  Research ethics in Information and Communications Technology has seen a
resurgence in popularity in recent years. Although a number of general ethics
standards have been issued, cyber security specifically has yet to see one.
Furthermore, such standards are often abstract, lacking in guidance on specific
practices. In this paper we compare peer-reviewed ethical analyses of condemned
research papers to analyses derived from a knowledge base (KB) of concrete
cyber security research ethics best practices. The KB we employ was compiled in
prior work from a large random survey of research papers. We demonstrate
preliminary evidence that such a KB can be used to yield comparable or more
extensive ethical analyses of published cyber security research than expert
application of standards like the Menlo Report. We extend the ethical analyses
of the reviewed manuscripts, and calculate measures of the efficiency with
which the expert versus KB methods yield ethical insights.
