From APTs to advanced persistent biological threats (APBTs): a taxonomy and large-scale metadata audit of genomic surveillance infrastructure
Anjum, N.; Kiran, M.; Alfraihi, H. A.; Kanta, A.; ul-Hassan, M.; Weihs, B. J.
Show abstract
Open genomic repositories have become critical infrastructure for pathogen surveillance, variant tracking, outbreak reconstruction, and public health decision making. However, many of these repositories were designed to support rapid scientific data sharing rather than adversarial verification, creating potential security gaps. This paper introduces Advanced Persistent Biological Threats (APBTs), as a framework for understanding how malicious cyber biological actors can gradually disrupt genomic surveillance without entering a laboratory or releasing a biological agent. Instead of altering biological material, an attacker targets the sequence data, metadata, reference datasets, and analytical models used by surveillance systems. We present, to our knowledge, the first integrated multilayer taxonomy of APBTs, structured around a four phase lifecycle, and investigate whether the metadata weaknesses identified by this framework are present in an operational genomic repository. To assess this, we audited 100,000 SARS-CoV-2 BioSample records obtained from the NCBI. A framework of 23 checks was applied across five metadata layers: temporal, geographic, host and specimen, provenance, and technical metadata. Every record triggered at least one APBT relevant metadata vulnerability indicator, with a mean of 7.34 indicators per record (SD = 1.34). Overall, 97.3% of records were classified in the High or Critical severity categories. Every record also contained at least one indicator in both the provenance and technical metadata layers. These results largely reflect the optional status of several fields in the current BioSample submission model rather than isolated errors by individual data contributors. Temporal and geographic information was comparatively complete, while fields needed for provenance reconstruction, chain of custody assessment, technical validation, and analytical interpretation were frequently missing. These findings do not indicate deliberate manipulation. However, the structural incompleteness of BioSample metadata creates vulnerabilities that an adversary can exploit to introduce poisoned, misleading, or weakly traceable metadata into genomic repositories. As a result, maliciously altered metadata can appear plausible, remain undetected, and influence downstream genomic analysis and surveillance. The findings therefore show that widely used pathogen genomic repositories already contain structural weaknesses that can support metadata poisoning as part of an APBT operation.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Extraction of biological terms using large language models enhances the usability of metadata in the BioSample database 91%
- New implementation of data standards for AI research in precision oncology. Experience from EuCanImage 90%
- Open Humans: A platform for participant-centered research and personal data exploration 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Flexible and scalable participatory syndromic and virological surveillance for respiratory infections: our experiences in The Netherlands 90%
- Advancing clinical cohort selection with genomics analysis on a distributed platform 89%
- Geographic Name Resolution Service: A tool for the standardization and indexing of world political division names, with applications to species distribution modeling 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Accelerating surveillance and research of antimicrobial resistance - an online repository for sharing of antimicrobial susceptibility data associated with whole genome sequences 91%
- Genomic surveillance of Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Saudi Arabia. 91%
- Evaluation of Oxford Nanopore Technologies workflows for genomic epidemiology of outbreak-associated bacterial isolates in the clinical setting 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.