CoolFace
Modelpublic

nico248000000000/Qwen3.8-27B-Uncensored-cyber

sourceHugging Faceotherupdated 27d agoView on Hugging Face
0likes26downloads
Model Card
[!WARNING] Testing only — not for production. Models published from these notebooks are maintained solely for testing and evaluation purposes and are not intended for production use. The enrichment data used with them was created by the author and subsequently enhanced with the assistance of AI models.

Qwen3.8-27B-Uncensored-cyber

Instruction-tuned cybersecurity assistant (offensive, defensive, GRC, architecture, SOC/DFIR, RSSI).

Base model`orcarouter/Qwen3.8-27B-Uncensored`
Domaincyber
MethodLoRA / QLoRA (Unsloth) · rank 8 · α 16
Quantization at trainbf16 LoRA
Context4096 tokens
Datasetdataset_cyber.quality.jsonl · train 67055 / eval 3530
GPUNVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Edition (95.0 GiB)
Wall time157.1 min
Modalities keptvision, video

This checkpoint continues a strong general model and specialises it on a curated SFT corpus of cybersecurity procedures: pentest / red team, SOC and DFIR, cloud and identity, GRC (ISO, NIST, NIS2, DORA), and RSSI / project-management questions. Answers are meant to be concrete (controls, detections, hardening), not generic essays.

Final model evaluation

SFT release verdict: `GO`.

The same untouched holdout is evaluated with the adapter disabled before training and with the best restored adapter after training. Periodic validation and the train/validation gap are also checked for regression or memorization.

Reference checkpoint: `orcarouter/Qwen3.8-27B-Uncensored`.

MetricReference (base / first log)This fine-tuneΔ
Holdout loss (true pre-SFT -> best LoRA)2.90300.8075-72.2%
Best periodic holdout loss—0.8075—
Train loss (first → last logged)3.01650.1333-95.6%
Train loss (best)—0.6851—
Eval loss (holdout, first → last)2.54640.8075-68.3%

The reference holdout loss is measured before optimizer step 1, then the same untouched split is measured again after Trainer restores its best checkpoint.

Release checks

CheckResultSeverityDetail
True pre-training holdout baseline existsPASShardbaseline_loss=2.9030 (measured before optimizer step 1)
Post-SFT holdout evaluation existsPASShardpostsftloss=0.8075 (best checkpoint reloaded)
No holdout regression versus basePASShard2.9030 -> 0.8075 (+72.18% improvement; allowed regression 2.0%)
Repeated validation during trainingPASShard168 evaluations (need >= 2)
No late validation reboundPASShardbest=0.8075, restored=0.8075, rebound=+0.00% (max 5.0%)
Train/validation gap is not a memorization signaturePASSsofttrain/eval=1.023 (need >= 0.25)
Best checkpoint restoration enabledPASShardbeststep=8382, finalstep=8382
General text skills preserved (adapter disabled vs enabled)PASShardbase=1.0, SFT=1.0, drop=0.000 (max 0.10)

Multimodal preservation

Verdict: `GO`. Image/video processors, frozen media towers, trainable parameters and optional functional probes are checked before export.

Training data

  • —File: dataset_cyber.quality.jsonl
  • —Split: 0.05 holdout, seed 42
  • —Format: chat-templated SFT (messages / instruction+output / ### Instruction + ### Response)

Training procedure

HyperparameterValue
Epochs1
Learning rate5e-05
Warmup ratio0.05
Device batch4
Grad accum2
Effective batch8
Optimadamw_8bit
PackingTrue
LoRA targets['q_proj', 'k_proj', 'v_proj', 'o_proj', 'out_proj', 'gate_proj', 'up_proj', 'down_proj']

Intended use

Authorized defensive work, tabletop exercises, control design, detection engineering, audit readiness, and explaining attack techniques without weaponized payloads.

Out of scope: Do not use it to attack systems you do not own, to generate exploit payloads, or as a substitute for a licensed auditor or incident commander.

Sample (post-train smoke test)

Prompt: How do you design a reliable Zero Trust infrastructure? Answer with a concrete control list.

system
Reasoning effort is set to xhigh. Please think carefully through the task, validate key assumptions, consider plausible alternatives, and prioritize correctness, consistency, and clarity in the final answer.
user
How do you design a reliable Zero Trust infrastructure? Answer with a concrete control list.
assistant
<think>
The user is asking how to design a reliable Zero Trust infrastructure, and wants a concrete list of controls. This is a cybersecurity architecture question. I need to provide a well-structured, practical answer that covers the key pillars of Zero Trust: identity, devices, networks, applications, data, and visibility.

Zero Trust is built on the principle of "never trust, always verify." The NIST SP 800-207 framework provides the foundation. I should organize the controls by domain:

1. Identity and Access Management (IAM)
- MFA enforcement
- Conditional access policies
- Privileged Access Management (PAM)
- Identity governance and lifecycle
- Continuous authentication

2. Device Posture
- Device compliance checks
- Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)
- Device attestation
- Patch management

3. Network Segmentation
- Micro-segmentation
- Software-defined perimeters (SDP)
- Network Access Control (

How to use

python
from transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer
import torch

repo = "nico248000000000/Qwen3.8-27B-Uncensored-cyber"
tok = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(repo, trust_remote_code=True)
model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(
    repo, torch_dtype=torch.bfloat16, device_map="auto", trust_remote_code=True,
)
messages = [{"role": "user", "content": 'How do you design a reliable Zero Trust infrastructure? Answer with a concrete control list.'}]
inputs = tok.apply_chat_template(messages, add_generation_prompt=True, return_tensors="pt").to(model.device)
print(tok.decode(model.generate(inputs, max_new_tokens=256)[0], skip_special_tokens=True))

Limitations

  • —Domain shift: quality drops outside the SFT topics.
  • —Eval above is holdout loss (and optional targeted checks). It is not a public leaderboard.
  • —The base model license and acceptable-use policy still apply.

License

other — inherit and respect the license of orcarouter/Qwen3.8-27B-Uncensored.