MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1881151120 · doi:10.1109/discex.2003.1194902

A controller-based autonomic defense system

2004· article· en· W1881151120 on OpenAlexaff
D. A. Armstrong, Gregory Frazier, S. Carter, T. Frazier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsAlpha Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAnomaly detectionController (irrigation)False positive paradoxAnomaly (physics)Process (computing)Key (lock)Computer securityReal-time computingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We demonstrate the results of our research into the implementation of a host-based autonomic defense system (ADS) using a partially-observable Markov decision process. The goal of an ADS is to "relexively" respond to an attack, thwarting it to the extent that humans have time to form a tactical response to the attack. A defensive system that automatically responds to an attack must meet two criteria: it must select the correct response in the face of an attack, and it must not take actions to attacks that are not there. This challenge is exacerbated by the fact that, in order to detect never-before-seen attacks, the ADS must use anomaly detectors for its sensor input; anomaly detectors typically have relatively high false positive and false negative rates. Thus, key to an ADS is a controller that can obtain a valid signal from a noisy sensor. The ALPHATECH Lightweight Autonomic Defense System (/spl alpha/LADS) is a prototype ADS constructed around a PO-MDP stochastic controller. The state model allows the controller to filter out the false positives from the anomaly sensor such that authorized processes are not killed and false alerts are not issued. We demonstrate /spl alpha/LADS defending against Internet worms operating in real time.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207