A Statistical Approach for Fingerprinting Probing Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Probing is often the primary stage of an intrusion attempt that enables an attacker to remotely locate, target, and subsequently exploit vulnerable systems. This paper attempts to investigate whether the perceived traffic refers to probing activities and which exact scanning technique is being employed to perform the probing. Further, this work strives to examine probing traffic dimensions to infer the `machinery' of the scan, whether the probing activity is generated from a software tool or from a worm/bot net and whether the probing is random or follows a certain predefined pattern. Motivated by recent cyber attacks that were facilitated through probing, limited cyber security intelligence related to the mentioned inferences and the lack of accuracy that is provided by scanning detection systems, this paper presents a new approach to fingerprint probing activity. The approach leverages a number of statistical techniques, probabilistic distribution methods and observations in an attempt to understand and analyze probing activities. To prevent evasion, the approach formulates this matter as a change point detection problem that yielded motivating results. Evaluations performed using 55 GB of real dark net traffic shows that the extracted inferences exhibit promising accuracy and can generate significant insights that could be used for mitigation purposes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".