Beyond the Syntax: Do Security Experts Trust LLMs for NIDS Rule Engineering?
TL;DR
A human-centered investigation into LLM-based NIDS rule engineering is presented, formalizing a grounded generation framework and evaluating it through a user study with 10 domain experts, revealing a syntax-semantics paradox.
Abstract
As network threats evolve, manual NIDS rule engineering has become a critical operational bottleneck. While Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise for automating this process, their ability to produce production-ready rules remains unvalidated. This paper presents a human-centered investigation into LLM-based NIDS rule engineering, formalizing a grounded generation framework and evaluating it through a user study with 10 domain experts. Our evaluation reveals a syntax-semantics paradox: although LLMs generate syntactically correct rules, experts find them only partially deployable due to low specificity and logic hallucinations in 12% of cases. While the system received a favorable SUS score of 67, practitioners remain skeptical of its autonomous capabilities, viewing LLMs as support tools for drafting and verification rather than independent generators. Finally, our statistical analysis indicates that while large-scale models ($\geq 70B$) consistently produce syntactically valid rules, small models ($\leq 4B$) are largely ineffective for IDS rule generation.