIPS’00 planning competition. AI Magazine, 22(3), 47–56.

4. Bacchus, F., & Kabanza, F. (2000). Using temporal logics to express search control knowledge for planning. Artificial Intelligence, 116(1–2), 123–191.

5. Baier, J. A., Fritz, C., Bienvenu, M., & McIlraith, S. A. (2008). Beyond classical planning: Procedural control knowledge and preferences in state-of-the-art planners. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2008), pp. 1509–1512. AAAI Press.

6. Bonet, B., Franc`es, G., & Geffner, H. (2019). Learning features and abstract actions for computing generalized plans. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2019), pp. 2703–2710. AAAI Press.

7. Bonet, B., & Geffner, H. (2018). Features, projections, and representation change for generalized planning. In Lang, J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2018), pp. 4667–4673. IJCAI.

8. Bonet, B., & Geffner, H. (2020a). Learning first-order symbolic representations for planning from the structure of the state space. In De Giacomo, G. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2020), pp. 2322–2329. IOS Press.

9. Bonet, B., & Geffner, H. (2020b). Qualitative numeric planning: Reductions and complexity. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 69, 923–961.

10. Bonet, B., & Geffner, H. (2021). General policies, representations, and planning width. In Leyton-Brown, K., & Mausam (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2021), pp. 11764–11773. AAAI Press.

11. Daggelinckx, A. (2023). Generating and verifying planning sketches using temporal logic. Master’s thesis, Utrecht University.

12. Dalmau-Moreno, M., Garćıa, N., Ǵomez, V., & Geffner, H. (2023). Combined task and motion planning via sketch decompositions. In ICAPS 2023 Planning and Robotics Workshop (PlanRob).

13. M. R. Marri, S. B. Kurada, S. Gupta, S. Dey, S. Kumar and R. Chauhan, "Graph-Based Deep Learning Model for Identifying Cyber Threats in Cloud Platforms," 2025 International Conference on Computational Intelligence, Security, and Artificial Intelligence (IntelliSecAI), Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 2025, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1109/IntelliSecAI66368.2025.11472831.

Downloads

Published

2026-08-13

How to Cite

Abdullah Al-Harbi, & Reem Al-Qahtani. (2026). Graph Deep Learning-Driven Cyber Threat Detection and Risk Analysis Framework for Secure. International Journal of Advance Scientific Research, 6(08), 78-88. https://sciencebring.com/index.php/ijasr/article/view/1292

Similar Articles

51-60 of 313

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.