MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974232565 · doi:10.1145/1451940.1451976

WIDS

2008· article· en· W1974232565 on OpenAlexaff
C. I. Ezeife, Maxwell Ejelike, A. K. Aggarwal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes WIDS, a wireless intrusion detection system, which applies data mining clustering technique to wireless network data captured through hardware sensors for purposes of real time detection of anomalous behavior in wireless packets. Using hardware sensors to capture network packets enables detection of attacks before they reach access points and ensures all packets transmitted in the networks are analyzed for a more complete attack detection. The proposed mining based technique for wireless network intrusion detection contributes by reducing the need for training data, reducing false positives and increasing the effectiveness of attack detection on networks with few (one to twenty) connections. The proposed WIDS design approach involves real time pre-processing of sensor data using a density-based, Local Sparsity Coefficient (LSC) outlier detection algorithm to assign anomaly scores to the connection records. Connection records with low anomaly scores are used as initial starting cluster centre positions for building clusters. The algorithm continuously derives minimum deviation as the maximum of distances between all pairs of cluster centre positions. New records which have their distances from the closest cluster more than the minimum deviation, are tagged as anomaly and moved to alert cluster. One major result of this paper is detection of MAC spoofing attacks by tracking sequence numbers, which ensures duplicate or spoofed (stolen) MAC addresses are not used in the network.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207